HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7b. Authorize the release of a RFP for the Access and Parking Management Plan Update Item 7b
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5101
For Agenda of: 1/18/2022
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 45 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gaven Hussey, Parking Manager, Alex Fuchs, Parking Services
Supervisor, and Paul Fields, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR
THE ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
1. Provide staff with direction on the scope of work to be included with the Access and
Parking Management Plan Update Request for Proposals (RFP); and
2. Authorize the issuance of an RFP for an update of the City’s Access and Parking
Management Plan; and
3. Reallocate $100,000 from the Parking Fund’s working capital to the program’s
contract services account; and
4. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the selected consultant for
the Access and Parking Management Plan up to the project budget of $100,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s 2011 Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP) (Attachment B) is the
Parking Services Program’s strategic document and provides guidance regarding critical
access to parking facilities and resources throughout the City with a focus on the
downtown area and residential neighborhoods. The APMP serves as an instrument for
the implementation parking and access management strategies and projects for the
General Plan Circulation Element. The Parking Program performs five major functions to
implement the parking management goals, policies and actions set forth in the APMP: (1)
compliance and enforcement, (2) revenue management, (3) maintenance, (4) structure
operations and (5) parking management and demand reduction.
The APMP went through a minor update in 2011 to include policies for downtown
residents but the thrust of the document has largely remained unchanged since the last
major update in 2002. There have been obvious significant changes in parking habits,
technologies, preferences, policies and related City plans for the community that render
the current APMP outdated. A major update to the Plan is necessary to ensure best
parking and access management practices and to ensure that the current and future
needs of the City are incorporated into the document. The updated plan will provide policy
direction and guidance to City Leadership, City staff, property owners, and businesses to
move toward a holistic and systemic approach to parking and mobility.
Page 529 of 712
Item 7b
Scope of Work
The selected consultant will be responsible for de velopment of the updated APMP,
including stakeholder engagement and public outreach. The consultant will review current
policies, climate objectives, development forecasts, financial demands, and other factors
to develop an updated APMP. The final report will also include an analysis of existing
resources and utilization rates, vision, goals and policies, a forecast of future operational
requirements, and an implementation plan.
It is likely given the time since a comprehensive update has been done that t he new
document will be wholly different than it does today. Lastly, the consultant will incorporate
best practices and identify changes to existing policies, programs, ordinances that are
resulting in outcomes different than those of the City
The draft request for proposals (Attachment A) includes the following tasks to be
completed by the consultant:
Project Management
Individual Meetings with Council Members
Public Outreach / Ad Hoc Committee Meetings
Compile information regarding existing Resources and Utilization Rate Analysis
Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies
Review of applicable best management practices
Forecasting Future Operations Requirements
Development of Strategies and Actions
Implementation Plan Including Evaluative Criteria
Comprehensive Report
Implementation Plan
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City Council adopted an Access and Parking Management Plan via resolution in July
2002 (Attachment C). The plan was amended in December 2011 to achieve compliance
with the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan (Attachment D). No updates have
been made since the amendment in 2011.
Policy Context
The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be
provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element (Attachment E). One of these
transportation services is vehicle parking. The plan will provide specific direction for the
management of parking in a way that supports the Circulation Element’s overall
transportation strategy.
Page 530 of 712
Item 7b
Public Engagement
This is an administrative item for authorization to advertise a request for proposals, the
scope of work includes coordinating public engagement as a part of the plan’s
development. This includes identification of internal and external stakeholders and
coordinating the creating of an Ad Hoc Committee
CONCURRENCE
The Community Development Department and Transportation Planning and Engineering
Program will be involved in the plan’s development. The APMP will align with the City’s
Active Transportation Plan and the City’s General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action on
this report because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines
Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding was approved for this project in the Fiscal Year 2020 -21 Mid-Year Report.
Because the funding was not appropriated in the year it was allocated for, staff is
requesting to reallocate the funding from working capital to the parking program’s contract
services account. The Parking Fund had a working capital of $13 million at June 30, 2021,
none of which has been allocated for appropriation.
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General
Fund
$- $- $- $-
State $- $- $- $-
Federal $- $- $- $-
Fees $- $- $- $-
Other:
Parking Fund
$- $100,000 $- $-
Total $- $100,000 $- $-
Page 531 of 712
Item 7b
ALTERNATIVES
1. Authorize staff to issue an RFP contingent upon the revision of the project’s
scope based on City Council’s feedback. This is recommended if the City Council
has minor recommended revisions to the project’s scope.
2. Delay authorization to issue an RFP and have staff return to the City Council
with an updated scope based on input. This is recommended if the City Council
recommends major revisions to the project scope.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft RFP for update of the City Access and Parking Management Plan
B - Access and Parking Management Plan
C - 2002 Resolution Adopting the Access and Parking Management Plan
D - 2011 Amended Access and Parking Management Plan
E - General Plan Circulation Element
Page 532 of 712
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including disabled persons in all of our services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Notice Requesting Proposals for Access and Parking Management Plan Update (Parking-2021-2)
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting sealed proposals for services associated with the updating of the
City’s Access and Parking Management Plan.
All firms interested in receiving further correspondence regarding this Request for Proposals (RFP) will be
required to complete a free registration using BidSync (https://www.bidsync.com/bidsync-app-
web/vendor/register/Login.xhtml). All proposals must be received via BidSync by the Department of
Finance at or before March 2, 2022 when they will be opened publicly in the City Hall Conference Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
Project packages and additional information may be obtained at the City’s BidSync website at
www.BidSync.com. Please contact Gaven Hussey, Parking Services Manager, at ghussey@slocity.org
with any questions. Responses to questions will be uploaded to BidSync.
For technical help with BidSync please contact BidSync tech support at 800-990-9339.
Page 533 of 712
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2
SECTION B. SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................ 3
SECTION C. PROJECT SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION D. PROJECT BUDGET ...................................................................................................................... 5
SECTION E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 5
SECTION F. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 11
SECTION G. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS ..................................................................... 12
SECTION H: FORM OF AGREEMENT ............................................................................................................ 16
SECTION I: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 18
SECTION J: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM .................................................................................................. 20
Page 534 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-2-
SECTION A. INTRODUCTION
The City is seeking a comprehensive update to the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP)
which serves as the guiding document for the City’s Parking Services Program. The current APMP was
adopted in July 2001 and last amended it in 2011 (See Appendix A). The City now desires to update this
Plan to reflect updated/new access and parking management goals that incorporates current industry
leading parking programs and best practices.
The updated plan will provide policy direction and guidance to City Leadership, City staff, property owners,
and businesses to move toward a holistic and systemic approach to parking and mobility. To that end, the
updated Plan must align with other plans adopted by the City including the Active Transportation Plan
(See Appendix B), the Downtown Concept Plan (See Appendix C), and the General Plan’s Circulation
Element (See Appendix D).
Background
In 1947, the City of San Luis Obispo introduced paid parking and parking meters. In 1975, the Parking
Enterprise Fund was established to account for parking revenues and expenditures separate from the
General Fund. The main management and enforcement of parking was moved from the Police
Department to Public Works Department in the 1980s. Since that time the management, operation, and
substantial enforcement of parking has been its own program in the department. The mission of the
Parking Services Program is to provide equitable and high-quality parking services to the community
members, visitors, and businesses in the City of San Luis Obispo.
Parking Services Major Functions
The Parking Services Program is principally a vertically integrated program with all of the major functions
listed below performed almost entirely by in-house employees. The Program performs five major
functions: (1) compliance and enforcement, (2) revenue management, (3) maintenance, (4) structure
operations, and (5) parking management and demand reduction. The Parking Services Program’s
administrative staffs have a relatively wide range of duties whereby one employee will be involved in
several of the major functions described above. The purpose of the major functions of the Parking Services
Division is to implement the Parking Management goals, policies, and actions set forth in the Access and
Parking Management Plan.
Compliance and enforcement
Compliance and enforcement is comprised of patrolling of on-street and off-street parking including the
downtown, residential permit districts, Railroad Square district, and the overall city as well as the issuance
of citations. Compliance and enforcement is currently accomplished by three full-time Parking
Enforcement Officers and two part-time Parking Enforcement Officers. Aside from compliance and
enforcement, Parking Enforcement Officers duties also include patrolling parking structures and assisting
the public with parking and non-parking related issues.
Revenue management
Revenue management refers to the collection and adjustment of fees and fines pertaining to parking
meters, citations, parking permit sales, and lease payments. These functions are currently performed by
various Program employees and an outside contractor.
Page 535 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-3-
Maintenance
Maintenance refers to any and all repairs that may occur during the lifetime of parking meters and parking
structures including janitorial maintenance.
Structure operations
Structure operations refer to all functions involved in operation of City parking structures including
collection of fees, scheduling of staff, equipment maintenance, elevator maintenance, deck sweeping,
janitorial services, landscape maintenance, and various other functions.
Parking management and demand reduction
Parking management and demand reduction refers to development and implementation of strategies for
the use of existing and future parking spaces including the management of shared parking in city-owned
parking structures. Parking management and demand reduction is handled primarily by the Parking
Services Manager through inter-departmental coordination. Parking management and demand reduction
is different from the other major functions in that it focuses on the development of new parking strategies
while the former four major functions focus on implementation of existing parking strategies.
Existing Conditions
Parking Services Program is responsible for on-street and off-street public parking facilities including: 5
public parking lots downtown, 3 parking structures, 11 residential parking permit districts, 49 multi-space
pay stations, and over 1,100 single space parking meters. Parking Services Program also oversees 15,000
sq. ft. of retail space, 2,100 sq. ft. of office space, and three residential parcels that total 22,000 sq. ft.
Future Development in the Downtown Area
The City is currently in the process of developing the fourth public parking structure on the corners of
Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey Street where the surface parking lot #14 is located. Site work
is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 with vertical construction beginning in FY 2023-24. The
structure is designed to be 416 spaces and is anticipated to assist with the implementation of the
Downtown Concept Plan, creating a more Active Transportation oriented downtown area.
Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP) Objectives
The City wishes to develop a APMP that incorporates the vision of other transportation related planning
documents and develop parking strategies that addresses the City’s current needs as we transition to our
future goals. It is important for the City to lead by example in an inclusive manner, and the updated APMP
will play an important role in achieving these objectives with focus on sustainable and alternate
transportation methods.
SECTION B. SCOPE OF WORK
The City has developed a detailed Scope of Work (SOW), shown below, but welcome the consultant’s
vision and input to provide a more robust access and parking strategy.
1) Project Management
a) Kickoff meeting
b) Monthly project team meetings
c) Monthly project updates
Page 536 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-4-
2) Public Outreach for Plan Updates
a) Create Ad Hoc Committee of stakeholder representatives including but not limited to
representatives from the following groups:
i) Downtown SLO (Business Improvement Association)
ii) Chamber of Commerce
iii) Active Transportation and Transit Advocates
iv) Resident groups/Concerned Citizens
v) Active Transportation Committee
vi) Mass Transit Committee
vii) Human Relations Commission
b) 3 – 5 Ad Hoc Committee meetings
c) 1 Planning Commission Meeting
d) 2 Active Transportation Committee Meetings
e) 1 City Council Workshops
f) Final approval from Planning Commission and City Council (1 – 2 meeting each)
g) Perform a parking survey and provide recommendations
i) Work with City staff, including the communications team to attain a viable sample size
representative of key stakeholders affected by City parking operations; downtown businesses
(owners/employees), City residents, tourists, students etc.
ii) Determine stakeholder understanding of City parking operations and priorities for the future.
3) Analysis of Existing Resources and Utilization Rates
a) Determine existing supply and utilization
b) Document existing parking programs
c) Document existing mobility and access system, including gaps and needs
d) Update on progress/accomplishments of previous plan
e) Document existing parking marketing materials/methods and determine effectiveness
f) Prepare existing conditions report
4) Identification of Case Studies
a) Best programs and practices for commercial districts
b) Best programs and practices for mixed used districts
c) Best program and practices for residential areas
d) Best program and practices for transition areas (i.e., areas where commercial, mixed use and
residential zones converge)
5) Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies consistent with existing City Polices and Goals
a) Vision – Describes the desired outcome of the new plan
b) Goals – Key elements needed to achieve the vision
c) Policies – Provide policy direction to address parking issues
6) Forecasting Operational Requirements
a) Future parking and access demand
b) Provide parking demand reduction strategies
c) Determine future parking supply needs
d) Determine mobility and access improvements and programs, including curbside management
e) Identify parking and access triggers to implement improvements and programs
f) Prepare financial projections of both revenues and costs
g) Prepare future conditions report
7) Development of Strategies and Actions
a) Strategies – Areas of focus to achieve each goal
b) Actions – Specific actions to implement the strategies
Page 537 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-5-
8) Implementation and Measurement of Success
a) Develop Priorities – When will the actions occur, anticipated lead times and in what order
b) Define how the actions will be accomplished
c) Define who will be responsible for implementing strategies and actions and who will play a
support role
d) Identify needed resources, staff time, costs, etc.
e) Define how success will be measured and how it will be reported
9) Deliverables, Drafts, and Final Document
a) Prepare administrative review document and submit to City for review
b) Update administrative review document based on City comments
c) Submit draft document for review and approval by Planning Commission
d) Submit final draft document for review and approval by City Council
e) Submit final City Council approved document
SECTION C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Preliminary Schedule Tasks
Ongoing Project Management
Beginning in March 2022 Public Outreach
March-April 2022 Existing Conditions
May 2022 Development of Goals and Policies
May-June 2022 Determining Future Conditions
June 2022 Development of Strategies and Actions
Summer 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, Active
Transportation Committee Meeting and
City Council Workshop
June-July 2022 Draft Document
July 2022 Final Document
Fall 2022 Presentation of Final Plan to Planning
Commission and City Council
SECTION D. PROJECT BUDGET
San Luis Obispo City Council has approved a not-to-exceed budget of $100,000, including contingencies,
for the Plan update. Optional tasks may be proposed but must stay within budget.
SECTION E. GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Requirement to Meet All Provisions. Each individual or firm submitting a proposal (bidder) shall
meet all the terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP) project package. By virtue
of its proposal submittal, the bidder acknowledges agreement with and acceptance of all
provisions of the RFP specifications.
Page 538 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-6-
2. Proposal Submittal. Each proposal must be submitted on the form(s) provided in the
specifications and accompanied by any other required submittals or supplemental materials.
Proposal documents shall be submitted electronically via BidSync. However, if you can’t submit
electronically, please send your bid copy in a sealed envelope to the Department of Finance, City
of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401. To guard against premature
opening, the proposal should be clearly labeled with the proposal title, project number, name of
bidder, and date and time of proposal opening. No FAX submittals will be accepted.
3. Insurance Certificate. Each proposal must include a certificate of insurance showing:
a. The insurance carrier and its A.M. Best rating.
b. Scope of coverage and limits.
c. Deductibles and self-insured retention.
The purpose of this submittal is to generally assess the adequacy of the bidder’s insurance
coverage during proposal evaluation; as discussed under paragraph 11 below, endorsements are
not required until contract award. The City’s insurance requirements are detailed in Section I.
4. Proposal Quotes and Unit Price Extension. The extension of unit prices for the quantities
indicated and the lump sum prices quoted by the bidder must be entered in figures in the spaces
provided on the Proposal Submittal Form(s). The Proposal Submittal Form(s) must be totally
completed. If the unit price and the total amount stated by any bidder for any item are not in
agreement, the unit price alone will be considered as representing the bidder’s intention and the
proposal total will be corrected to conform to the specified unit price.
5. Proposal Withdrawal and Opening. A bidder may withdraw its proposal, without prejudice prior
to the time specified for the proposal opening, by submitting a written request to the Director of
Finance for its withdrawal, in which event the proposal will be returned to the bidder unopened.
No proposal received after the time specified or at any place other than that stated in the “Notice
Inviting Bids/Requesting Proposals” will be considered. All proposals will be opened and declared
publicly. Bidders or their representatives are invited to be present at the opening of the proposals.
6. Submittal of One Proposal Only. No individual or business entity of any kind shall be allowed to
make or file, or to be interested as the primary submitter in more than one proposal, except an
alternative proposal when specifically requested; however, an individual or business entity that
has submitted a sub-proposal to a bidder submitting a proposal, or who has quoted prices on
materials to such bidder, is not thereby disqualified from submitting a sub-proposal or from
quoting prices to other bidders submitting proposals.
7. Communications. All timely requests for information submitted in writing will receive a written
response from the City. Telephone communications with City staff are not permitted. Any such
oral communication shall not be binding on the City.
CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION
8. Proposal Retention and Award. The City reserves the right to retain all proposals for a period of
60 days for examination and comparison. The City also reserves the right to waive non-substantial
irregularities in any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, to reject or delete one part of a
Page 539 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-7-
proposal and accept the other, except to the extent that proposals are qualified by specific
limitations. See the “special terms and conditions” in Section F of these specifications for proposal
evaluation and contract award criteria.
9. Competency and Responsibility of Bidder. The City reserves full discretion to determine the
competence and responsibility, professionally and/or financially, of bidders. Bidders will provide,
in a timely manner, all information that the City deems necessary to make such a decision.
10. Contract Requirement. The bidder to whom award is made (Contractor) shall execute a written
contract with the City within fourteen (14) calendar days after notice of the award has been sent
by mail to it at the address given in its proposal. The contract shall be made in the form adopted
by the City and incorporated in these specifications.
CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
11. Insurance Requirements. The Contractor shall provide proof of insurance in the form, coverages
and amounts specified in Section H of these specifications.
12. Business License & Tax. The Contractor must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license
& tax certificate within ten (10) days of execution of the contract. Additional information
regarding the City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.
13. Ability to Perform. The Contractor warrants that it possesses, or has arranged through
subcontracts, all capital and other equipment, labor, materials, and licenses necessary to carry
out and complete the work hereunder in compliance with all federal, state, county, city, and
special district laws, ordinances, and regulations.
14. Laws to be Observed. The Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and shall observe and
comply with all applicable state and federal laws and county and City of San Luis Obispo
ordinances, regulations and adopted codes during its performance of the work.
15. Payment of Taxes. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the
Contractor is required to pay.
16. Permits and Licenses. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and
fees, and give all notices necessary.
17. Safety Provisions. The Contractor shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety
established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.
18. Immigration Act of 1986. The Contractor warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors
engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United
State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall
be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.
19. Contractor Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this work, the Contractor agrees that it
will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination
Page 540 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-8-
in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual
orientation, or religion of such persons.
20. Work Delays. Should the Contractor be obstructed or delayed in the work required to be done
hereunder by changes in the work or by any default, act, or omission of the City, or by strikes, fire,
earthquake, or any other Act of God, or by the inability to obtain materials, equipment, or labor
due to federal government restrictions arising out of defense or war programs, then the time of
completion may, at the City’s sole option, be extended for such periods as may be agreed upon
by the City and the Contractor. In the event that there is insufficient time to grant such extensions
prior to the completion date of the contract, the City may, at the time of acceptance of the work,
waive liquidated damages that may have accrued for failure to complete on time, due to any of
the above, after hearing evidence as to the reasons for such delay, and making a finding as to the
causes of same.
21. Payment Terms. The City’s payment terms are 30 days from the receipt of an original invoice and
acceptance by the City of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by the
Contractor (Net 30).
22. Inspection. The Contractor shall furnish City with every reasonable opportunity for City to
ascertain that the services of the Contractor are being performed in accordance with the
requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any,
shall be subject to the City’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve
Contractor of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.
23. Audit. The City shall have the option of inspecting and/or auditing all records and other written
materials used by Contractor in preparing its invoices to City as a condition precedent to any
payment to Contractor.
24. Interests of Contractor. The Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not
acquire any interest—direct, indirect or otherwise—that would conflict in any manner or degree
with the performance of the work hereunder. The Contractor further covenants that, in the
performance of this work, no subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be employed.
The Contractor certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest in performing this
work is an officer or employee of the City. It is hereby expressly agreed that, in the performance
of the work hereunder, the Contractor shall at all times be deemed an independent contractor
and not an agent or employee of the City.
25. Hold Harmless and Indemnification.
(a) Non-design, non-construction Professional Services: To the fullest extent permitted by law
(including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees,
volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims,
liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs
of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to
perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant,
including the City’s active or passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In the event the City Indemnitees are made a
Page 541 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-9-
party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant’s
performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City Indemnitees
or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable
legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(b) Non-design, construction Professional Services: To the extent the Scope of Services involve a
“construction contract” as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 2783, this paragraph shall
apply in place of paragraph A. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to
California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City
Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations,
judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”),
arising out of the Consultant’s performance or Consultant’s failure to perform its obligations
under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by Consultant, except for such loss or
damage arising from the active negligence, sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. In
the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their
costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
(c) Design Professional Services: In the event Consultant is a “design professional”, and the Scope
of Services require Consultant to provide “design professional services” as those phrases are used
in Civil Code Section 2782.8, this paragraph shall apply in place of paragraphs A or B. To the fullest
extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and
2782.8) Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and its elected officials,
officers, employees, volunteers and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against all claims,
damages, injuries, losses, and expenses including costs, attorney fees, expert consultant and
expert witness fees arising out of, pertaining to or relating to, the negligence, recklessness or
willful misconduct of Consultant, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence, active
negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of any
subcontractor employed by Consultant shall be conclusively deemed to be the negligence,
recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant unless adequately corrected by Consultant. In
the event the City Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial
proceeding arising from Consultant’s performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall provide
a defense to the City Indemnitees or at the City’s option, reimburse the City Indemnitees their
costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. In no event
shall the cost to defend charged to Consultant under this paragraph exceed Consultant’s
proportionate percentage of fault. However, notwithstanding the previous sentence, in the event
one or more defendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or
dissolution of the business, Consultant shall meet and confer with other parties regarding unpaid
defense costs.
(d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Consultant’s work or work product by any
indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Consultant’s indemnification or defense
obligations. This Section survives completion of the services or the termination of this contract.
The provisions of this Section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract
relating to insurance.
Page 542 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-10-
26. Contract Assignment. The Contractor shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of
the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual
or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of the City.
27. Termination for Convenience. The City may terminate all or part of this Agreement for any or no
reason at any time by giving 30 days written notice to Contractor. Should the City terminate this
Agreement for convenience, the City shall be liable as follows: (a) for standard or off-the-shelf
products, a reasonable restocking charge not to exceed ten (10) percent of the total purchase
price; (b) for custom products, the less of a reasonable price for the raw materials, components
work in progress and any finished units on hand or the price per unit reflected on this Agreement.
For termination of any services pursuant to this Agreement, the City’s liability will be the lesser of
a reasonable price for the services rendered prior to termination, or the price for the services
reflected on this Agreement. Upon termination notice from the City, Contractor must, unless
otherwise directed, cease work and follow the City’s directions as to work in progress and finished
goods.
28. Termination. If, during the term of the contract, the City determines that the Contractor is not
faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in
writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a 10 (ten)
calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.
If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the ten days specified
in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the contract and the City may terminate the
contract immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect. Thereafter, neither party
shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the contract except,
however, any and all obligations of the Contractor’s surety shall remain in full force and effect,
and shall not be extinguished, reduced, or in any manner waived by the terminations thereof.
In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed
from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City’s Notice of
Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such
breach. “Reasonable value” includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone
or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the
Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work, services or goods performed or
provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the work-
in-progress in completing the overall work scope.
The City reserves the right to delay any such payment until completion or confirmed
abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a
full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to
receive in excess of the compensation quoted in its proposal.
Page 543 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-11-
SECTION F. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. Contract Award. Subject to the reservations set forth in Paragraph 9 of Section E (General Terms
and Conditions) of these specifications, the contract will be awarded to the lowest responsible,
responsive proposer.
2. Labor Actions.
In the event that the successful proposer is experiencing a labor action at the time of contract
award (or if its suppliers or subcontractors are experiencing such a labor action), the City reserves
the right to declare said proposer is no longer the lowest responsible, responsive proposer and to
accept the next acceptable low proposal from a proposer that is not experiencing a labor action,
and to declare it to be the lowest responsible, responsive proposer.
3. Failure to Accept Contract.
The following will occur if the proposer to whom the award is made (Contractor) fails to enter into
the contract: the award will be annulled; any bid security will be forfeited in accordance with the
special terms and conditions if a proposer's bond or security is required; and an award may be
made to the next lowest responsible, responsive proposer who shall fulfill every stipulation as if
it were the party to whom the first award was made.
4. Contract Term.
The supplies or services identified in this specification will be used by the City for up to one year.
The prices quoted for these items must be valid for the entire period indicated above unless
otherwise conditioned by the proposer in its proposal.
5. Contractor Invoices.
The Contractor must deliver a monthly invoice to the City with attached copies of detail invoices
as supporting detail.
6. Start and Completion of Work. Work on this project shall begin immediately after contract
execution and shall be completed within 365 calendar days thereafter, unless otherwise
negotiated with City by mutual agreement.
7. Change in Work. The City reserves the right to change quantities of any item after contract award.
If the total quantity of any changed item varies by 25% or less, there shall be no change in the
agreed upon unit price for that item. Unit pricing for any quantity changes per item in excess of
25% shall be subject to negotiation with the Contractor.
8. Submittal of References. Each proposer shall submit a statement of qualifications and references
on the form provided in the RFP package.
9. Statement of Contract Disqualifications. Each proposer shall submit a statement regarding any
past governmental agency bidding or contract disqualifications on the form provided in the RFP
package.
Page 544 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-12-
SECTION G. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND SELECTION PROCESS
1. Proposal Content. Your proposal must include the following information:
Submittal Forms
a. Proposal submittal form.
b. Certificate of insurance.
c. References from at least three firms for whom you have provided similar services.
Qualifications
d. Experience of your firm and those of sub-consultants in performing work and projects
relevant to the Scope of Services outlined and described in the request.
e. Resumes of the individuals who would be assigned to this project, including any sub-
consultants, with their corollary experience highlighted and specific roles in this project
clearly described.
f. Standard hourly billing rates for the assigned staff, including any sub-consultants.
g. Statement and explanation of any instances where your firm or sub-consultant has been
removed from a project or disqualified from proposing on a project.
h. Relevant project experience for three to five projects for both primary firm and
subconsultants. Provide timeframe, client name, contact person, and current contact
information. Reference projects shall include a brief description of the project and the
outcome as well as how it is relevant to this project. Include the name of any proposed
team members that worked on the project.
Work Program
i. Description of your approach to completing the work.
j. Schedule by task and sub-task for completing the work.
k. Estimated hours for your staff in performing each phase and task of the work, including
sub-consultants.
l. Budget by task and sub-task for completing the work.
m. Services or data to be provided by the City.
n. Services and deliverables provided by the Consultant(s).
o. Any other information that would assist us in making this contract award decision.
p. Description of assumptions critical to development of the response which may impact
cost or scope.
Requested Changes to Terms and Conditions
q. The City desires to begin work soon after selecting the preferred Consultant Team. To
expedite the contracting process, each submittal shall include requested redlined changes
to terms and conditions, if necessary.
Proposal Length
Page 545 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-13-
r. Proposal length should be no longer than thirty (30) pages including attachments and
supplemental materials.
2. Proposal Evaluation and Selection. Proposals will be evaluated by issuing Division / Department
and evaluated on the following criteria:
a. Understanding of the work required by the City.
b. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of the proposal.
c. Demonstrated competence and professional qualifications necessary for successfully
performing the work required by the City.
d. Recent experience in successfully performing similar services.
e. Proposed budget to complete the work.
f. Background and experience of the specific individuals assigned to this project.
As reflected above, contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as
determined to be in the best interest of the City. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them
further with the finalists or the tentatively selected contractor, the City reserves the right to further
negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.
3. Proposal Review and Award Schedule. The following is an outline of the anticipated schedule for
proposal review and contract award:
a. Issue RFP January 26, 2022
b. Receive proposals March 2, 2022
c. Complete proposal evaluations March 16, 2022
d. Conduct finalist interviews and finalize recommendation March 28, 2022
e. Execute contract April 11, 2022
f. Kick-off Meeting April 18, 2022
4. Ownership of Materials. All original drawings, plan documents and other materials prepared by
or in possession of the Contractor as part of the work or services under these specifications shall
become the permanent property of the City and shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
5. Release of Reports and Information. Any reports, information, data, or other material given to,
prepared by or assembled by the Contractor as part of the work or services under these
specifications shall be the property of the City and shall not be made available to any individual
or organization by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the City.
6. Copies of Reports and Information. If the City requests additional copies of reports, drawings,
specifications, or any other material in addition to what the Contractor is required to furnish in
limited quantities as part of the work or services under these specifications, the Contractor shall
provide such additional copies as are requested, and City shall compensate the Contractor for the
costs of duplicating of such copies at the Contractor's direct expense.
7. Required Deliverable Products. The Contractor will be required to provide:
Page 546 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-14-
a. One electronic submission - digital-ready original .pdf of all final documents. If you wish
to file a paper copy, please submit in sealed envelope to the address provided in the RFP.
b. Corresponding computer files compatible with the following programs whenever possible
unless otherwise directed by the project manager:
Word Processing: MS Word
Spreadsheets: MS Excel
Desktop Publishing: InDesign
Virtual Models: Sketch Up
Digital Maps: Geodatabase shape files in
State Plan Coordinate System as
specified by City GIS staff
c. City staff will review any documents or materials provided by the Contractor and, where
necessary, the Contractor will be required to respond to staff comments and make such
changes as deemed appropriate.
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
8. Alternative Proposals. The proposer may submit an alternative proposal (or proposals) that it
believes will also meet the City's project objectives but in a different way. In this case, the
proposer must provide an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternative
and discuss under what circumstances the City would prefer one alternative to the other(s).
9. Attendance at Meetings and Hearings. As part of the work scope and included in the contract
price is attendance by the Contractor at up to nine public meetings to present and discuss its
findings and recommendations. Contractor shall attend as many "working" meetings with staff
as necessary in performing work-scope tasks.
10. Accuracy of Specifications. The specifications for this project are believed by the City to be
accurate and to contain no affirmative misrepresentation or any concealment of fact. In preparing
its proposal, the bidder and all subcontractors named in its proposal shall bear sole responsibility
for proposal preparation errors resulting from any misstatements or omissions in the plans and
specifications that could easily have been ascertained by examining either the project site or
accurate test data in the City's possession. Although the effect of ambiguities or defects in the
plans and specifications will be as determined by law, any patent ambiguity or defect shall give
rise to a duty of bidder to inquire prior to proposal submittal. Failure to so inquire shall cause any
such ambiguity or defect to be construed against the bidder. An ambiguity or defect shall be
considered patent if it is of such a nature that the bidder, assuming reasonable skill, ability and
diligence on its part, knew or should have known of the existence of the ambiguity or defect.
Furthermore, failure of the bidder or subcontractors to notify City in writing of specification or
plan defects or ambiguities prior to proposal submittal shall waive any right to assert said defects
or ambiguities subsequent to submittal of the proposal.
To the extent that these specifications constitute performance specifications, the City shall not be
liable for costs incurred by the successful bidder to achieve the project’s objective or standard
beyond the amounts provided there for in the proposal.
Page 547 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-15-
In the event that, after awarding the contract, any dispute arises as a result of any actual or alleged
ambiguity or defect in the plans and/or specifications, or any other matter whatsoever,
Contractor shall immediately notify the City in writing, and the Contractor and all subcontractors
shall continue to perform, irrespective of whether or not the ambiguity or defect is major,
material, minor or trivial, and irrespective of whether or not a change order, time extension, or
additional compensation has been granted by City. Failure to provide the hereinbefore described
written notice within one (1) working day of contractor's becoming aware of the facts giving rise
to the dispute shall constitute a waiver of the right to assert the causative role of the defect or
ambiguity in the plans or specifications concerning the dispute.
Page 548 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-16-
SECTION H: FORM OF AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on [day, date, year] by
and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as City, and
[CONTRACTOR’S NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS], hereinafter referred to as Contractor.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, on [date], City requested proposals for [______________], per Project No. Parking-
2021-2
WHEREAS, pursuant to said request, Contractor submitted a proposal that was accepted by City
for said project;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date this Agreement is made and
entered, as first written above, until acceptance or completion of said project.
2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. City Specification No. ______ and Contractor's
proposal dated [date] is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement and attached as Exhibit
A. The City’s terms and conditions are hereby incorporated in an made a part of this Agreement as Exhibit
B. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the Contractor’s fees and scope of work and the
City’s terms and conditions, the City’s terms and conditions shall prevail, unless specifically agreed
otherwise in writing signed by both parties.
3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing the services as specified in this Agreement, City will
pay, and Contractor shall receive therefore compensation [xxxxxxx].
4. CONTRACTOR/CONSULTANT’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments
and agreements hereinbefore mentioned to be made and performed by City, Contractor agrees with City
to do everything required by this Agreement and the said specifications.
5. AMENDMENTS. Any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective only upon approval by the City Manager.
6. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically
incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto.
Page 549 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-17-
No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated
herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation
be binding upon the parties hereto.
7. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by United States mail,
postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:
City Name
Dept.
Address
Consultant Name
Title
Address
Address
8. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both City and Contractor do covenant that
everyone executing this agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered
to execute Agreements for such party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day
and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
By:_____________________________________
City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT:
________________________________ By: _____________________________________
City Attorney Name of CAO / President
Its: CAO / President
Page 550 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-18-
SECTION I: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Consultant Services
The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance
of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2. Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1
(any auto).
3. Workers' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability
Insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability insurance as appropriate to the consultant's profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used,
either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general
aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4. Errors and Omissions Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such
deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers;
or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be
endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as
respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products
and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied, or used by the
Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage
shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
official, employees, agents, or volunteers.
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any
Page 551 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-19-
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, or
volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or
suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
4. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be
suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty
(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the
City.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no
less than A:VII.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with a certificate of insurance showing
maintenance of the required insurance coverage. Original endorsements effecting general liability and
automobile liability coverage required by this clause must also be provided. The endorsements are to be
signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences.
Page 552 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-20-
SECTION J: PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL FORM
The undersigned declares that she or he has carefully examined Specification No. Parking-2021-2, which
is hereby made a part of this proposal; is thoroughly familiar with its contents; is authorized to represent
the proposing firm; and agrees to perform the specified work for the following cost quoted in full:
Description Quantity Unit Price Total
Project Management Per hour
Public Outreach / Ad Hoc Committee Meetings Per hour
Existing Resources and Utilization Rate Analysis Per hour
Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies Per hour
Determining the Future Per hour
Development of Strategies and Actions Per hour
Implementation and Measurement of Success Per hour
Final Document Drafting and Approval Per hour
TOTAL BASE PRICE
Other (provide detail on a separate sheet)
TOTAL $
Delivery of equipment to the City to be within _______ calendar days after contract execution and written
authorization to proceed.
Certificate of insurance attached; insurance company’s A.M. Best rating: __________________.
Firm Name and Address
Contact Phone
Signature of Authorized Representative
Date
Page 553 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-21-
REFERENCES
Number of years engaged in providing the services included within the scope of the specifications under
the present business name: .
Describe fully the last three contracts performed by your firm that demonstrate your ability to provide
the services included with the scope of the specifications. Attach additional pages if required. The City
reserves the right to contact each of the references listed for additional information regarding your firm's
qualifications.
Reference No. 1:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Reference No. 2:
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Page 554 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-22-
Reference No. 3
Agency Name
Contact Name
Telephone & Email
Street Address
City, State, Zip Code
Description of services provided
including contract amount, when
provided and project outcome
Page 555 of 712
City of San Luis Obispo
Specification No. Parking-2021-2
-23-
STATEMENT OF PAST CONTRACT DISQUALIFICATIONS
The proposer shall state whether it or any of its officers or employees who have a proprietary interest in
it, has ever been disqualified, removed, or otherwise prevented from bidding on, or completing a federal,
state, or local government project because of the violation of law, a safety regulation, or for any other
reason, including but not limited to financial difficulties, project delays, or disputes regarding work or
product quality, and if so to explain the circumstances.
Do you have any disqualification as described in the above paragraph to declare?
Yes No
If yes, explain the circumstances.
Executed on at _______________________________________ under penalty of
perjury of the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
______________________________________
Signature of Authorized Proposer Representative
Page 556 of 712
City of San Luis ObispoCity of San Luis ObispoCity of San Luis ObispoCity of San Luis Obispo
ACCESS AND PARKING
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Amended November, 2011
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, PARKING SERVICES
1260 Chorro Street, Suite B, San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Page 557 of 712
1
City of San Luis Obispo
ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Jan Marx, Mayor
John Ashbaugh, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter
Andrew Carter
Kathy Smith
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Jay Walter, Director
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
Robert Horch, Parking Manager
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Katie Lichtig, City Manager
Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Page 558 of 712
2
____ CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANS_____________________
The City of San Luis Obispo adopts and maintains plans that help direct the
implementation of the General Plan Circulation Element. These plans include:
Title of Document Status
Access & Parking Management Plan (this
document)
Amended November, 2011 to
include parking policies for
downtown residents
Updated July, 2001
Bicycle Transportation Plan Updated May, 2007
Short Range Transit Plan Updated May, 2009
Pavement Management Plan Updated October, 2009
For more information about City transportation plans, projects and programs,
contact the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, Transportation Division at
(805) 781-7210.
Page 559 of 712
3
____ TABLE OF CONTENTS_________________________________
Topic Page
Introduction..............................................................................…...........................................................4
Relationship to Other Plans and Policies ...............................................................................................5
Scope of Plan..........................................................................................................................................5
Parking Management Goals...................................................................................................................6
Definitions..............................................................................................................................................6
General Use of Parking..........................................................................................................................7
Employee Use of Parking.......................................................................................................................8
Juror Use of Parking...............................................................................................................................9
Use of Parking for Downtown Residents.............................................................................................10
Expansion of Parking ...........................................................................................................................10
Enforcement..........................................................................................................................................11
Financing of Commercial Core Parking...............................................................................................11
Residential Parking...............................................................................................................................12
Program Administration and Promotion ..............................................................................................13
APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking...........15
A.2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Reduction Programs.............................................16
A.3 Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts .............................................................................17
A.4 City Council Resolution # 9350 (2002 Series) revising this plan ................................................18
Page 560 of 712
4
_ INTRODUCTION_______________________________________
Between 1977 and 1987, a number of studies were conducted to assess the vehicle parking situation
in downtown San Luis Obispo. As a result of this work, the City built two parking structures that
house 669 vehicles. The first parking structure located at the corner of Palm and Morro Streets was
completed in 1988. The second garage at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets was completed in
1990. An expansion of the Marsh Street garage that added 342 spaces (net increase of 245 spaces)
will be completed in September 2002. These three projects resulted in a total of 1,007 garage spaces.
In addition, the City manages over 1,600 spaces located in surface lots and along downtown streets.
Another result of these early parking studies was the City's adoption of its first Parking Management
Plan in 1987. The management plan was updated in 1990 and again in 1995 to reflect the completion
of some of the major parking projects and to better define management policies.
In February 1993, a group of local architects and designers completed a Conceptual Physical Plan for
the City's Center (commonly known as the Downtown Concept Plan). The City Council has adopted,
in concept, the Plan and feels that it should be considered when making planning decisions that affect
the City's center. The Plan was revised in 1997 to reflect changes to the Court Street Parking Lot
area. The Concept Plan suggests that a number of new parking structures be built and that the
pedestrian character of the commercial core be improved.
In November 1994, the City adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The adopted
Circulation Element directs the City to conduct studies of downtown parking needs and to consider
ways of reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of other types of transportation. The
Circulation Element also directs the reevaluation of the use of curb space in the commercial core
with the aim of creating more short-term parking spaces.
This plan has been revised to address a number of events and decisions that have occurred since
1995, including the following:
In 1997, a Downtown Parking and Access Plan was completed by Meyer-Mohaddes and
Associates. While never adopted by the City Council, this draft plan estimated future parking
demand, identified candidate parking garage locations, as well as a variety of actions that the
City could take to better manage its current parking supply and reduce employee demand for
downtown parking.
As a way of incrementally implementing the draft Downtown Parking and Access Plan, the
City Council authorized the implementation of a variety of measures to encourage employees
to use means other than their private vehicles to access the downtown. In July 2001 a “Gold
Pass” program was initiated that provides subsidized monthly transit passes to downtown
employees. Parking stalls for car pools have also been reserved in existing parking structures.
Other parking management activities have also been pursued. Appendix A.2 identifies these
approved activities.
On 05/01/2001 the City Council amended Section 6.1 of the Parking Management Plan to
provide clarity on the use of Parking Fund revenues.
Page 561 of 712
5
The City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with private property
owners that, among other things, calls for the construction of a new office/parking structure
on the southeast corner of Palm and Morro Streets that will house 243 vehicles. This project
is designed to satisfy parking demand created by the retirement of the Court Street parking
lot and the development of a retail commercial project on that site (the “Copelands Project”).
The City Council authorized its staff to solicit proposals from consultants to prepare
schematic plans for a transit-parking-mixed use facility east of Santa Rosa Street. Entitled
the “North Area Regional Facility (NARF),” this design work will investigate opportunities
for constructing new parking garages to serve the downtown core and the expanded County
Administrative Complex.
The San Luis Obispo Downtown Association participated in the review of the 1995 Parking
Management Plan. This updated plan will be used as a management tool to help direct how vehicle
parking should be provided and used throughout San Luis Obispo and how the demand for
downtown parking will be managed.
_ __RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES________
The City's General Plan Land Use Element establishes the pattern of land uses throughout San Luis
Obispo. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be
provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element. One of these transportation services is
vehicle parking. This plan provides specific direction for the management of vehicle parking in a
way that supports the Circulation Element's overall transportation strategy. This plan focuses on the
management of vehicle parking in the community's commercial core. Parking of bicycles is
addressed by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (2002) but is an issue that is relevant to the use of City
parking structures and surface lots.
_ __SCOPE OF THIS PLAN___________________________________
This plan establishes vehicle parking policies and programs that apply throughout San Luis Obispo.
However, its primary focus is the management of parking in the commercial core. This plan also
identifies, in Appendix A.2, approved management techniques for putting to better use existing
parking spaces, and for reducing the employee demand for parking spaces in the commercial core.
This plan may be revised from time to time to address parking needs in areas beyond and within the
commercial core. For more information about City parking programs, contact the Parking Section of
the Public Works Department at (805) 781-7230.
Page 562 of 712
6
_ __PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS________________________
Support the commercial as a viable economic and cultural center and preserve its historic
character.
Support the goals of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center.
Provide enough parking in the commercial core for visitors and employees.
Reduce the demand for employee parking through various programs such as carpooling,
vanpools, transit subsidies, and bicycle and pedestrian systems development.
Support the transportation strategy presented in the General Plan Circulation Element.
Support the residential component of mixed use development downtown as presented in the
Land Use Element.
Carry out actions described in this plan within budget constraints and consistent with
Financial Plan goals and policies that are updated every two years.
_ __DEFINITIONS___________________________________________
The following words and phrases used throughout this plan have the following meanings:
Commercial Core is the central business district in San Luis Obispo. Its boundaries are the same as
the Downtown Association Area (see Appendix A.1).
Commercial Deliveries are made to businesses in the commercial core using trucks that are
commercially licensed.
Downtown Association (DA) Advisory Board is an 11-member group established pursuant to
Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 by the City Council to promote the economic health of the
commercial core. The DA (and its advisory committees) participates in the development of City
programs that affect the downtown and provide advice to City staff and the City Council.
Long-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered, are located along streets, in monthly permit lots
or parking structures, and typically allow parking for 10 hours or more.
Parking Structures are multi-level buildings that are managed by the City and provide parking for
the general public, commercial core employees, and jurors at the Palm Street parking structure.
Short-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered and typically have a two-hour or less time limit.
Page 563 of 712
7
_ __GENERAL USE OF PARKING __________________________
POLICIES
1.1 The City should maximize the use of all parking structures and surface lots.
1.2 The City should encourage any development of surface parking lots in the commercial core
to conform, to the degree possible, to the “Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center.”
1.3 Curb parking spaces are intended for short-term parking. People parking for longer periods
should use monthly permit lots and long-term metered spaces and parking structures.
1.4 The City may install parking meters or post parking time limits where at least 75% of a
block's frontage is developed with commercial uses. The City will consider requests by a
majority of residential and commercial property owners along a block to install parking
controls.
1.5 Thirty-minute parking spaces shall be placed at the ends of blocks in the commercial core
where short-term parking is needed. The City will consider requests by property owners to
locate 30-minute spaces at other locations.
1.6 Parking for commercial deliveries in the commercial core should be managed so that:
Illegal double parking or excessive circulation by delivery vehicles is discouraged.
Deliveries are discouraged during peak traffic periods and during retail business
hours. Merchants may consider lockbox systems that allow for unassisted nighttime
access for deliveries.
Oversized vehicles do not attempt deliveries.
ACTIONS
1.7 The City will:
Publicize the availability of parking spaces in underused lots and will offer incentives
to increase their use.
Take actions that better direct people to parking structures and underused parking lots
and long-term metered curb parking areas.
Continue to offer permits for 10-hour metered parking spaces.
Maintain long-term metered spaces on Pacific Street and alongside streets near the
Marsh Street parking structure for overflow parking, but periodically evaluate their
use.
Page 564 of 712
8
1.8 The City will consider:
Allowing the mixture of daily and monthly parking in underused permit lots.
Managing employee use of the Marsh Street parking structure so that (A) more
spaces can be reserved for shoppers, and (B) more employees are encouraged to use
the Palm Street structure, which has more vacant spaces.
Allowing the use of long term parking for downtown residential uses in City owned
parking facilities.
1.9 City staff will periodically evaluate and revise as appropriate:
The placement of 15- and 30-minute parking meters.
The layout of existing parking lots or structures when they are resurfaced or restriped
with the aim of: (a) maximizing their use, (b) improving circulation and (c)
complying with requirements to provide parking for the disabled.
The use of curb space in the downtown (including no parking and loading zones) to
identify opportunities for creating more short-term spaces.
The optimum mixture of long- and short-term metered spaces and the expansion of
metered curb areas.
1.10 If congestion levels in the commercial core exceed standards set by the Circulation Element,
the City will adopt an ordinance that limits times for commercial deliveries.
_ __EMPLOYEE USE OF PARKING___________________________
POLICIES
2.1 Employee parking programs will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Circulation Element.
2.2 The City and County should develop programs that reduce the number of their employees
that are driving alone to work.
2.3 Commercial core employers should establish programs that encourage employees to:
Use Palm Street Parking Structure, monthly permit lots, and long-term metered
spaces.
Page 565 of 712
9
Use other types of transportation to get to work or to carpool. A listing of approved
programs is included as Appendix A.2.
ACTIONS
2.4 The City will establish a program in the commercial core that fosters carpooling by
employees and visitors.
2.5 The Downtown Association (DA) and Chamber of Commerce should sponsor on-going
education programs that discourage employees from using curb parking and promote
alternate transportation.
2.6 The City should discourage long-term employee use of curb parking in the commercial core
by:
Expanding areas with two-hour parking limits when needed to maintain convenient
customer parking opportunities.
Monitoring the use of 15- and 30-minutes curb spaces;
Consider increasing the fines for overtime violations;
As requested, consider establishing resident parking districts in areas adjoining the
commercial core and office districts.
2.7 The City will institute a trip reduction program for its employees in compliance with goals
established by the Circulation Element.
2.8 The City should develop a bulk discount rate for its transit passes without negatively
affecting transit funding. Employers should purchase passes and make them available to
employees who substitute riding the bus for driving to work.
2.9 The City will install bicycle lockers at convenient locations in the commercial core and will
promote their use by commercial core employees on a space-available basis.
2.10 The City will work to consider park-and-ride lots that serve the commute needs of
commercial core employees. The City will evaluate outlying parking lots for their use by
commercial core employees with a shuttle connecting these lots with the core.
_ __JUROR USE OF PARKING________________________________
POLICIES
3.1 The City will provide free parking for jurors in the Palm Street parking structure or in
metered spaces when the Palm Street parking structure is full or when a juror drives an
oversized vehicle as per the agreement with the County for limited use.
ACTIONS
Page 566 of 712
10
3.2 City staff will work with the Jury Commissioner to inform prospective jurors of the City's
parking policies. Staff will monitor the amount of jury parking and inform the Jury
Commissioner if overflow parking becomes a problem.
_ __USE OF PARKING FOR DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS_________
POLICIES
4.1 As a pilot program, the City will provide a limited number of parking spaces to accommodate
residential tenants within the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) zone consistent with General
Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.22 and Housing Element Policy 3.12.4. These spaces may
be provided in structures or other locations that are suitable for overnight parking programs.
4.2 Monthly fees for such parking spaces shall be as adopted by City Council Resolution to
financially contribute to the cost of the new program.
4.3 Parking spaces shall be in locations suitable for overnight use and shall be in locations that do
not significantly interfere with necessary parking for downtown customers and employees or
encroach into adjacent residential neighborhoods.
ACTIONS
4.4 The City shall establish a pilot program to allow residents within the downtown core to
utilize public parking and to monitor the amount of residential parking required.
4.5 The City Council shall adopt a resolution that establishes a fee program, use limitations and
enforcement options for regulating use of parking for downtown residents.
4.6 The Municipal Code shall be amended to include parking options for downtown residences.
4.7 The City will assist owners of downtown residences to inform prospective tenants of the
City’s parking policies and transportation choices. The Parking Services web page is one
element that could be used as a component of this information source.
_ __EXPANSION OF PARKING_______________________________
POLICIES
5.1 Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and
patrons of government and private offices.
5.2 Building parking structures is the best way of providing more parking facilities while
minimizing the use of valuable commercial land. City-owned land earmarked for parking
structures may be used as temporary surface parking lots.
5.3 Existing City-owned surface parking lots purchased by the Parking Fund which are not
earmarked for parking structure locations may be sold to finance expansion of parking in
permanent structures when and after new parking structures have been built to take their
place.
Page 567 of 712
11
5.4 Parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial
core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities.
ACTIONS
5.5 Develop a program to encourage use of underutilized parking lots, which would benefit the
commercial core.
_ __ENFORCEMENT________________________________________
POLICIES
6.1 Parking laws will be strictly enforced to:
Discourage overtime parking;
Discourage habitual parking violations -- people with six or more violations;
Encourage meter payments; and
Direct people parking for long periods to use long-term parking spaces.
ACTIONS
6.2 City enforcement officers will strictly enforce all parking laws, especially overtime violations
and the misuse of loading zones.
6.3 The City in cooperation with the BIA will develop a plan to discourage habitual violators.
_ __FINANCING OF COMMERCIAL CORE PARKING__________
POLICIES
7.1 The City’s Parking Program will be self-supporting. The principal purpose of Parking Fund
revenues will be used to:
Maintain and expand parking operations and supply, including effective parking
demand reduction programs
Repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures.
Pilot or “test case” parking demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that
they are well defined and monitored for a defined period of time and a measurement of
effectiveness is predetermined.
7.2 Commercial core merchants, business owners, and property owners should help finance the
Page 568 of 712
12
parking program.
ACTIONS
7.3 The City will deposit all revenues from parking fines into the Parking Fund.
7.4 The City will:
Review parking meter and citation rates every two years and make adjustments as
needed.
Continue to charge variable rates for different types of parking.
Continue to collect in-lieu fees from development projects in the commercial core.
Consider new fee programs applicable to commercial core merchants, business
owners and property owners.
7.5 The City, upon Council direction, will evaluate the elimination of parking meters in the
commercial core and the creation of a comprehensive financing plan to finance the Parking
Program.
_ __RESIDENTIAL PARKING________________________________
POLICIES
8.1 Parking along streets in residential areas should be used by residents and their guests.
However, no individual household has the exclusive right to use a particular section of curb
parking and curb parking is not guaranteed in front of each household.
8.2 The City may prohibit or limit curb parking in residential areas to ensure safe traffic flow,
pedestrian crossing conditions or to install motor vehicle or bicycle lanes consistent with the
Circulation Element or the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
8.3 The City will create residential parking districts when needed to manage parking and
maintain the quality of life in residential areas.
8.4 All residential parking districts must comply with provisions of Section 10.36.170 of the San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Page 569 of 712
13
ACTIONS
8.5 Upon receiving a petition from a 60% majority of affected residents living within a proposed
parking district, the City Council may create a district consistent with provisions of the
municipal code. (For the location of existing Residential Parking Districts, see Appendix
A.3.)
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTION
POLICIES
9.1 The City's Parking Manager is responsible for interpreting and implementing the provisions
of this plan.
9.2 As the need arises, the City will evaluate the potential for hiring a private company to
manage its parking structures.
9.3 The Parking Manager will continue to work with the Downtown Association (DA), Chamber
of Commerce, and County government to cooperatively implement this plan.
9.4 The Parking Manager will undertake a wide range of actions to make the public aware of the
provisions of this plan.
9.5 Applications for amending the Access and Parking Management Plan shall be filed with the
City’s Parking Manager. Applications will receive and extensive review process and will be
acted on no more frequently than annually by the City Council.
Page 570 of 712
14
APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking
A.2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Reduction Programs
A.3 Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts
A.4 City Council Resolution # 10317 (2011 Series) amending this plan
G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuff\Transportation\Transportation Projects\Parking\Current
Projects\Downtown Parking 2010\CAR\2010 Access and Parking Management Plan Final Edit.docx
Page 571 of 712
15
Page 572 of 712
16
APPENDIX A.2
Approved Parking Management and
Demand Reduction Programs
# Description Status
Parking Demand Reduction Programs
1 Increase the maximum charge for garage parking Approved/Completed
2 Transit pass subsidies for downtown employees Approved/Completed
3 Reduce monthly parking pass costs for high-occupancy vehicles Approved/Completed
4 Improve bicycle access to the downtown Approved/Ongoing
5 Establish an advertising program for downtown parking demand
reduction (PDR) programs
Approved/Ongoing
6 Encourage the county to establish a trip reduction program similar to
the City’s program
Approved/Ongoing
Parking Management Programs
1 Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes Approved/Completed
2 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better
reflect the cost of downtown parking
Approved/Completed
3 Increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and limit long-term
parking
Approved/Completed
Respond to citizen proposals to establish residential parking districts in
neighborhoods adjoining the downtown.
Approved/Ongoing
4 Increase long-term parking at the periphery of the downtown Approved/Ongoing
5 Work with the Downtown Association to establish a program for
discouraging habitual violators
Approved/Ongoing
Page 573 of 712
17
Page 574 of 712
18
RESOLUTION NO. 10317 (2011 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE ACCESS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987 and revised the
Plan in 1990 and 1995 and revised and retitled the Plan in 2002; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan contains policies and programs to encourage
housing
development in the downtown core, including allowing more flexible parking regulations for
housing developments through amendments to the Zoning Regulations and Access and Parking
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted public
hearings on May 25, 2011, July 27, 2011, and August 24, 2011, and recommended approval of
amendments to Access and Parking Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
November 15 ,
2011 to consider amendments to the Access and Parking Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Negative Declaration of environmental
impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings . The Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause
significant health, safety or welfare concerns.
2. The proposed amendments further the goals and policies of the General Plan in support
of downtown residential development.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (GPI/ER 83-07) prepared for the
Access and Parking Management Plan and Zoning Regulations amendments adequately
addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the
independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration.
Page 575 of 712
19
Page 576 of 712
council
M.6"D,
July 16,2002
agenba izEpoat
ltm.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Works s*"
Prepared By: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner ES
SUBJECT: 2002 UPDATE OF THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
DISPOSITION OF UNRESOLVED PARKING AND ACCESS ISSUES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should;
1. Adopt a resolution approving a Negative Declaration .and adopting the Access and Parking
Management Plan (July 2002).
2. Review unresolved parking and access issues and identify those that should be considered for
inclusion as a Council Goal in the upcoming 2003-2005 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
This agenda report presents two separate but related elements. Staff recommends that the City
Council first adopt a resolution adopting the Access and Parking Management Plan (July 2002)
Recommendation #1), then discuss unresolved parking issues and, by motion, act on
Recommendation#2.
A. Amending the Parking Management Plan. At its April 30, 2002 meeting, the City Council
directed staff to schedule a Council business item to consider amending the 1995 Parking
Management Plan (PMP). The limited scope of these amendments was to include the variety of
parking demand management and parking management activities (called Tier 1 and Tier 2
activities)previously acted on by the Council. These activities are identified in Appendix A.2 of the
updated plan. In addition to Council direction, staff has updated the PMP to include the following
minor changes:
1. Revise the Introduction on page 4 to reflect major events that have occurred since the plan was
last amended in 1995;
2. Change the references to the Business Improvement Area throughout the document to the
Downtown Association•,
3. Amend Actions 1.9 and 2.6 to reflect the fact that the City now provides 15-minute parking in
the downtown. Change Policy 7.5 to reflect recent changes in the Municipal Code that address
petition requirements for Residential Parking Districts.
4. Change the title of the plan to"Access and Parking Management Plan"as suggested by Council
Member Marx. Staff supports this change since the Plan now includes alternative access
strategies(Tier 1 and 2). 6-1
Page 577 of 712
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Page 2
A legislative draft of the amended and retitled Plan accompanies this report as Exhibit A to
Attachment 1. Staff has prepared an Initial Environmental Study(Attachment 2) that evaluates the
impacts of the proposed amendments and the Community Development Director has recommended
that a Negative Declaration be granted.
Staff wants to emphasize that, in order to update the PMP at this time, the Council should limit its
review of language amendments to only-those areas already acted on by the Council. Matters not
yet acted on should be handled in the manner suggested below.
B. Review of Unresolved Parking and Access Issues. At its April 30, 2002 meeting,the Council
also directed that the Planning Commission consider some of the more costly and complex parking
demand reduction proposals (called Tier 3) and determine if the Commission is capable of
administering these programs or whether a new standing or ad hoc advisory body should be created
to do this work. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the Tier 3 proposals at its July
10, 2002 meeting, with recommendations forthcoming to the City Council.
However, beyond those issues that are covered by Tier 1, 2 and 3 activities, there remains
unresolved issues that were addressed by the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP).
These residual issues have been debated from time to time by the City Council over the past five
years. Staff has identified them below. The City Council should review each issue and identify
those that should be considered for inclusion as a Council Goal in the upcoming 2003-2005
Financial Plan. Staff recommendations for the disposition of each issue are provided below.
Issue 1: Establishing.Parking Utilization Thresholds(triggers). The draft PDAP includes a
series of parking utilization thresholds that would need to be exceeded before the design and
constriction of additional parking garages could proceed. Staff believes that existing and future
City Councils will fully consider the issue of"need" before committing millions of dollars to
additional parking structures and that each project will be subject to significant public scrutiny
and input. Therefore including "triggers" in the Access and Parking Management Plan that
either stifle or permit new structures is unwarranted.
Staff.Recommendation: Exclude from further consideration. The need for additional parking
strictures will be established as part of the Financial Planning process.
Issue 2: Implementation Timing of PDR and Parking Supply Activities. The City Council has
been approving PDR and parking management activities on an ad hoc basis. The preparation of
each Financial Plan will involve City Councils establishing financial priorities for PDR and parking
supply projects. The current 1995 Parking Management Plan calls for these types of projects.
However, it does not address the balancing of effort between constructing parking structures and
reducing downtown employee parking demand, nor does it include methodologies for determining
the success or failure of individual or combined PDR activities.
Staff Recommendation: Include for consideration as a Council Goal as part of the 2003-05
Financial Plan to study policy options for balancing supply and demand reduction activities and
establishing performance standards for each. This further analysis would not attempt top4lish
specific time frames (tied to calendar years) but should evaluate the appropriate sege of
Page 578 of 712
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Page 3
implementation, with levels of effort being set by the Financial Plan process. Depending on the
level of interest expressed by the Planning Commission at its July l0a'
meeting, the Commission
may assist Council in reviewing and prioritizing the different strategies.
Issue 3: Location of Parking Structures and Priorities. The draft Parking and Downtown
Access Plan (PDAP) divided the community's central area into quadrants, forecast parking demand
within these quadrants, then established general parking garage locations (Palm H, Fremont
Quadrant, Palm-Nipomo and Wells Fargo as optional sites). Recent history has shown that
redevelopment of downtown properties (the Court Street Project and the County Administrative
Complex) has a major influence on parking structure location,size, and priority. Availability and
configuration of property, potential zoning changes (eg. the CC Zone expansion proposal) and
compliance with General Plan and Parking Management Plan policies are other factors that have a
major influence on site selection and project scale. Given the fluid nature of downtown changes,
staff believes that establishing fixed locations and priorities, and committing to garage construction
may have limited value.
Staff Recommendation: Exclude from further consideration. Staff believes that existing and
future City Councils will thoroughly evaluate opportunities and constraints when determining the
appropriate location for a parking garage or when setting implementation priorities.
Furthermore, decisions to select specific sites are subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). An environmental document and the public review process required by CEQA
will be required when specific sites are officially selected for garage development.
CONCURRENCES
On Friday, June 28, 2002, the Downtown Association Parking Committee reviewed the
administrative draft of the PMP. The Committee suggested that certain minor technical changes
be incorporated into the Plan. These changes are identified by item A.4 on the first page of this
Agenda Report. The DA Parking Committee passed the following motions:
1. The Downtown Association Board should concur with the revisions to the Parking
Management Plan, including the technical changes recommended by the Parking Committee.
2. The Downtown Association Board should ask the City Council to be informed of the
schedule for undertaking a more comprehensive revision of Parking Management Plan and
include the Downtown Association as part of that revision process.
FISCAL IMPACT
Amending the Parking Management Plan will have no fiscal impact to the City.
ALTERNATIVES. The City Council may:
1. Continue consideration of one or both of the action items and request additional information
from staff.
6-3
Page 579 of 712
I
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Page 4
2. Consider incorporating other amendments into the Access and Parking Management Plan so
long as these supplementary amendments do not increase environmental concerns beyond those
addressed in the Initial Environmental Study.
3. Delay consideration of updating the Parking Management Plan until Planning Commission
recommendations on Tier 3 activities are received and acted on.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution Amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan
Exhibit A: Legislative Draft of the 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Attachment.2: Initial Environmental Study for Amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan
6-4
Page 580 of 712
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING AND RETITLING THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 8480 (1996 SERIES)
WHEREAS, the City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987 and revised the plan
in 1990 and 1995; and
WHEREAS,the City recognizes its responsibility to effectively manage parking throughout the
community to help maintain the quality of life in residential areas and the economic and cultural
vitality of the commercial core; and
WHEREAS,the City further recognizes that reducing the employee demand for private vehicle
parking through implementation of trip reduction measures also contributes to the downtown's
economic-and cultural vitality and quality of environment; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the revised and retitled
Parking Management Plan, has determined that its implementation will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, and has prepared a Negative Declaration consistent with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental determination
made by the Community Development Director, and has determined that it is prudent to revise the
Parking Management Plan to maintain consistency with the Circulation Element and to refine
parking and access management policies and programs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
1. Council finds no significant environmental impact. The findings of the environmental review
of the revised Parking Management Plan will not result in any significant environmental
impact and the Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the revised Plan.
2. The revised Parking Management Plan, retitled the "Access and Parking Management Plan
July 2002), "attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.
3. Copies of the Access and Parking Management Plan (July 2002) will be distributed to City
departments and made available to the public at the Public Works Department and City Clerk's
offices.
On motion of seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 92002.
616
Page 581 of 712
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 —Resolution No. 2002 Series)
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
e,olyd
Agor y Jorgensen
6-5
Page 582 of 712
EXHIBIT A
MY of San WIS OBISPO
ACCESS AND PARKING
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Updated Decembet 1995
R TIN 700?
CITY
II
f l
sir-n-_..- i--f ''
wt .J ®
roti
OF SAN LUIS / : ' /
PUBLIC WORKS SECTION
61 Chorro Street, Suite C San Luis Obispo, California 93401
1
Page 583 of 712
city of san luis ® IS ®
ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT
PLAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Allen K. Settle,Mayor
Jan Howell Marx,Vice Mayor
John Ewan
Ken Schwartz
Christine Mulholland
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike McCluskey, Director
Timothy Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
CITY ADNUNISTRATION
Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer
Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer
i
6-8
Page 584 of 712
CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANS
The City of San Luis Obispo adopts and maintains plans that help direct the implementation of the
General Plan Circulation Element. These plans include:
Title of Document Status
Access Parking Management Plan (this document) i 1pdated 1nly, -O(l?
Bicycle Transportation Plan i l=dated May,2M
Short Range Transit Plan Adopted November, 1997
Pavement Management Plan Adopted February, 1988
For more information about City transportation plans, projects and programs, contact the San Luis
Obispo Public Works Department, Transportation Division at(805) 781-7210.
2
6-9
Page 585 of 712
o TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Introduction............................................................................................................................................4
Relationship to Other Plans and Policies..............................................................................................4
Scopeof Plan.........................................................................................................................................5
ParkingManagement Goals ...................................................................................................................6
Definitions .........................................................................................:...................................................6
GeneralUse of Parking..........................................................................................................................7
EmployeeUse of Parking......................................................................................................................8
JurorUse of Parking..............................................................................................................................9
Expansionof Parking ..........................................................................•...............................................10
Enforcement.............................................:...........................................................................................10
Financing of Commercial Core Parking............................................:................................................11
ResidentialParking ••••.........................................................................................................................12
Program Administration and Promotion.............................................................................................12
APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking.......14
A 2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Rednction Programs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15
A.23. Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts............................................:..............................16
A.34 City Council Resolution # 2.002 Series. revising this VInn........................ ..............17
3
6-10
Page 586 of 712
o INTRODUCTION
Between 1977 and 1987, a number of studies were conducted to assess the vehicle parking situation
in downtown San Luis Obispo. As a result of this work, the City built two parking structures that
house 669 vehicles. The first parking structure located at the corner of Palm and Morro Streets was
completed in 1988. The second garage at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets was completed in
1990. An expansion of the Marsh Street garage that add-, 342 .spaces (net increase of 745 nacecl
will he completed in Sed temher 2002_ These three pmjectc resulted in a total of 1,007 garage
spaces In addition, the City manages over 1,600 spaces located in surface lots and along
downtown streets. Another result of these early parking studies was the City's adoption of its first
Parking Management Plan in 1987. The management plan was updated in 1990 and again in 1995
to reflect the completion of some of the major parking projects, and to better define management
policies.
In February 1993, a group of local architects and designers completed a Conceptual Physical Plan
for the City's Center (commonly known as the Downtown Concept Plan). The City Council has
adopted, in concept,the Plan and feels that it should be considered when making planning decisions
that affect the City's center- The Plan was revised in 1997 to reflect changes to the Court Street
Parking l.nt area The Concept Plan suggests that a number of new parking structures be built and
that the pedestrian character of the commercial core be improved.
In November 1994, the City adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The adopted
Circulation Element directs the City to conduct studies of downtown parking needs and to consider
ways of reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of other types of transportation. The
Circulation Element also directs the reevaluation of the use of curb space in the commercial core
with the aim of creating more short-term parking spaces.
This plan has been revised to address a number of events and decisions that have occurred since
19965,including the following:
Q in 1997, a Downtown Parking and Access Plan was completed by Meyer-Mohaddee and
Associates_ While never adopted by the City Council, this draft plan estimated fimirear: king
demand, identified candidatean rking garage location-, as well as a variety of actions that the
City could take to hetter manage its currentap rking supply and reduce employee demand for
downtownar:king-
Ac a way of incrementally implementingthe draft Dnwntnwn Parking and Access Plan,the.
Council authorized the implementation of a variety of meacnrec to encourage employpec to nce
means other than their private vehicle-, to access the downtown in Inly 7001 a "C,nld Pacc"
program was initiated that provides subsidized montbly transit passes to downtown emI2Iny=y-
Parking stalls for car =only have also been reserved in existing arking_ctnirhirec Other
parking management activities have also been pursued_ Appendix A_2 identifies these.ap rn nved
activities_
Q On 05/01/2001 the City Council amended Section 6 1 of the Parking Management Plan to
4
6-11
Page 587 of 712
provide clarity on the use.,of Parking Find revenues
Q The City Council approved a Memorandum of I Jndemtanding (M011) with private nrorrtv
developers that, among other things, calls for the constniction of.9 new parking stmcttire nn the
southeast corner of Palm and Morrn Streets that will house 243 vehicles This project is
designed to satisfyap rking demand created by the retirement of the Court S tap rking int and
the development of a retail commercial project on that site (theeelands Project")
Q The City Council authorized its staff to solicit proposals from consultants to prepare s h math
plans for aap rking-mixed use facility east of Santa Rosa Street Entitled the "North Area
Regional Facility(NARF),"this design work will investig tae opportunities for cnnstmcting new
parking garages to serve the downtown core and the expanded County Administrative
Complex
The San Luk Obispo Downtown Association participated
in the review of this the 1995 Parking Management Plan. This updated plan will be used as a
management tool to help direct how vehicle parking should be provided and used throughout San
Luis Obispo and how the demand for downtown aprkingwillhemanaged.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES
The City's General Plan Land Use Element establishes the pattern of land uses throughout San Luis
Obispo. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be
provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element. One of these transportation services is
vehicle parking. This plan provides specific direction for the management of vehicle parking in a
way that supports the Circulation Element's overall transportation strategy. This plan focuses on
the management of vehicle parking in the community's commercial core. Parking of bicycles is
addressed by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (20.02 1993) but is an issue that is relevant to the use
of City parking structures and surface lots.
SCOPE OF THIS PLAN
This plan establishes vehicle parking policies and programs that apply throughout San Luis Obispo.
However, its primary focus is the management of parking in the commercial core. This plan also
identifies, inpp ndi x A ?. ap=ved management techniques for better using exighng parking
sees,and for reducing the employee demand forap rking spaces in the nmm r ial core
This plan may be revised from time to time to address parking needs in areas beyond and within the
commercial core. For more information about City parking programs, contact the Parking Section
of the Public Works Department at(805)781-7230.
MEM PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS
5
6-12
Page 588 of 712
I i
Support the commercial core as a viable economic and cultural center and preserve its historic
character.
Support the goals of the Domitown eoncept Pim, Conceptual P yciral Plan firer thy'--y
Canter.
Provide enough parking in the commercial core for visitors and employees.
Reduce the demand for employee parking through various programs such as carpooling,
vanpools,transit suhsidieSand hicycle and pedestrian systems development_
Support the transportation strategy presented in the General Plan Circulation Element.
C3Except as officivyise stzftd aird vvidifi, badget constraints, Cant' out actions described in this
plan wiffrin five yezus of its adupdon by die eity eumicii within budget constrains and
consistent with Financial Plan goals and policies that are undated ey=two years-
15WEM DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases used throughout this plan have the following meanings:
Commercial Core is the central business district in San Luis Obispo. Its boundaries are the same
as the Downtown Association Area (see Appendix
A.1).
Commercial Deliveries are made to businesses in the commercial core using trucks that are
commercially licensed.
Downtown Business frupiuvement 21aex (BW Downtown Association (DA) Advisory Board
is an 11-member group established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 by the City Council
to promote the economic health of the commercial core. The DA (and its advisory committees)
participates in the development of City programs that affect the downtown and provide advise to
City staff and the City Council.
Long-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered, are located along streets, in monthly permit
lots or parking structures,and typically allow parking for 10 hours or more.
Parking Structures are multi-level buildings that are managed by the City and provide parking for
the general public, commercial core employees,and jurors at the Palm Street parking structure.
Short-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered and typically have a two-hour or less time
limit.
6
6-13
Page 589 of 712
Oiibi GENERAL USE OF PARKING POLICIES
1.1 The City should maximize the use of all parking structures and surface lots.
1.2 The City should encourage any development of surface parking lots in the commercial core
to conform, to the degree possible, to the Bomitom, Physiml Pimi "Conce teal Physical
Plan for the City's Center."
1.3 Curb parking spaces are intended for short-term parking. People parking for longer periods
should use monthly permit lots and long-term metered spaces and parking structures.
1.4 The City may install parking meters or post parking time limits where at least 75% of a
block's frontage is developed with commercial uses. The City will consider requests by a
majority of residential and commercial property owners along a block to install parking
controls.
1.5 Thirty-minute parking spaces shall be placed at the ends of blocks in the commercial core
where short-term parking is needed. The City will consider requests by property owners to
locate 30-minute spaces at other locations.
1.6 Parking for commercial deliveries in the commercial core should be managed so that:
Illegal double parking or excessive circulation by delivery vehicles is discouraged.
Q Deliveries are discouraged during peak traffic periods and during retail business hours.
Merchants may consider lockbox systems that allow for unassisted nighttime access for
deliveries.
Oversized vehicles do not attempt deliveries.
ACTIONS
1.7 The City will:
C3 Publicize the availability of parking spaces in underused lots and will offer incentives to
increase their use.
3 Take actions that better direct people to parking structures and underused parking lots
and long t .rm metered .nrhan rking aromas
7
6-14
Page 590 of 712
3 Continue to offer permits for 10-hour metered parking spaces.
Maintain long-term metered spaces on Pacific Street and along side streets near the
Marsh Street parking structure for overflow parking,but periodically evaluate their use.
1.8 The City will consider:
Allowing the mixture of daily and monthly parking in underused permit lots.
Managing employee use of the Marsh Street parking structure so that (A) more spaces
can be reserved for shoppers, and (B) more employees are encouraged to use the Palm
Street structure,which has more vacant spaces.
1.9 City staff will periodically evaluate and revise as appropriate:
c3 The placement of 15-and 30-minute parking meters.
The layout of existing parking lots or structures when they are resurfaced or restriped
with the aim of. (a) maximizing their use, (b) improving circulation, and (c) complying
with requirements to provide parking for the disabled.
The use of curb space in the downtown (including no parking and loading zones) to
identify opportunities for creating more short-term spaces.
Q The optimum mixture of long- and short-term metered spaces and the expansion of
metered curb areas.
1.10 If congestion levels in the commercial core exceed standards set by the Circulation
Element,the City will adopt an ordinance that limits times for commercial deliveries.
EMPLOYEE USE OF PARKING
POLICIES
2.1 Employee parking programs will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Circulation Element.
2.2 The City and County should develop programs that reduce the number of their employees
that are driving alone to work.
2.3 Commercial core employers should establish programs that encourage employees to:
C3 Use Palm Street Parking Structure, monthly permit lots, and long-term metered spaces.
s
6-15
Page 591 of 712
I
Use other types of transportation to get to work or to carpool. A listing of Council-
approved pro=ms is included aS Appendix A
ACTIONS
2.4 The City will establish a program in the commercial core that fosters carpooling by
employees and visitors.
2.5 The Downtown Association (DA) and Chamber
of Commerce should sponsor on-going education programs that discourage employees from
using curb parking and promote alternate transportation.
2.6 The City should discourage long-term employee use of curb parking in the commercial core
by:
Q Expanding areas with two-hour parking limits when needed to maintain convenient
customer parking opportunities.
c3 Monitoring the use of 15-and 30-minutes curb spaces;
Consider increasing the fines for overtime violations;
Q As requested, consider establishing resident parking districts in areas adjoining the
commercial core and office districts.
2.7 The City will institute a trip reduction program for its employees in compliance with goals
established by the Circulation Element.
2.8 The City should develop a bulk discount rate for its transit passes without negatively
affecting transit funding. Employers should purchase passes and make them available to
employees who substitute riding the bus for driving to work.
2.9 The City will install bicycle lockers at convenient locations in the commercial core and will
promote their use by commercial core employees on a space-available basis..
2.10 The City will work with to consider park-and-ride lots that serve the commute needs of
commercial core employees. The City will evaluate outlying parking lots for their use by
commercial core employees with a shuttle connecting these lots with the core.
JUROR USE OF PARKING
9
6-16
Page 592 of 712
POLICIES
3.1 The City will provide free parking for jurors in the Palm Street parking structure or in
metered spaces when the Palm Street parking structure is full or when a juror drives an
oversized vehicle as per the agreement with the County for limited use.
ACTIONS
3.2 City staff will work with the Jury Commissioner to inform prospective jurors of the City's
parking policies. Staff will monitor the amount of jury parking and inform the Jury
Commissioner if overflow parking becomes a problem.
Mwoqw EXPANSION OF PARKING
POLICIES
4.1 Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and
patrons of government and private offices.
4.2 Building parking structures is the best way of providing more parking facilities while
minimizing the use of valuable commercial land. City-owned land earmarked for parking
structures may be used as temporary surface parking lots..
4.3 Existing City-owned surface parking lots purchased by the Parking Fund which are not
earmarked for parking structure locations may be sold to finance expansion of parking in
permanent structures when and after new parking structures have been built to take their
place.
4.4 Parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial
core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities.
ACTIONS
4.5 Develop a program to encourage use of underutilized parking lots, which would benefit the
commercial core.
ViiiR ENFORCEMENT
POLICIES
5.1 Parking laws will be strictly enforced to:
G Discourage overtime parking;
io
6-17
Page 593 of 712
C3 Discourage habitual parking violations--people with six or more violations;
Encourage meter payments; and
C3 Direct people parking for long periods to use long-term parking spaces.
ACTIONS
5.2 City enforcement officers will strictly enforce all parking laws, especially overtime
violations and the misuse of loading zones.
5.3 The City in cooperation with the Downtown Association will develop a plan to discourage
habitual violators.
4 FINANCING OF COMMERCIAL CORE PARKING
POLICIES
6.1 The City's Parking Program will be self-supporting. The principal purpose of Parking
Fund revenues will be used to:
a) Maintain and expand parking operations and supply, including effective parking
demand reduction programs, and
b) Repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures.
Pilot or "test case"parking demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that
they are well defined and monitored for a defined period of time, and a measurement of
effectiveness is predetermined.
6.2 Commercial core merchants, business owners, and property owners should help finance the
parking program.
ACTIONS
6.3 The City will deposit all revenues from parking fines into the Parking Fund.
6.4 The City will:
Review parking meter and citation rates every two years and make adjustments as
needed
Continue to charge variable rates for different types of parking.
limits. (Note:_this.action.was.implemented.iri
6-1V
Page 594 of 712
20,01.)
7 Continue to collect in-lieu fees from development projects in the commercial core.
for changc'.;(Note:athis_action was implemented ui.2001.)
Consider new fee programs applicable to commercial core merchants, business owners,
and property owners.
6.5 The City, upon Council direction, will evaluate the elimination of parking meters in the
commercial core and the creation of a comprehensive financing plan to finance the Parking
Program.
lummum RESIDENTIAL PARKING POLICIES
7.1 Parking along streets in residential areas should be used by residents and their guests.
However, no individual household has the exclusive right to use a particular section of curb
parking and curb parking is not guaranteed in front of each household.
7.2 The City may prohibit or limit curb parking in residential areas to ensure safe traffic flow,
pedestrian crossing conditions or to install motor vehicle or bicycle lanes consistent with the
Circulation Element or the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
7.3 The City will create residential parking districts when needed to manage parking and
maintain the quality of life in residential areas.
7.4 All residential parking districts must comply with provisions of Section 10.36.170 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
ACTIONS
7.5 Upon receiving a petition from the a 60%, majority of affected residents living within a
proposed parking district, the City Council may create a district consistent with provisions
of the municipal code. (For the location of existing Residential Parking Districts, see
Appendix A.23)
PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTION
POLICIES
8.1 The City's Parking Manager is responsible for interpreting and implementing the provisions
of this plan.
8.2 As the need arises, the City will evaluate the potential for hiring a private company to
12
6-19
Page 595 of 712
J
manage its parking structures.
8.3 The Parking Manager will continue to work with the
BWj Downtown Association (DA)Chamber of Commerce, and County government to
cooperatively implement this plan.
8.4 The Parking Manager will undertake a wide range of actions to make the public aware of
the provisions of this plan.
8.5 Applications for amending the Parking Management Plan shall be filed with the City's
Parking Manager. Applications will receive an extensive review process and will be acted
on no more frequently than annually by the City Council.
APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking
A2 Approved Parking Management and demand Reduction Pmgramz.
A.-23 Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts
A.34 City Council Resolution# 995 2002 Series)revising this plan
13
6-20
Page 596 of 712
e g o:se Y 2SRmR . m p9GJFORwul•w Aa
a mJILJ El __ a U
F GG
slRs
o
mm n.
IIIY tttW
WWyy
Y a [EDIUAOR.
G
7 142 m
oaam n.
Z N
Spir]
E hf
men.
O a3 g
i
G G LY
e-r.Rl...%LL.. '.:+. _
FR ........•
I .
mon.
m
mmm R.
Cao
OD6 -000t 00tt 110zt OOfI sort
O
m • rml r a
mh
0 N • 0 I
v
R m
N c O I >t 2
H OM
g EEID —_
aOU
GN J
G F L O
O
W o v a
LFA
a I N
fq zoaaa-
C e z
1
wSmfY Nb Nm J .00n N D
s- 0m N
W
O
b
V C W 4•
Q
asps s p
Q "'
mUo2 Z3 1 p
6 1 Page 597 of 712
APPENDIX A.2
Approved Parking Management and
Demand Reduction Programs
Description Status
Parkin Demand Reduction Programs
1 Increase the maximum charge for garage parking Approved/Completed
2 Transit Dass subsidies for downtown em to ees A roved/Com feted
3 Reduce monthly parkingass costs for high-occupancy vehicles A roved/Com leted
4 Improve bic cle access to the downtown A roved/On oin
5 Establish an advertising program for downtown parking demand Approved/Ongoing
reduction PDR programs
6 j Encourage the county to establish a trip reduction program similar to the Approved/Ongoing
Ci 's Prozram
Pa Idne Management Pro ms
1 Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes Approved/Completed
2 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better Approved/Completed
reflect the cost of downtown parking
3 Increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and limit long-term Approved/Completed
parking
Respond to citizen proposals to establish residential parking districts in Approved/Ongoing
neighborhoods adioining the downtown.
4 Increase long-term parking at the periphe1y of the downtown I Approved/Ongoing
5 Work with the Downtown Association to establish a program for Approved/Ongoing
discoaLaZing habitual violators
15 6_''2
Page 598 of 712
1 i11
I:s
Orr• e.•,.1 _
ice.'! :r,f .
i
wool
Y.A A.
1 i Page 599 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
INITIAL, STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER
1. Project Title: Access and Parking Management Plan(July 2002)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tent' Sanville (805-781-7178)
4. Project Location: City-wide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable
7. Zoning: Not Applicable
8. Description of the Project: Amend the 1995 Parking Management Plan to reflect program decisions
made by the City Council during 2001 & 2002. Modifications to the plan includes a listing of
approved Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) and Parking Management measures included in
Appendix A.2 of the plan.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Not Applicable
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Not Applicable
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
6-24
Page 600 of 712
4° community development ocpmtment
mcmomnaum
April 11, 2002
TO: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
FROM: Michael Draw
Deputy Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ER 88-02
1995 Parking Management Plan Update
On June 5, 2002, 1 reviewed your project's potential effect on the
environment. I found that the project, as applied for, will not have a
significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact will be prepared.
A Notice of our "Intention to Adopt" the Negative Declaration will be prepared
and a public hearing on the environmental document and the project will be
scheduled before a decision making body. The decision making body may
modify or reverse my decision to prepare a Negative Declaration based on
their review of the project and public comment received at the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please contact my office at 781-7171 as soon as
possible.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
805) 781-7171 FAX:(805) 781-7173 6-25
Page 601 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation_
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more.
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
6-26
Page 602 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, --X--
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
July 1,2002
Signature Date
For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Dv.
6-27
Page 603 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document.should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damagescenic resources, including,,but not X
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings;open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversel effect da_of.ni- httime views in the area? . _`__T
Comment: Since no specific physical facilities are identified in the amended Parking Management Plan, it is premature to
evaluate the aesthetic impact of potential parking facilities. Impacts will depend on the particular sites selected,the height of
the structures and the particular architectural style selected.
6-28
Page 604 of 712
P% i I r%..nlnr.114 1 c
Issues, Discussion and Suppor nformation Sources Sources Pc 'ly Potentially Less Than No
Sigi....aant Significant Significant Impact
ER#
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment;which,due X
to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use? I - t
Comment: Policies and programmed contained within the Parking Management Plan affect fully urbanized areas in the
community's downtown commercial core or other parts of the build environment. Provisions of this plan do not involve
agricultural lands or the conversion of land from agriculture to urban use.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Comment: the changes being made to the Parking Management Plan are the inclusion of TDM measures. These measures are
designed to reduce demand for parking by fostering the use of other non-polluting forms of transportation or improving the
efficiency of motorized transportation (i.e. carpools, vanpools, or enhanced transit use). Therefore the PMP amendments
should have a positive impact on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) .Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as.a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or, X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fi'sh and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e:g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native .
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
Te) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other,approv_ed
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA6FJ9'ST 2001
Page 605 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Suppor. hformation Sources Sources Ptly Potentially Less Than No
Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlandsas defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
including,but not limited to,marshes,vemal pools,etc
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Comment: Policies and programmed contained within the Parking Management Plan affect fully urbanized areas in the
community's downtown commercial core or other parts of the build environment. Provisions of this plan do not involve
important biological resources,wetlands,or riparian areas.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Comment: Since no specific physical facilities are identified in the amended Parking Management Plan, it is premature and
too speculative to evaluate the impact of potential parking facilities on cultural facilities. Impacts will depend on the
particular sites selected and its potential for containing significant archaeological or historic architectural resources. These
types of evaluation should be done at the time that alternative sites are being selected.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value.to the region and the residents of the
State?
Comment: Proposed revisions to the PMP encourage the use of non-vehicular transportation which should have a positive
impact on the use of non-renewable energy sources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
11. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
IIl. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides ormudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable;or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as,defried in Table 18=1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating_ substantial risks to life
or property?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA614"I ST 2001
Page 606 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER#
Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Comment: geological impacts will depend on the location of parking facilities and their design. Since the PMP does not
specify articular locations, it is premature and too speculative to evaluate this issue.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
though the routine uue,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of apublic airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?'
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments: At the time that any facility is proposed for construction in compliance with PMP policies, the presence of any
hazardous materials and their mitigation will be evaluated as part of that project's environmental documents. The presence of
hazardous materials is too variable throughout the community and it is too speculative to address potential impacts at this
program level.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result insubstantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL31
CHECKLIST 2001Page 607 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?X
Comments: construction of all parking facilities will address both State and Federal standards for storm water runoff. Other
site-specific concerns must be addressed at the time that specific parking facility sites are proposed for development.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
Comment: including provisions for TDM programs is consistent with the Circulation Element policies that call for reduced
dependence on the use of private motor vehicles.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Comment: noise impacts will be evaluated at the time that specific parking facility sites are considered for selection or when
articular facilities are proposed for construction.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Comment: most parking facilities are located in commercial districts and do not displace housing. The policies of the PMP
suggest that parking is a "support use" to land uses envisioned by the adopted General Plan. Therefore, so long as the
provision of parking is linked to planned growth in the downtown, it is not growth inducing.
6-32
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001Page 608 of 712
1.
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Lnpac[
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?. X
Other public facilities? X
Comment: construction of additional parking facilities will require an increased maintenance effort on the part of the City.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Comment: inclusion of TDM measures targeted at downtown employees can free up parking spaces for people accessing the
downtown for urban recreation purposes.
15. TRANSPORTATIONlfRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
a) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,.
noise,or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Comment: inclusion of specific TDM measures within the PMP acts to incrementally reduce impacts on transportation
facilities. To the extent that TDM programsare successful,they can reduce private vehicle travel demand.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which_serves or may_serve the,project that it has_adequate.__.._._
6-33
psi CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001Page 609 of 712
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Comment: parking facilities or TDM measures have no or very low impact on waste management and aze not high generators
of waste water.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Comment: inclusion of TDM measures and their funding mechanism within the PMP will tend to reduce impacts associated
with sole reliance on private motor vehicles for access to the communi 's commercial core.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
Comment: any im acts of the proposed revisions to the plan are positive.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
Comment: to the extent that TDM measures are successful, impacts to human beings (improved air quality, less noise, less
traffic congestion)should be positive.
6-34
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001Page 610 of 712
C
ATTACHMENT 2
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EK or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. 'Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a)_Earlier anal s used: Identify earlier anal ses and state,where_the _are available for review.
bj Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within. the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlieranal sis.
C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
s ecific conditions of the project.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Attachments:
REQUHZED MITIGATION AND MONITORING.PROGRAMS
1. Mitigation
Monitoring Program:
2. Mitigation
Monitoring Program:
3. Mitigation
Monitoring Program:
6-35
Page 611 of 712
RED-FILE
10 July 2002 MEETING AGENDA
To:Mike McCluskey, Public Works
Orem #
From: Deborah Holley,Downtown Association
Re:Parking Management Plan Update
At the Downtown Association Board of Directors meeting of 9 July, 2002, the Board
approved the recommendation of the Parking and Access committee which was as
follows:
To approve parking and management plan updates as presented to Parking& Access
committee with recommended changes.
fsOUiv CDD DIR
0 G FIN DIR
AO FIRE CHIEF
ORNEY C PW DIRCLERK'ORIG C POLICE CHFPIHEADSCRECDIR
C LITIL DIR
HR DIR
RECEIVED
JUL .1 1 "n"
SLO CITY CL;
Page 612 of 712
counci l
j ac en ea iepoIt
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :Kim Murry : Acting Community Development Directo r
Prepared By : Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planne r
Brian Leveille, Associate Planne r
Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planne r
SUBJECT : REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 17 :
ZONING REGULATIONS AND REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS TO TH E
ACCESS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN .
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission :
1.Introduce by title only an ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to Title 1 7
Zoning Regulations) of the Municipal Code .
2.Approve a resolution amending the Access and Parking Management Plan to support
downtown residential parking .
DISCUSSIO N
Backgroun d
Consistent with on-going efforts to update and improve various development regulations, th e
Community Development Department has prepared a draft update to the City's Zonin g
Regulations . Periodic review of City documents is necessary to ensure that regulations are clear ,
consistent, effectively implement the goals and policies of the General Plan, and remain curren t
with respect to relevant state regulations . The last update to the Zoning Regulations wa s
completed one year ago in September 2010 . Planning staff is committed to periodically updatin g
the Zoning Regulations to reflect current best practices and minimize the number o f
interpretations necessary for their implementation . Based on direction from the Plannin g
Commission and City Council over the past year, and staff's experience working daily with th e
document, several corrections, updates, and modifications are recommended (Attachment 1).
Staff is also recommending more substantive revisions which are discussed below .
Proposed new language in the Zoning Regulations is underlined,and proposed deleted languag e
is shown in strikcthrough.Changes to Table 6 (Parking Requirements by Use), are show n
italicized and shaded .See Attachment 1, Text amendments in legislative draft format .
Planning Commission Hearings and Recommendation s
Zoning Code and Access and Parking Management Plan amendments recommended for adoptio n
include recommendations from the Planning Commission . The Commission held three separat e
meetings to review amendments to Downtown Residential Parking (GPI 83-07) in 2011, on Ma y
25 th , July 27 th and August 24th . The Planning Commission also reviewed staff recommende d
amendments which include follow up actions from last year's Council adopted Zoning Cod e
updates, and other corrections and updates which are part of staff's periodic updates (GPI 8-11);
Meeting Date
Item mbe
Page 613 of 712
Council Agenda Report – GPI 8-11 &GPI 83-0 7
November 15, 201 1
Page 2
which the Commission reviewed in 2011, on June 22 °a , July 13 th , and August 24th .
Previous Planning Commission reports and minutes from all previous meetings will be availabl e
for review in the Council Reading file .
Staff has included all of the Planning Commission recommended amendments from bot h
applications (GPI 83-07 & GPI 8-11) for discussion in this report and all recommende d
amendments are included in the attached legislative draft (Attachment 1), draft ordinanc e
Attachment 4), and draft resolution (Attachment 5). The discussion below follows the order o f
amendments in the legislative draft .
Main Areas of Discussio n
Chapter 17 .08 .110 (Homeless Shelters )
This modification is recommended in response to Council direction from last year's review o f
Zoning Code amendments which need to be modified for consistency with Housing Element
Policy 8 .19 . Housing Element Policy 8 .19 calls for establishing Zoning Regulations that allo w
for homeless shelters "by right" in at least one zoning district as required by state law (a projec t
allowed by right is not subject to discretionary review). In last year's review of propose d
amendments to allow for homeless shelters by right in the Public Facilities (PF) zone, Counci l
was not supportive of eliminating existing language that requires "adequate buffering" whe n
homeless shelters are proposed near R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods . Staff recommends provisions
for architectural review when homeless shelters are proposed adjacent to residentia l
neighborhoods . The requirements of this section only apply to homeless shelters in the PF zon e
which may be established by right without use permit approval . Homeless shelters proposed i n
other zones require Planning Commission use permit review .
Chapter 17 .16 .040 . (Table 5 .5 : Maximum Height by Zone )
Staff recommends adding the table to allow a more quick reference of height requirements fo r
each zone . No changes to height requirements by zone are proposed .
Chapter 17 .16 .050 . Fences, Walls, and Hedge s
Arbors
Current regulations place arbors in the same category as fences which is not practical since th e
maximum fence height allowed at the street yard property line is three feet . An arbor would hav e
to be located 20 feet from the property line in most cases . Planning Commission recommende d
amendments would allow light-weight pedestrian scale arbors (6-8 feet wide, max 8-9 feet tall )
along street yard property lines .
Fences on retaining walls
PH1-2Page 614 of 712
Council Agenda Report – GPI 8-11 &GPI 83-07
November 15, 201 1
Page 3
Recommended amendments are intended to reduce the number of unnecessary fence heigh t
exception applications . There are many properties in the City where there are existing retainin g
walls between properties due to natural grade changes . In these cases, when a new o r
replacement six foot fence is proposed to provide necessary privacy, fence height exceptio n
applications are required since the overall height of the fence is measured from the low side o f
the combined fence/wall and the maximum allowed height in "other yards" is six feet .
Recommended revisions would allow fences of a maximum six feet from the uphill side and an
overall height of nine feet (from lower grade side) without the need for fence height exceptio n
approval . The revised regulations do not apply if there is evidence that a modification to th e
grade has occurred from the original subdivision/design approvals . In cases where the grade ha s
been modified, proposals to exceed six feet of overall height will require approval of a fenc e
height exception consistent with existing regulations .
Downtown Residential Parking Amendment s
The City's General Plan contains policies and programs to encourage housing development in th e
downtown core, including several that address residential parking . Specifically, Land Use
Element (LUE) 4 .22 and Housing Element (HE) program 6 .9 and 6 .10 (Attachment 2) direct the
City to consider more flexible parking regulations for downtown housing development .
Over the past year, the Public Works Department and Planning Division have been workin g
together to formulate options that would effectively implement these policies and programs .
Staff attended four separate meetings with the parking sub-committee of the Downtow n
Association over the past year to review proposed amendments . The committee recommende d
modifications to the Municipal Code and to the Access and Parking Management Plan t o
implement the policy direction . The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Plannin g
Commission at three hearings (May 25, July 27 and August 24, 2011).
The Commission's recommendation included two code amendments designed to increas e
flexibility for residential units in the C-D zone . One amendment increases the distance allowed t o
off-site parking up to 1,250 feet (current limit is 500 feet); and the other amendment allows fo r
discretionary parking reductions to be granted by the Community Development Director (up t o
10%) or the Planning Commission (greater than 10%) for residential projects that provide a tri p
reduction plan or other justification that the reduction is warranted . Additionally, the amendmen t
includes relocating the code text that discusses parking for the C-D zone from MC 17 .42 into the
general parking section, MC 17 .16 .060, to allow all of the parking requirements to be within on e
chapter, increasing readability .
The Commission's recommendation also included amendments to the Access and Parkin g
Management Plan to implement the General Plan policies for more flexible parking regulation s
by adding a section on parking for downtown residents . Specifically, the Commission's
recommendation includes the following changes to the City's Access and Parking Managemen t
Plan :
PH1-3Page 615 of 712
Council Agenda Report — GPI 8-11 &GPI 83-07
November 15, 201 1
Page 4
1.Revise the Table of Contents to include a section on Downtown Residential Parking .
2.Expand the Parking Management Goals to support downtown residential parking .
3.Revise the definition of "Parking Structures" to include residential users .
4.Expand the General Use of Parking policies to allow the long term parking for residentia l
uses in City owned parking facilities .
5.Add a section on the Use of Parking for Downtown Residents that includes policies an d
actions .
The recommended changes are detailed in Exhibit A of Attachment 5 .
Chapter 17 .16 .060 . (Table 6 — Parking Requirements by Use)
This modification corrects an error from previous Zoning Code updates where Multi-famil y
parking requirements should have been modified to be consistent with changes to parkin g
requirements for the Multi-family development and the R-1 zone . No changes to parkin g
requirements for Multi-family parking are recommended .
Neighborhood Preservation (Chapter 17 .17 .075 )
Planning Commission recommended amendments would modify screening requirements of trash ,
recycling, and green waste receptacles, which were added by the City Council in last year's
Zoning Code update on September 7, 2010 . At the September 7th, 2010, Council meeting,a
provision was added which required trash, green waste, and recycling receptacles to b e
completely screened from public view . The provision was an addition to Planning Commissio n
recommended amendments that the receptacles be completely removed from the "front yard "
area unless placed out for pickup in accordance with Municipal Code requirements . The "fron t
yard" is defined as : The area of a residential lot that lies between the street property line and th e
walls of any residences that face the street (Ord . 1277, 1995). The Municipal Code states that th e
containers shall not be placed adjacent to the street for pickup more than 24 hours before picku p
time, and must be removed within the twelve-hour period following pickup .
Although the screening requirement is in the context of "front yards", it did not specify clearl y
that screening applies to "front yards" only, and refers to screening the receptacles from publi c
view . There are many properties in the city where receptacles have been stored in rear yard area s
along alley ways, or are partially screened but open on one side . Also, on a corner lot with tw o
street frontages, long-standing storage of trash receptacles in the side yard is a violation of th e
ordinance if visible from public view . This has created public confusion and enforcement issue s
for staff since the ordinance can be interpreted to mean that if receptacles are visible fro m
anywhere on the public right-of-way that the property is in violation . The recommende d
amendments are intended to clarify the screening requirements apply to the "front yard" area . The
recommended amendments also clarify how the regulations apply to multi-family developments .
Front Yard Parking
On September 7, 2010, The City Council considered Zoning Regulations Amendment s
forwarded from the Planning Commission . The Council adopted the Zoning Regulation
PH1-4Page 616 of 712
Council Agenda Report – GPI 8-11 &GPI 83-07
November 15, 201 1
Page 5
amendments and directed staff to return to Council with revised regulations on front yard
parking which are clear and enforceable . Council's direction on front yard parking regulation s
was based on public comment on the negative impact of vehicle parking in front yard area s
outside of driveways and approved parking spaces . In many areas of the City, makeshift parkin g
has expanded in front yard areas beyond driveways leading to garages or other approved parkin g
spaces . Landscaped areas of front yards have been eliminated and additional parking spaces hav e
been forced into front yard areas that were not designed to be parking areas and do not align wit h
the curb openings to the street . On April 19, 2011, Council directed staff to create a more robus t
enforcement program utilizing additional resources in the form of Neighborhood Service s
Specialists . The work program currently includes neighborhood parking and front yard parkin g
violations as one of the work program issues as a focus of Neighborhood Services Specialists .
On April 27, 2011, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss potentia l
amendments to the Zoning Code including front yard parking and fence height regulations . Th e
Commission raised numerous points including how to address previously approved parkin g
which may be non-conforming under the new regulations and enforcement strategies including a
strategy for roll out and how to achieve the most effective enforcement methods . Th e
Commission discussed whether property owners could be held responsible for repeated violation s
of tenants . The Commission also discussed the need for outreach to students and property owners
on the issue prior to beginning stepped up enforcement efforts . Staff anticipates returning to th e
Council in early 2012 with amendments to front yard parking regulations following outreach
efforts, Planning Commission review, and full consideration of legal and enforcemen t
constraints .
Business Park (Chapter 17 .49) & Growth Management (Chapter 17 .88 )
The Business Park Zoning (BP) chapter reflects already adopted regulations in the Airport Are a
and Margarita Area Specific Plans and no changes are proposed . The Business Park Regulation s
are being added to the Zoning Code for reference only . Amendments for the Growth
Management Regulations reflect recently adopted amendments approved by Council and n o
changes are recommended .
Environmental Revie w
On September 7, 2010, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration of Environmenta l
Impact for Zoning Code amendments (ER 3-10). The recommended Zoning Code amendment s
are a follow up to amendments previously reviewed by the Council, and there are no additiona l
modifications which would have the potential for significant impacts to the environment . An
Initial Study of Environmental Impact (GPI/ER 83-07) was prepared for Downtown Residentia l
Parking amendments and did not identify any impacts that were considered significant an d
unavoidable (Attachment 2). The Negative Declaration of environmental impact was
recommended by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2011 . Final adoption of the Negativ e
Declaration requires City Council approval .
PH1-5Page 617 of 712
Council Agenda Report — GPI 8-11 &GPI 83-0 7
November 15, 201 1
Page 6
FISCAL IMPAC T
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, whic h
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced . Accordingly, since the propose d
amendments are consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact .
ALTERNATIVE S
1.The Council could approve the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations an d
Parking and Access Plan with additional modifications .
2.The Council could determine that the proposed modifications would be inconsistent with
the General Plan and/or other policy documents, and therefore not approve th e
amendments .
3.The Council could continue review of the proposed Zoning Regulations and Parking an d
Access Plan amendments, and provide direction to staff for research and revisions .
ATTACHMENT S
1.Zoning Regulations Text Amendments (legislative draft )
2.Land Use Element and Housing Element General Plan Policie s
3.Initial Study of Environmental Impact (GPI 83-07 )
4.Draft ordinance introducing the text amendment s
5.Draft resolution amending the Access and Parking Management Pla n
COUNCIL READING FIL E
1 . Planning Commission Minutes (May 25, June 22, July 13, July 27, and August 24 ,
2011 )
2.Planning Commission Resolutions (May 25, June 22, July 13, July 27, and Augus t
24, 2011 )
3.Planning Commission staff reports (May 25, June 22, July 13, July 27, and Augus t
24, 2011 )
G :\CD-PLAN\BLeveill\Zoning code update 2011\Council Docs\11,15,01 CC Meeting Docs\11-15,2011, Zoning Regs Update Council Agenda
Report .doc
PH1-6Page 618 of 712
Chapter 2
CIRCULATION
Adopted: December 9, 2014
(Council Resolution No. 10586, 2014 Series)
Amended October 24, 2017
Page 619 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐2
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the
Strategic Growth Council. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the City of San Luis Obispo and
not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The
Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for
the information contained in this report.
Page 620 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of San Luis Obispo would like to thank and recognize the efforts of those involved in the development of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update and associated Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
City of San Luis Obispo
Citizens of San Luis Obispo The residents of the City who participated in the development of the LUCE
update.
City Council Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
John Ashbaugh
Dan Carpenter
Andrew Carter (Former)
Carlyn Christianson
Dan Rivoire
Kathy Smith (Former)
Planning Commission John Larson, Chairperson
Michael Multari,
Vice Chairperson
Hemalata Dandekar
Michael Draze
John Fowler
Ronald Malak
Eric Meyer (Former)
William Riggs
Airlin Singewald (Former)
Charles Stevenson (Former)
TF‐LUCE Walter Bremer
Russell Brown
Carlyn Christianson (Former)
Chuck Crotser
Hemalata Dandekar
Jon Goetz
Dave Juhnke
Stephan Lamb (Former)
Eric Meyer, Chairperson
Dean Miller (Former)
Michael Multari
Matt Quaglino
Pierre Rademaker
Chris Richardson
Rob Rossi
Sandra Rowley
Carla Saunders
Sharon Whitney
City Manager Katie Lichtig City Manager
Page 621 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐4
Please see the next page.
Page 622 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐5
CHAPTER 2 – CIRCULATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 2‐3
CHAPTER 2 – CIRCULATION .......................................................................................................................................... 2‐5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 2‐5
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐7
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................ 2‐7
1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 2‐9
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 2‐9
1.1. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐9
1.2. History ............................................................................................................................................................ 2‐9
1.3. Public Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 2‐9
1.4. For More Information .................................................................................................................................... 2‐9
1.5. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐9
1.6. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 2‐10
1.7. Transportation Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2‐10
2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2‐13
2.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐13
2.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐13
3. TRANSIT SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 2‐14
3.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐14
3.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐14
4. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................ 2‐16
4.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐16
4.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐17
5. WALKING ........................................................................................................................................................... 2‐18
5.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐18
5.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐19
6. MULTI‐MODAL CIRCULATION ............................................................................................................................. 2‐20
6.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐20
6.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐21
7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 2‐22
Overall Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 2‐22
7.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐22
7.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐22
Types of Streets ........................................................................................................................................................... 2‐27
7.3. Design Standards ......................................................................................................................................... 2‐27
8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 2‐29
8.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐29
8.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐30
9. STREET NETWORK CHANGES .............................................................................................................................. 2‐31
9.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐31
9.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐31
Page 623 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐6
10. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................. 2‐36
10.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐36
10.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐36
11. AIR TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 2‐38
11.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐38
11.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐38
12. RAIL TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................................... 2‐39
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity ................................................... 2‐39
12.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐39
12.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐39
13. PARKING MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2‐40
Commercial Parking .................................................................................................................................................... 2‐40
13.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐40
13.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐40
14. Neighborhood Parking Management .................................................................................................................. 2‐41
14.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐41
14.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐41
15. SCENIC ROADWAYS ............................................................................................................................................ 2‐42
15.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐42
15.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐44
16. CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT ..................................... 2‐45
16.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐45
16.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐45
APPENDIX A. RESOLUTION 10586 .............................................................................................................................. A‐1
APPENDIX B. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................... B‐1
Multimodal LOS Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................................... B‐1
Urban Streets Methodology from the 2010 HCM ......................................................................................................... B‐1
Pedestrian LOS Factors .................................................................................................................................................. B‐2
Bicyclist LOS Factors ...................................................................................................................................................... B‐2
Transit Passenger LOS Factors ...................................................................................................................................... B‐3
Appendix C. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ C‐1
Appendix D. Summary of Circulation Element Projects and Programs ........................................................................ D‐1
Appendix E. Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures) .......................................................................................... E‐1
Appendix F. Existing Intersection LOS ......................................................................................................................... F‐1
Page 624 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Street Classification Diagram ................................................................................................................... 2‐25
Figure 2 Designated STAA Truck Routes ................................................................................................................ 2‐37
Figure 3 Scenic Roadways ...................................................................................................................................... 2‐43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Modal Split Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 2‐11
Table 2. MMLOS Objectives and Service Standards............................................................................................... 2‐20
Table 3. Modal Priorities for Level of Service ........................................................................................................ 2‐20
Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards ..................................................................................... 2‐28
Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects ................................................................................................................ 2‐32
Page 625 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐8
Please see the next page.
Page 626 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐9
1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose
The City's general plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The
general plan is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. This
Circulation Element describes how the city plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within
San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond.
While the Land Use Element describes the city's desired character and size, the Circulation Element describes
how transportation will be provided in the community envisioned by the Land Use Element. The vision of San
Luis Obispo described by the Land Use Element is influenced by the layout and capacity of streets and the
location of other transportation facilities described in the Circulation Element. Transportation facilities and
programs influence the character of neighborhoods, the location of specific land uses, and the overall form of the
city.
1.2. History
The City adopted a master plan for streets and highways in 1953 and in 1962. In 1973, it adopted its first
Circulation Element which was completely revised in 1982 and again in 1994. This Circulation Element is a
revision of the 1994 Element. This Element's preparation was coordinated with the preparation of a revised Land
Use Element.
1.3. Public Participation
Before adopting or revising any general plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council hold public
hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten
days before they are held. Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the
expected consequences of its planning policies before a general plan element is adopted. The Planning
Commission and City Council reviewed an administrative draft of this Circulation element at public meetings
between 2012 and 2014. A public hearing draft of the Element was published for public review in January 2014.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the effects of both this Circulation Element and a revised
Land Use Element, was published for public review in June 2014. In September and October 2014 the Planning
Commission held public hearings to review the Circulation Element and EIR and forwarded recommendations to
the City Council. In September 2014, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the Circulation and Land Use
Elements as accurate and complete. In September through December 2014, the City Council held public hearings
to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element. The City Council adopted this Circulation Element on
December 9, 2014.
1.4. For More Information
For more current or detailed information concerning this element, contact the Public Works Department at 919
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805) 781‐7210.
1.5. Definitions
Terms used in this chapter are included in the glossary section of this document.
Page 627 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐10
1.6. Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the community's
preferences for current and future conditions and directions. In the following statements, San Luis Obispo
means the community as a whole, not just the city as a municipal corporation.
1.6.1. Transportation Goals
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing
dependence on single‐occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal
health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses
and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. Provide a system of streets that are well‐maintained and safe for all forms of transportation.
4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will cause no
significant, long‐term environmental problems.
5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.
6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.
7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San Luis Obispo County,
Cal Trans, and Cal Poly.
8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, telecommuting, creative
transportation demand management, and compact work weeks.
9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
1.6.2. Overall Transportation Strategy
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned‐for population by:
1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element;
2. Funding alternative forms of transportation;
3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities;
4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes;
5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety.
1.7. Transportation Objectives
1.7.1. Encourage Better Transportation Habits
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Table 1) and depend less on the
single‐occupant use of vehicles.
2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and
support programs that reduce the interregional use of single‐occupant vehicles and increase the use of
alternative forms of transportation.
Page 628 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐11
Table 1. Modal Split Objectives
Type of Transportation
% of City (1)
Resident
Trips
Motor Vehicles 50%
Transit 12%
Bicycles 20%
Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 18%
1.7.2. Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed
parts of the city by 2035, and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by 2035, and
provide service to new growth areas.
3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction programs.
4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than the
single‐occupant vehicle.
1.7.3. Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development to the rates and levels
stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing regulations. Limit increases in ADT and VMT to
the increase in employment within the City's Urban Reserve.
2. Support county‐wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county‐wide travel demand.
3. Support county‐wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing road system and
reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of transportation throughout the
city and connect with Regional Routes and Highways.
5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic
periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe
conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists.
6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently
served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.
7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood‐serving business and provide parks and
recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by pedestrians or bicyclists.
8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or controlling traffic routing,
volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets.
9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of land uses around the
airport to avoid noise and safety problems.
Page 629 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐12
1.7.4. Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel‐efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of air pollution.
(a) The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas and biodiesel
fueling stations, EV recharging stations, and other alternative fuel stations in the San Luis Obispo area.
(b) When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City will consider purchasing
alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution.
(c) The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis.
2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of information to substitute
for travel to work or meetings. Develop goals and policies for City employee participation in
telecommuting systems.
3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of innovative transportation
technologies in San Luis Obispo.
4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and other transportation
corridors.
1.7.5. Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation.
San Luis Obispo will:
1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Table 1 and bi‐annually
review and adjust transportation programs if necessary.
1.7.6. Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors.
The City will:
1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that create safe, attractive,
and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining land uses and the traveling public.
Page 630 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐13
2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION
As part of the General Plan Update, integrating the concept of sustainability was an important aspect of
the State grant. In reviewing the General Plan, a number of sustainability practices were already
included in the General Plan. For existing and new policies and programs that support sustainability,
this icon is shown at the end of the policy / programs title. See Policy 2.1.3 below as an example.
The small city character of San Luis Obispo is an important quality to maintain. This section presents policies and
programs for reducing the use of automobiles and emphasizing alternative forms of transportation.
2.1. Policies
2.1.1. Multi-level Programs
The City shall support county‐wide and community‐based efforts aimed at substantially reducing the number
of vehicle trips and parking demand.
2.1.2. Flexible Work Schedules
The City shall support flex time programs and alternative work schedules to reduce peak hour traffic demand.
2.1.3. Work-based Trip Reduction
The City shall encourage employers within the city limits and work with the county to work with employers
outside of the City limits to participate in trip reduction programs.
2.1.4. Downtown Congestion
Within the Downtown the City shall establish and promote programs aimed at reducing congestion in a way
that supports the long‐term economic viability of the downtown.
2.1.5. Long-term Measure
The City shall support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades
below legal standards or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent
measures to achieve its transportation goals.
2.2. Programs
2.2.1. Agency Cooperation
In coordination with county agencies, the City shall support efforts in establishing county‐wide trip reduction
programs.
2.2.2. City Trip Reduction
The City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City employees.
2.2.3. Large Employers
The City shall work with employers to establish a voluntary commuter benefit options program that provides
commute options for employees.
2.2.4. Incentives for Educational Institutions
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to provide
incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.
Page 631 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐14
3. TRANSIT SERVICE
3.1. Policies
3.1.1. Transit Development
The City shall encourage transit accessibility, development, expansion, coordination and marketing
throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broad range of local and regional transportation needs.
3.1.2. City Bus Service
The City shall improve and expand city bus service to make the system more convenient and accessible for
everyone. Transit services owned and operated by the City shall endeavor to maintain and improve all
system‐side transit standards identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.
3.1.3. Paratransit Service
The City shall continue to support paratransit service for seniors and persons with disabilities by public,
private, and volunteer transportation providers.
3.1.4. Campus Service
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand the "fare subsidy program" for campus
affiliates. The City shall work with Cuesta College and other schools to establish similar programs.
3.1.5. Unmet Transit Needs
The City shall work with SLOCOG to identify and address Unmet Transit Needs.
3.1.6. Service Standards
The City shall implement the following service standards for its transit system and for development that is
proximate to the transit network:
A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems should be coordinated
to encourage use of buses.
B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of existing businesses or
dwellings.
C. In City expansion areas, employment‐intensive uses or medium, medium‐high or high density residential
uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route.
D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation.
3.1.7. Transit Service Access
New development should be designed to facilitate access to transit service.
3.2. Programs
3.2.1. Transit Plans
The City shall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5‐year time frame) and coordinate with
SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit Plan (20‐year time frame). The Plans shall consider funding
partnerships to continue the Downtown Trolley service as part of the overall transit system as funding
permits.
3.2.2. Bulk Rate Transit Passes
The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to all groups.
Page 632 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐15
3.2.3. Commuter Bus Service
The City shall work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to maintain and expand
commuter bus service to and from the City of San Luis Obispo during peak demand periods consistent with
the Short Range Transit Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.
3.2.4. Transit Service Evaluation
The City shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the
benefits and drawbacks of consolidated service.
3.2.5. Marketing and Promotion
The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive marketing and promotion program to reach individual
target audiences.
3.2.6. Short Range Transit Plan
The City shall update its Short Range Transit Plan to evaluate adding mass transit stops at the high school and
the middle school.
3.2.7. New Development
When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
3.2.8. Regional Transit Center
The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional transit center downtown.
Page 633 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐16
4. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION
4.1. Policies
4.1.1. Bicycle Use
The City shall expand the bicycle network and provide end‐of‐trip facilities to encourage bicycle use and to
make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.
4.1.2. Campus and School Site Trips
The City shall encourage the use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational facilities.
4.1.3. Continuous Network
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to
support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way in the City as they become
available.
4.1.4. New Development
The City shall require that new development provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and
showers consistent with City plans and development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the
City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
4.1.5. Bikeway Design and Maintenance
The City shall design and maintain bikeways to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.
4.1.6. Bikeway Development with Road Improvements
The City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan when:
A. The street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to its cross‐sectional design; or
B. The street section is being changed as part of a development project.
4.1.7. Education and Safety
The City shall support education and safety programs aimed at all cyclists and motorists.
4.1.8. Bicycle Transportation Coordinator
The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle
transportation plan policies and programs.
4.1.9. Traffic Law Compliance
The City shall continue to seek compliance with its traffic laws through enforcement and education.
4.1.10. Right-of-way Acquisition
The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right‐of‐ways needed to implement the projects
identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.
4.1.11. Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation
The City shall support allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement bicycle transportation
policies and programs.
4.1.12. Bike Parking
The City shall facilitate development of conveniently located bike parking so as not to impede pedestrian
walkways.
Page 634 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐17
4.1.13. Campus Coordination
The City shall consider the Cal Poly and Cuesta Master Plans to better coordinate the planning and
implementation of safe and convenient bicycle access and facilities to local college campuses.
4.2. Programs
4.2.1. Bike Share
The City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and other educational institutions.
4.2.2. Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Bicycle Transportation Plan as needed to reflect changes in
state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation
Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan shall consider Safe Routes to School.
4.2.3. Campus Master Plans
The City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to de‐emphasize the use of automobiles and promote
the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans.
4.2.4. Zoning Regulations
The City shall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for secured bicycle parking and
ancillary facilities.
4.2.5. Railroad Bikeway and Trail
The City should obtain railroad right‐of‐way and easements to establish a separated bike path and pedestrian
trail through San Luis Obispo.
4.2.6. Bicycle Friendly Community
The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a gold
level designation.
4.2.7. Regional Coordination
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to
support a regional bicycle network.
4.2.8. Bicycle Licensing
The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to address bicycle loss,
theft, and safety problems.
Page 635 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐18
5. WALKING
5.1. Policies
5.1.1. Promote Walking
The City shall encourage and promote walking as a regular means of transportation.
5.1.2. Sidewalks and Paths
The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network connecting residential areas with major activity
centers as well as trails leading into city and county open spaces.
5.1.3. New Development
New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs
and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service
analysis.
5.1.4. Pedestrian Access
New or renovated commercial and government public buildings shall provide convenient pedestrian access
from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from driveways and vehicle entrances.
5.1.5. Pedestrian Crossings
To improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections, the City shall institute the following:
A. Install crossing controls where warranted by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street.
B. In the downtown, install traffic‐calming features such as textured cross walks and bulb‐outs, where
appropriate.
C. On Arterial Streets, Parkways or Regional Routes with four or more travel lanes, install medians at
pedestrian crossings where roadway width allows.
5.1.6. Downtown Commercial Core
The City shall require that pedestrian facilities in the downtown be designed in accordance with the
Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines to allow a clear path of travel and include conveniently located
rest areas with shade and seating.
5.1.7. Sidewalks
As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider neighborhood character including
topography, street design, existing density and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation
of sidewalks.
Page 636 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐19
5.2. Programs
5.2.1. Downtown Pedestrian Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage walking and to expand
facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The plan shall include pedestrian safety
assessments in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
5.2.2. Pedestrian Network
For areas outside of the Downtown, the City shall implement its program for the installation of a continuous
and connected pedestrian network giving areas with the heaviest existing or potential pedestrian traffic
priority in funding.
5.2.3. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
The City shall continue to implement its annual program of enhancing existing curbs with ADA compliant
ramps.
5.2.4. Safe Routes to School
The City shall continue to coordinate with SLOCOG and local schools to pursue Safe Routes to School
programs and grant opportunities.
5.2.5. Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide
Pedestrian Plan.
Page 637 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐20
6. MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION
Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes.
6.1. Policies
6.1.1. Complete Streets
The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and travel
for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.
6.1.2. Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria
The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all
four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per Table 2 and the Highway Capacity
manual.
Table 2. MMLOS Objectives and Service Standards
Travel Mode LOS Objective Minimum LOS Standard
Bicycle 1 B D
Pedestrian 2 B C
Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower
Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes)
Notes:
(1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan.
(2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with
neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density.
(3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.
6.1.3. Multimodal Priorities
In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, multimodal service levels should be prioritized in
accordance with the established modal priorities designated in Table 3, such that construction, expansion, or
alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. 1
Table 3. Modal Priorities for Level of Service
Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking
Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Vehicle
Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicle
2. Bicycles 4. Transit
Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians
Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles
2. Transit 4. Pedestrians
Notes:
(1) Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area
character, topography, street design, and existing density.
Page 638 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐21
6.1.4. Defining Significant Circulation Impact
Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal
priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2. If the level of service degrades below thresholds established
in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, it shall be determined a significant impact for purposes of environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For roadways already operating below the
established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant
impact under CEQA.
Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in
Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately served through other
means e.g., another parallel facility or like service. Based on this determination, a finding of no significant
impact may be determined by the City.
6.1.5. Mitigation
For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required.
Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to:
A. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased
sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved
crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing
distance.
B. Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle
traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path,
reducing intersection crossing distance.
C. Transit: For transit‐related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any
infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops,
transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization,
provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes.
6.1.6. City Review
When new projects impact the existing circulation system, the City shall review the effectiveness and
desirability of “direct fix” mitigation improvements to address MMLOS impacts. Where a significant impact is
found, alternative system‐wide project mitigations may be submitted for consideration to the City in
accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2. Exceptions shall be based on the
physical conditions of the right‐of‐way to support additional improvements. If the right‐of‐way in question
cannot address on‐site mitigation, appropriate off‐site improvements that have direct nexus to and
effectively address the specific impacts created by the project may be considered.
6.2. Programs
6.2.1. Traffic Count Program
As funding permits the City shall biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians, bikes, vehicles
and transit to maintain and update its database of transportation conditions and to evaluate the state of the
transportation system in accordance with the established modal priorities and standards.
Page 639 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐22
7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
City, County and State governments maintain a network of public streets that provide access throughout the community.
How these streets are designed, constructed and managed can affect levels of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution,
the economic viability of commercial areas, and the quality of living throughout the city. The following policies and
programs spell out how the City intends to manage the community's street system.
Overall Purpose
The primary purpose of street corridors is to enable the movement of people and goods across all modes of
transportation. The design and use of streets should relate to and respect the character and type of surrounding land
uses. If residential areas are to maintain their character, they cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or
industrial areas.
7.1. Policies
7.1.1. Peak Hour and Daily Traffic
The City shall cooperate with County and State government to institute programs that reduce the levels of
peak‐hour and daily vehicle traffic.
7.1.2. Street Network
The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table 2 are
not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit
development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by
strengthening alternative modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. Where feasible, roundabouts shall
be the City’s preferred intersection control alternative due to the vehicle speed reduction, safety, and
operational benefits of roundabouts.
7.1.3. Growth Management & Roadway Expansion
The City shall manage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular
traffic associated with development planned for in the Land Use Element and under the City’s growth
management policies and regional transportation plans.
7.1.4. Transportation Funding
In order to increase support for non‐automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding
across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown in Table 1.
7.1.5. Vehicle Speeds
To the extent permitted under the CVC, the City shall endeavor to maintain and reduce speeds where
possible in residential neighborhoods.
7.2. Programs
7.2.1. Traffic Reduction Priority
Those traffic programs identified in the Circulation Element that have the greatest potential to reduce traffic
increases shall have priority for implementation.
Page 640 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐23
7.2.2. Transportation Monitoring
As funding permits the City shall implement an ongoing and comprehensive transportation monitoring
program that, at a minimum, will keep track of (on a bi‐annual basis):
A. Changes in traffic volumes throughout the city.
B. Changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial streets, regional routes and highways.
C. Traffic speeds.
D. Changes in the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
E. Changes in streetscape features.
F. The location, type and frequency of accidents.
7.2.3. Transportation Survey
The City shall regularly, as funding permits, conduct a travel behavior survey of residents to estimate their
use of different types of transportation.
7.2.4. Transportation Model
The City will maintain a travel demand model of the City's circulation system and coordinate with SLOCOG in
support of the county‐wide travel demand model for San Luis Obispo County.
7.2.5. Cooperative Street Design
The City shall work with the County to jointly develop and adopt design and construction standards for
streets within the City's Urban Reserve.
7.2.6. Subdivision Regulations
The City shall revise its Subdivision Regulations to include right‐of‐way and design standards for each type of
street shown in Figure 1 and Table 4.
7.2.7. Traffic Access Management
The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of
driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway
including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the
transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be considered as part
of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan.
7.2.8. State Highway HOV Lanes
The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional
capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use.
7.2.9. Transportation Funding
The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.1.4 concurrent with the 2015‐17
Financial Plan. In meeting the “approximately proportional” goal of the policy, the guidelines may take into
consideration such factors as the need for multi‐year planning and budgeting, the recognition that projects
may benefit multiple modes, that non‐city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for
particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major interchange improvements) may be
identified as special cases, that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special
treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes.
Page 641 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐24
Please see the next page.
Page 642 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐25
o
Santa
Rosa
NorthSantaRosa
HigueraW estFoothillCalifornia
Foothill
SouthHigueraTank Farm
LosOsosValley
Br
o
a
d
Grand
MontereyNor
t
hChor
ro
Orcutt
Orcutt
M adonnaJohnson
Joh
n
s
onMarshHighlandCap itolioPrado
IndustrialSouth
Orcutt LaurelPismoChorro
HighPalm Osos
BuckleyJeffreyDelRio
£¤101
L
a
guna L a k e
¯Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Figure 1Streets Classification Diagram
LUCE SOI Planning Subarea
!!!!City Limits
Urban Reserve
Proposed Existing
Arterial
Commercial Collector
Residential ArterialFreeway/Ramp/Highway
Residential Local
Regional Route/Parkway Arterial
Residential Collector (Major)
Residential Collector (Minor)
Page 643 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐26
Back of Figure 1
Page 644 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐27
Types of Streets
7.3. Design Standards
The City’s roadway system is shown in Figure 1. The City shall require that improvements to the City’s
roadway system are made consistent with the following descriptions and standards:
7.3.1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
The total number of vehicles that use a particular street throughout the day (24 hours).
7.3.2. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS)
Level of service is a letter grade representation of the quality of traffic flow based on congestion.
A. Level of Service (LOS) "A" is free‐flowing traffic while LOS "F" is extreme congestion.
B. At LOS "D," the recommended standard, drivers can expect delays of 35 to 55 seconds and sometimes
have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Vehicle may stack up at intersections but
dissipate rapidly.
C. At LOS "E," delays increase to 55 to 80 seconds and drivers frequently have to wait through more than
one cycle of a traffic signal. Stacked lines of cars at intersections become longer.
Page 645 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐28
Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards
Descriptions1 of Street Types
Maximum
ADT/LOS
Desired maximum
Speeds2
Local Commercial Streets directly serve non‐residential development that
front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets. 5,000 25 mph
Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front
them and channel traffic to minor and major residential collector streets. 1,500 25 mph
Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and
channel it to arterials. 10,000 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets (Minor) collect traffic from residential areas
and channel it to arterials. 3,000 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets (Major) collect traffic from neighborhood
commercial, high density residential and residential areas and channel it
to arterials.
5,000 25 mph
Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where
preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for
traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled.
LOS D CVC*
Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and
residential areas
LOS E
(Downtown)
LOS D
(other routes)
CVC*
CVC*
Parkway Arterials /Regional Routes are arterial routes with landscaped
medians where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access
from fronting properties is discouraged. These routes connect the city
with other parts of the county and are used by people traveling
throughout the county and state and are designated as primary traffic
carriers.
LOS D CVC*
Highway/Freeway/Ramps is a regional route of significance where access
is controlled. Segments of these routes leading into San Luis Obispo
should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define
them as community entryways.
LOS D CVC*
*Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
Notes:
(1) To determine the classification of a particular street segment, refer to Figure 1: Streets Classification Map and Appendix E. Appendix E
includes the most recent traffic counts and estimates of level of service (LOS). Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a
particular street. In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic
flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this
table. Note that all ADT should reflect volumes typically experienced when all schools are in session. To account for seasonal shifts ADT
shall be calculated using an annual average daily traffic (AADT) for individual volumes and the threshold shall be adjusted up to 15%.
(2) Desired maximum speed means that 85% of motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal
shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted up by 2.7 mph.
Page 646 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐29
8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
8.1. Policies
8.1.1. Through Traffic
The City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways,
Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of
Collectors and Local streets.
8.1.2. Residential Streets
The City should not approve commercial development that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to
use Residential Local or Residential Collector (Minor and Major) streets.
8.1.3. Neighborhood Traffic Speeds
To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code, the City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain
vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods.
8.1.4. Neighborhood Traffic Management
The City shall ensure that neighborhood traffic management projects:
A. Provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all residential neighborhoods.
B. Provide for adequate response conditions for emergency vehicles.
C. Provide for convenient and safe through bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
8.1.5. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines
The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and
implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program.
8.1.6. Non-Infill Development
In new, non‐infill developments, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway
Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards
can be met without the use of noise walls.
8.1.7. New Project Evaluation
The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential
neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that significantly exceed the thresholds established in Table 4
except as provided under CEQA. The City shall also not approve development which significantly worsens
already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Table 4 except as provided
under CEQA. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut‐
through traffic.
Page 647 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐30
8.2. Programs
8.2.1. Traffic Management Plans
As funding permits the City shall provide neighborhood traffic management services for residential areas that
have traffic volumes or speeds which exceed the thresholds established in Table 4.
8.2.2. Traffic Control Measures
The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes
exceed standards set by Table 4, Street Classification Descriptions and Standards.
8.2.3. Quality of Life
The City shall analyze residential streets for their livability with regards to multi‐modal traffic noise, volumes,
speed, and safety as well as the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and potential excess right‐of‐way
pavement. Traffic calming or other intervening measures may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality
of life. The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds.
8.2.4. Regional Cut-Through Traffic
The City shall identify and address regional cut‐through traffic issues in the City.
Page 648 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐31
9. STREET NETWORK CHANGES
9.1. Policies
9.1.1. New Development
The City shall require that new development assumes its fair share of responsibility for constructing new
streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bus turn‐outs or reconstructing existing facilities.
9.1.2. Public Participation
The City shall provide for broad public participation in the planning and design of major changes to the street
network.
9.1.3. Arterial Street Corridors
The City shall seek to improve the livability of existing arterial streets through redesign of street corridors.
9.1.4. Project Implementation
Street projects should be implemented in the appropriate sequence to ensure that development does not
precede needed infrastructure improvements.
9.1.5. Right-of-Way Reservation
The City shall require rights‐of‐way to be reserved through the building setback line process or through other
mechanisms so that options for making transportation improvements are preserved.
9.2. Programs
9.2.1. Building Setback Lines
The City will establish building setback lines for routes listed on Table 5.
9.2.2. Prado Road Improvements
The City shall ensure that changes to Prado Road (Projects 1, 2, and 19 on Table 5) and other related system
improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area
development.
The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange or
overpass (Project 19 on Table 5) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report
for the interchange project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California
Department of Transportation.
9.2.3. Street Amenities Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a plan and standards for the installation and maintenance of
landscaped medians, parkways, signs, utilities, street furniture, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Within the
Downtown the street amenities shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines.
9.2.4. Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center
The City will evaluate complete street designs that maximize the shared right of way for all users as a method
for achieving the overall objective of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center to improve the
pedestrian environment in the downtown.
9.2.5. San Luis Ranch/Dalidio Development
As part of any proposal to further develop the Dalidio‐Madonna Area, the alignment and design of extensions
of Froom Ranch Way connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) shall be evaluated and established if
consistent with the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle Joaquin Reserve.
Page 649 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐32
Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Extensions
1
Prado Road
Extension West
Extend and widen Prado Rd. as an Arterial street
with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible)
from US 101 to Madonna.
City
Caltrans
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
2
Prado Road
Extension East
Widen and extend Prado Rd. as an
Highway/Regional Route Arterial with 2 lanes in
each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped
median, Class II bike lanes, sidewalks and Class I
bike lanes (where feasible) from US 101 to Broad
Street. ROW Limitations east of Higuera outside of
the MASP area may limit the City’s ability to install
Class I facilities. (See MASP)
City
Caltrans
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
3 Buckley Road
Extension
Extend Buckley Road as an Arterial street from
Vachell Lane to Higuera Street. (See AASP)
City
County
Developer Const.
4 Bullock Lane
Extension
Widen and extend a residential collector to connect
Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road. (See OASP)
City Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
5
Santa Fe Road
Extension
Realign and Extend Santa Fe Road as a Commercial
Collector from Hoover Avenue to Prado Road
including construction of a new bridge at Acacia
Creek and round‐a‐bout at Tank Farm Road. (See
AASP)
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
6
Bishop Street
Extension
Extend Bishop Street west over R.R. tracks. The
City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis
to determine if secondary measures can be made to
allow for elimination of the Bishop Street Extension
and protection of neighborhood traffic levels; and
recommend improvements, if any.
City Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
7
Mission Plaza
Expansion
Expand Mission Plaza to East to Monterey and
Nipomo and Broad Street from Higuera to Palm St.
Some areas of the expansion will have vehicle
permitted pedestrian zones to maintain access to
adjacent properties.
City Grant Funding
General Fund
8
Victoria Ave.
Extension
Extend Victoria Ave. from Woodbridge to High
Street.
City Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
Page 650 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐33
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Widenings
9
Mid Higuera
(Marsh to High
Street)
Acquire property and widen to allow four travel
lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc. & implement
Downtown Plan concepts (See Mid‐Higuera Plan)
City Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
10
Orcutt Road Widen Orcutt Road as an Arterial Street with 2 lanes
in each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped
median, Class II bike lanes and sidewalks from UPRR
to Johnson (See OASP)
City Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
11
Tank Farm Road Widen Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial with 2
lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible)
from Higuera to Broad. (See AASP)
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
12
South Higuera Widen Higuera to 4 lanes, with a center turn lane,
Class II bikeways from Madonna to southern City
Limits
City
CalTrans
Grant Funding
General Fund
New Connections
13
Hwy 1 (Santa
Rosa)
Construct a non‐vehicle grade separated crossing at
Boysen and Hwy 1 (Santa Rosa).
City
CalTrans
CalPoly
Regional Funds
Grant Funding
General Fund
14
Tank Farm to
Buckley
Collector
Construct a new North / South collector between
Tank Farm Road & Buckley Road in the vicinity of
Horizon Lane.
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
15
LOVR Bypass As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area,
the project shall analyze impacts of a new roadway
connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road
to Higuera; and/or
The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic
analysis to determine final feasibility of connecting
a roadway from US 101 to Higuera Street. Issues to
be studied should include, but are not limited to
impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture
operations, open space, creek, traffic and biological
resources.
City Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
16
Froom Ranch
Road
Construct a new collector between Prado/Dalido
Rd. and Los Osos Valley Road.
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
Page 651 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐34
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Interchange Upgrades
17
Highway 1
(Santa Rosa) &
US 101
Interchange
Upgrade
Construct some form of interchange upgrade
consolidating ramps. (See Hwy 1 MIS report)
City
CalTrans
Regional Funds
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
18
Broad St. & US
101 Interchange
Closure
Close NB & SB Broad street ramps at Highway 101.
Highway 1 & 101 project is a prerequisite until
otherwise addressed.
City
Caltrans
Regional Funds
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
19
Prado Road &
US 101
Interchange
Build full interchange at 101. Development of San
Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area shall include a circulation
analysis of alternatives to a full access interchange,
an analysis of compact interchange designs that
minimize open space / ag. land impacts, and an
analysis of potential incremental phasing of the
interchange elements.
City
Caltrans
County
Regional Funds
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
Reconfigurations
20
Monterey
Street Right of
Way
Preserve right‐of‐way on Monterey Street from
Santa Rosa to Grand for the purposes of expanding
to four travel lanes and/or bicycle & pedestrian
facilities
City Developer Cooperation
General Fund
21
Prefumo
Canyon Rd.
Median
Install landscaped median on Prefumo Canyon Road
between Los Osos Valley Road and Hedley Dr.
City Grant Funding
General Fund
22 Garden Street
Makeover
Reconfigure Garden Street to a one‐way street with
pedestrian enhancements.
City Developer Const.
23
Marsh &
Higuera 2‐Way
Conversion
Convert Marsh & Higuera Streets between Santa
Rosa & Johnson to 2‐way flow.
City Grant Funding
General Fund
24
Chorro, Broad,
& Boysen
Realignments
Redevelopment of University Square shall
incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access
management analysis for the intersections of
Boysen & Santa Rosa (Potential Grade Separated
Crossing / Restriction) Foothill & Chorro, and
Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points
along adjacent roadways; and recommend
improvements, if any.
City Developer Const.
General Fund
25
Madonna/
Higuera
Realignment
As part of redevelopment of the properties north or
south of Madonna Road west of Higuera, or as part
of update to the Mid Higuera Plan, analyze
potential relocation of Madonna Road at Higuera
Street.
City Developer Const.
General Fund
26
Pismo/Higuera/
High Street
Redevelopment of properties at the intersection of
High & Pismo at Higuera shall incorporate a detailed
traffic analysis and evaluation of intersection
realignment; and recommend improvements, if any.
City Developer Const.
General Fund
Page 652 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐35
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
27
Various
Intersection
Upgrades
Grand & Slack, California & Taft, Grand & US 101 SB,
San Luis & California, Higuera & Tank Farm, Broad &
High, Broad & Rockview, Broad & Capitolio, Johnson
& Orcutt, Broad & TankFarm, Broad & Airport.
City
CalTrans
Dev. Impact Fees
Developer Const.
Grant Funding
General Fund
Ancillary Plans
28
Various Specific
Plans
Margarita Area, Airport Area, Orcutt Area, Broad
Street Corridor, R.R. Dist., Mid‐Higuera, Downtown
Concept, and Future Plans as Adopted.
City
County
CalTrans
CalPoly
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
29
Various Trans.
Plans
Bicycle Plan, Downtown Pedestrian Plan, Short
Range Transit Plan, Access & Parking Mgmt. Plan,
and Future Plans as Adopted.
City
County
CalTrans
CalPoly
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
9.2.6. Streetscapes and major roadways
In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways / regional
routes and arterial streets), the City shall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways
or corridors that promote the city’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate
roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City shall:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways;
B. Establish that where feasible roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection alternative due to
improved aesthetics, reduction in impervious surface areas, and additional landscaping area;
C. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings;
D. Retain mature trees in the public right‐of‐way;
E. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient height, spread,
form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from
adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as
recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
F. Encourage the use of water‐conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving,
arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian‐oriented features to enhance the streetscape
appearance, comfort and safety.
G. Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians, wayfinding and
welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features, sidewalks, and different
crosswalk paving types.
H. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures.
I. When possible, signs in the public right‐of‐way should be consolidated on a single, low‐profile standard.
J. In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan.
Page 653 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐36
10. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION
The delivery of most goods and materials to businesses in San Luis Obispo is done by trucks. Delivery services are
essential to the functioning of the City. However, commercial trucks can cause traffic congestion in the downtown, and
create noise and safety problems in residential areas.
The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage delivery services so that problems
associated with truck transportation are minimized.
10.1. Policies
10.1.1. Truck Routes
The City shall require STA‐sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 2.
10.2. Programs
10.2.1. Idling Trucks
Trucks should turn off motors when parked. The City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
for guidance in establishing standards that address air and noise pollution from idling trucks.
10.2.2. Home Occupations
The City's Home Occupation Permit Regulations should be amended to ensure that commercial trucks are not
used to make regular deliveries to home occupations in residential areas.
10.2.3. Commercial Loading Zones
The City shall continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in appropriate downtown areas.
10.2.4. Truck Circulation
The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles.
Page 654 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐37
£¤1
£¤101
£¤101
UV227
Laguna
Lake BROAD ST
BUCKLEY
L
O
S
O
S
O
S V
A
L
L
E
Y R
D
O
R
C
U
T
T
R
D
J
OH
NS
ON
A
V
E
H IG U E R A STM ILL STP IS M O S TM AR SH STHIGUERA S STC
HOR
RO
S
T
M A D O N N A R D
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A N S
T
F O O T H IL L W B L V D
FOOTHILL BLVD
PRADO RD
HIGH ST
SOUTH ST MONTEREY STHIGHLAND DR
HOOVER CA
L
I
F
ORNI
A
B
L
V
DRAMONA DR
A
UGUS
T
A
S
T
LAUREL LNGRAND AVEOS
OS
S
T
BISHOP STD
ALIDIO
MARGARITA AVE
EL M
E
R
C
A
D
O HIDDEN SPRINGS ORCUTT RDBROAD STSLOGPU_Basemap_Regional_2012_07_26_JKC
Figure 2
Legend
Existing Truck Route
Future Truck Route
City Limits
Streams
Water Body Major Road
Street
Railroad
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012
010.5
Miles
Designated STAA Truck Routes
Page 655 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐38
11. AIR TRANSPORTATION
The City and County of San Luis Obispo are served by the county‐owned airport located off Broad Street near Buckley
Road. The airport allows people to fly private aircraft and to use commercial carriers to connect with national and global
commercial carriers.
The following policies and programs address the continued use of the county airport. Additional policies and programs
can be found in the City’s Land Use Element.
11.1. Policies
11.1.1. Interstate Air Service
The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services. as forecasted in the Airport
Master Plan and approved by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).
11.1.2. County Aircraft Operations
The City shall work with the County to continue to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety
problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use
Element.
11.1.3. Public Transit Service
The City shall encourage improved public transit service to the County airport soon as practical.
11.2. Programs
11.2.1. Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft
The City shall work with the County Airport to encourage the use of quieter and more environmentally
sensitive aircraft.
11.2.2. Airport Facilities Development
The City shall work with the County Airport to support the further development of airport facilities and
attract additional passenger airline services. Possible improvements include, but are not limited to:
instrumented landing systems, radar, and improved passenger waiting facilities.
11.2.3. Airport Funding
The City shall work with the County Airport to pursue funding opportunities, such as Airport Improvement
Program grants.
11.2.4. Update of the Airport Land Use Plan
The City shall work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to complete updates of the Airport Land
Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Airport in regard to significant changes in noise, adjacent land
impacts, and safety zones.
Page 656 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐39
12. RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity
The Union Pacific Railroad owns and maintains railroad tracks that extend through the county. AMTRAK uses the Union
Pacific line to provide passenger service to San Luis Obispo with connections to the San Francisco and Los Angeles
metropolitan areas, and other coastal cities.
Rail transportation is energy efficient and can provide convenient connections to destinations throughout the state. The
following policies identify how the city supports rail service.
12.1. Policies
12.1.1. Passenger Rail Service
The City shall support the increased availability of rail service for travel within the county, state and among
states.
12.1.2. State and Federal Programs
The City shall support Regional, State and Federal programs for the expansion of passenger rail service to San
Luis Obispo.
12.1.3. Transit Service Connections
The City shall provide transit service to and from the train station in accordance with its Short Range Transit
Plan and work with the train station management to upgrade the facility and visitor services.
12.1.4. Intra and Inter-city Transportation Needs
The City supports using the railroad right‐of‐way to help meet multimodal intra and inter‐city transportation
needs.
12.2. Programs
12.2.1. Daily Train Connections
The City supports maintaining and increasing daily train service connecting San Luis Obispo with points north
and south, with departures and arrivals in the morning, mid‐afternoon and evening.
12.2.2. Intra-county Rail Service
The City shall support San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in evaluating the feasibility of passenger rail
service to connect points within the county.
12.2.3. Interagency Cooperation
The City shall coordinate railroad facility infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and the
Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and others
to discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.
12.2.4. Railroad Hazards Reduction.
The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that
may impact the safety and well‐being of residents of the community including the transport of combustible
materials.
12.2.5. Transport of Combustible Materials
The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.
Page 657 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐40
13. PARKING MANAGEMENT
San Luis Obispo's central business district includes the highest concentration of commercial, office and governmental uses
in the city. Parking is needed for patrons of downtown businesses, tourists and employees.
Use of curb‐side parking in residential areas can affect the character of these areas. The following policies identify the
City's role in providing and managing downtown parking and addressing neighborhood parking needs.
Commercial Parking
13.1. Policies
13.1.1. Curb Parking
The City shall manage curb parking in the downtown to encourage short‐term use to those visiting businesses
and public facilities.
13.1.2. City Parking Programs
City parking programs shall be financially self‐supporting.
13.2. Programs
13.2.1. Parking Management Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan (every 5 years)
including parking demand reduction strategies and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled
parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs.
13.2.2. Monitor Public Parking
The City shall regularly monitor the use of public parking in the downtown.
13.2.3. Park and Ride Lots
The City shall coordinate with SLOCOG during periodic updates to SLOCOG’s Park and Ride Lot Development
report to evaluate the need for and location of park‐and‐ride lots to serve commuters.
13.2.4. Public Parking Structures
The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after considering the findings
and results of a parking supply and demand study.
13.2.5. Curb Parking Evaluation
The City shall continue to work with the Downtown Association to evaluate the use of curb space in the
downtown and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces.
13.2.6. Downtown Trolley
The City shall continue to operate the downtown trolley as a parking management tool to reduce congestion.
Page 658 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐41
14. Neighborhood Parking Management
14.1. Policies
14.1.1. Residential Parking Spaces
Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City's standards that specify the
number, design and location of off‐street residential parking spaces.
14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection
The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill‐over parking from adjacent high
intensity uses.
14.1.3. Neighborhood Parking District
The City’s Residential Parking District Program shall be updated to review the criteria and clarify the process
for establishing a district. (Note: This is not a financing district.)
14.2. Programs
14.2.1. Neighborhood Parking Permits
Upon request from residents or other agencies, the City will evaluate the need for neighborhood parking
permit programs or other parking management strategies in particular residential areas.
14.2.2. Financing Districts
The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing districts.
Page 659 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐42
15. SCENIC ROADWAYS
The following provisions address the scenic importance of local roads and highways in the San Luis Obispo area.
15.1. Policies
15.1.1. Scenic Routes
The route segments shown on Figure 3 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element –
Scenic Roadways Map ‐‐are designated as scenic roadways.
15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes
The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development
along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views.
A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and
require architectural review.
B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be
considered a significant environmental impact.
D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views.
E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light
standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations
where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns.
F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per
the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance.
15.1.3. Public Equipment and Facilities
The City and other agencies should be encouraged to avoid cluttering scenic roadways with utility and
circulation‐related equipment and facilities.
A. Whenever possible, signs in the public right‐of‐way should be consolidated on a single low‐profile
standard.
B. Public utilities along scenic highways should be installed underground.
C. The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic Routes. Clustering of
street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an alternative to uniform spacing.
D. Traffic signals with long mast arms should be discouraged along scenic roadways.
15.1.4. County Role
The City shall work with the County to protect and enhance scenic roadways that connect San Luis Obispo
with other communities and recreation areas.
Page 660 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐43
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!o
V
V
V
V
V
V
£¤101 BROADOR
C
U
T
T
BUCKLEY
TANK FARM
M ILLH IG U E R A
CHORROP IS M O
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
MA D ON N A
FOOTHILL
HIGH
M A RS H LE FF
F O O TH IL L W
JOH
NS
O
NT
OR
O
PRADOOSOSSOUTHCAL
I
F
ORN
IA
B U C H O N
HIGUERASSANTAROSAELKSSANLUISEL LA
H IG HLA N D
B ISHO P
LAURELSLACK
EVANS POI
N
S
ETTIAHI
L
L
HOOVERSOUTHWOOD
BUL
L
OCKL U N ET A
D
EL
R
I
OMOUNT BIS
H
O
P
P A LM
V A LLEVIS T A
V I L L AGE
G
R
A
N
D
LAWR E N C EPOL YCANYONSYD N E YLIZZIE
MEISSNER
SUBURBAN
M IOSSI
G ATHEWOOD B R I D G E
ROCK
VIE
W
LONGBEEBEEDA N A
HOPE
D
A
LIDIO
SANTAFEELM
MARGARITA
BOND
ISABEL L A BROADFLO
R
A
SLOGPU_Fig3_ScenicRoads_20150410_CJM.pdf
Figure 3
Legend
V Scenic Vista
High Scenic Value
Medium Scenic Value
High or Medium Scenic Value
- Outside City Limit
!!!!City Limits
Highway
Roads
Railroad
o Airport
Water Body
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2015
010.5
Mile
Scenic RoadwaysPage 661 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐44
15.1.5. Scenic Highways
The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining county areas.
This support should be strongly advocated when:
A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them.
B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the San Luis Obispo
Council Regional Transportation Agency.
C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes shown in the
Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the Caltrans US 101 Aesthetic Study of
San Luis Obispo County.
15.1.6. Designation of Scenic Highways
The City will advocate that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the County designate
qualifying segments of Highways 1, 101 and 227 as Scenic Highways.
15.2. Programs
15.2.1. Visual Character
The City will participate with Caltrans, the County and other cities to establish a program for enhancing the
visual character of the Highway 101 corridor consistent with the US 101 Aesthetic Study for San Luis Obispo
County.
15.2.2. Architectural Review Guidelines
The City shall revise its Community Design Guidelines to incorporate concern for the protection of views and
vistas from scenic roadways.
15.2.3. Street Corridor Landscaping
The City shall adopt a street corridor landscaping plan for scenic roadways. Indigenous species will be used
unless shown to be inappropriate.
15.2.4. Billboards
Both the City and the County should enforce an amortization program for the removal of billboards along
scenic roadways.
Page 662 of 712
Circulation Element
Page 2‐45
16. CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND
MANAGEMENT
The following policies should guide city departments in budgeting for and implementing this Circulation Element.
16.1. Policies
16.1.1. City and Regional Growth
The City shall continue to be an active member of SLOCOG’s regional board to address regional
transportation issues in San Luis Obispo County.
16.1.2. Encourage Alternative Transportation
Programs or projects that reduce dependence on single‐occupant vehicles and encourage the use of
alternative forms of transportation shall be considered prior to roadway capacity increasing projects.
16.1.3. City Funding
The City's Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shall support the programs, plans and
projects identified in this Circulation Element.
16.1.4. Alternative Mode Program Objectives
Funding for parking structures shall not compromise the City’s ability to fund its alternative mode programs
or projects.
16.1.5. Circulation Element Update
The City shall update its Circulation Element regularly to address significant changes in transportation
planning, programming, legislation, and/or city priorities.
16.1.6. Distribution of Transportation Funding
The City shall encourage SLOCOG to consider initiating a county wide revenue measure devoted to local
transportation funding, so that San Luis Obispo County becomes a “self help” county.
16.2. Programs
16.2.1. Transportation Work Program
Transportation Work Program shall be regularly updated as part of the City Financial Plan. The work program
must be consistent with the Circulation Element, will cover a five‐year period, shall be updated to include
modified projects and costs if warranted, and will establish:
A. Implementation schedules for all City transportation programs and projects including those described in
the Circulation Element.
B. A comprehensive funding strategy which identifies funding for each program type by source and amount.
16.2.2. Multi-Modal Impact Fee
The City shall update its multimodal transportation impact fee ordinance in accordance with State Law
(AB1600) that requires developers to fund their fair share of projects and programs that mitigate city‐wide
transportation impacts caused by new development.
Page 663 of 712
Chapter 2
Page 2‐46
16.2.3. Evaluation of Alternatives
Prior to implementation of a project identified in this element, the City shall reevaluate its need and include
an analysis of alternatives that can achieve the desired results at lower costs and with less environmental
impacts. Alternatives include:
A. Other projects listed in the Circulation Element; or
B. Projects made feasible by new or improved technology not existing when this Element was adopted.
16.2.4. Evaluate Transportation Effects
Major development proposals to the City will include displays of the proposal's interfaces with nearby
neighborhoods, and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation effects on the entire community.
Page 664 of 712
Circulation Element
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Resolution 10586
Appendix B:. Multimodal Level of Service Definitions
Appendix C:. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology
Appendix D. Summary of Circulation Element Projects & Programs
Appendix E. Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures
Appendix F. Existing Intersection LOS
Appendix G. List of Preparers
Appendix H. Resolution 10843
Page 665 of 712
Chapter 2
Please see the next page.
Page 666 of 712
Circulation Element
Page A-1
APPENDIX A. RESOLUTION 10586
A resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving updates to the Land Use and Circulation
Elements of the General Plan including associated amendments to the South Broad Street Area Plan, Noise Element,
Safety Element, and Conservation and Open Space Elements; and, approving amendments to the General Plan Land Use
designations for special focus areas associated with the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update project
(GPI/ER 15-12)
Page 667 of 712
Chapter 2
Page A-2
Please see the next page.
Page 668 of 712
Circulation Element
Page A-3
Page 669 of 712
Chapter 2
Page A-4
Page 670 of 712
Circulation Element
Page A-5
Page 671 of 712
Chapter 2
Page A-6
Page 672 of 712
Circulation Element
Page A-7
Page 673 of 712
Chapter 2
Page A-8
Page 674 of 712
Circulation Element
Page A-9
Page 675 of 712
Chapter 2
Page A-10
Please see the next page.
Page 676 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-1
APPENDIX B. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Multimodal LOS Evaluation Methodology
The phrase, “Complete Streets” in present-day planning and policy lexicons introduces confusion about the meaning of
the phrase. Streets considered complete are those which meet the transportation needs for all users, such as pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, children, older adults, differently abled people, freight vehicle drivers, and taxis. However, many
roadways do not serve all of these user types, nor are all roadways intended for use by everyone. For example, most
freeways prohibit access by pedestrians and bicyclists. Most trails prohibit access by motorized vehicles. However, if a
roadway provides access to some type of land use, such as a retail store, civic building, school, residence, or employment,
it can be expected that a variety of people will use that roadway. The degree to which a street is considered complete
depends on several factors, including who are the likely and the desired users.
Urban Streets Methodology from the 2010 HCM
The HCM 2010 Urban Streets is an integrated methodology that evaluates multimodal levels of service (LOS). LOS is
analyzed for each of the four primary roadway users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit passengers. The
multimodal LOS methodology utilizes a number of factors, most of which are infrastructure-related, to assess a qualitative
LOS score based on user perception. Roadways are analyzed for each mode in one-hour increments for each direction of
travel.
There is no single LOS score in the Urban Streets methodology that combines results for all travel modes. Combining the
scores into an overall roadway score has the potential to mask important deficiencies for a certain mode because of
weighting. To illustrate, a roadway with large volumes of vehicles and a favorable LOS for motorists may subsume LOS
deficiencies for other roadway users if a singular multimodal LOS score were analyzed for the corridor.
The LOS for each mode is analyzed individually, although input factors can affect the analysis for more than one travel
mode. For example, the percent of occupied on-street parking is a factor for both the bicyclist and pedestrian LOS.
Generating LOS scores for each roadway user type allows the comparison of the quality of service amongst the different
modes. Furthermore, the individual scores facilitate quantification and examination of tradeoffs between modes for a
given streetscape design feature or strategy, which assist with the analysis of project alternatives and prioritization of
pedestrian, bicyclist, motorist, and transit passenger facility improvements.
This methodology can also enable local jurisdictions to adopt a street classification system that is multimodal and
identifies priority users for which LOS thresholds can be established. Traditional street classification systems (Freeway,
Arterial, Collector, Local) tend to be derived from a motorist’s perspective. As such, thresholds are established for
motorist LOS, but have not been established for other modes. A multimodal classification system may expand or redefine
the streets to include transit, pedestrian, or bicyclist priority. Thus, LOS thresholds could be established for the priority
mode by the street classification. As an example, central business district roadways could have LOS thresholds for
pedestrian and transit access but no thresholds for motorist or bicyclist access.
As illustrated in Figure B-1, the methodology analyzes and provides the directional LOS results for a facility, which is a
combination of two or more segments (roadway link with a downstream intersection that is typically signalized).
Additionally, pedestrian and bicyclist LOS analysis and results further divide each segment into the links and downstream
intersections. When reviewing LOS results, it’s suggested that attention is paid to the component results, as the facility
scores have the potential to mask deficiencies.
Page 677 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-2
Figure B-1 Multimodal LOS Analysis Components
Factors included in the evaluation of LOS for each mode are based on the roadway user’s perspective, as described below,
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers.
Pedestrian LOS Factors
The following factors lead to a superior level of service for pedestrians on an urban street:
Providing a walkway on both sides of the roadway with ample width that allows side-by-side walking
Distancing the walkway away from vehicular traffic using bike lanes, shoulders, on-street parking, buffers, trees,
and landscaping
Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the walkway
Limiting delay for pedestrians at signalized intersections
Providing raised medians that can serve as pedestrian refuges at both signalized and unsignalized locations
Removing permitted left turn movements by vehicles at signalized intersections
Prohibiting right turn movements on red by vehicles
Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections
A pedestrian density LOS can override the pedestrian quality of service calculations if sidewalk crowding is an issue. This
may be the case in dense urban areas or near stadiums or concert halls before or after major events.
Bicyclist LOS Factors
The following factors lead to a superior level of service for bicyclists on an urban street:
Providing bikes lanes on both sides of the roadway with ample width
Excellent pavement condition that is free of potholes, damage, and debris
Distancing the bike lane away from vehicular traffic as much as possible
Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the bike lane
Reducing the number of trucks, particularly those closest to the bike lane
Removing or reducing on-street parking
Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections
Providing bike lanes through intersections
Limiting the number of commercial driveways or driveways serving high-density residential buildings along the
street
Limiting or reducing the number of unsignalized intersections along the street
Page 678 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-3
Transit Passenger LOS Factors
Transit passenger level of service can be derived for buses, streetcars, and light rail operating on surface streets. The
following factors lead to a superior level of service for transit passengers on an urban street:
Reliable transit service with frequencies of 15 minutes or less
Higher transit travel speeds
High quality walkways leading to the transit stops (derived from the pedestrian LOS score)
Numerous transit stop locations with benches and shelters
On-board crowding less than 80%, meaning passengers can have a choice of seats
Safety Factors
The methodology does not include collisions as a factor. However, perceived safety is incorporated into the methodology
by way of vehicle volumes and speeds along the corridor links as well as the number of conflicting vehicle movements at
intersections.
Study Facilities
As part of the General Plan Update, staff from the City of San Luis Obispo and the consultant team identified thirteen
roadways for multimodal level of service evaluation. Those roadways are:
Broad Street between Higuera Street and Orcutt Road
Higuera Street between Johnson Avenue and High Street
Marsh Street between Johnson Avenue and Higuera Street
Monterey Street between Grand Avenue and Chorro Street
Chorro Street between Foothill Boulevard and Marsh Street
Santa Rosa Street between Highland Drive and Pismo Street
High Street between Higuera Street and Broad Street
South Higuera Street between High Street and Los Osos Valley Road
Madonna Road between Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road
Foothill Boulevard between California Boulevard and Patricia Drive
Johnson Avenue between Monterey Street and Laurel Lane
California Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and San Luis Drive
Osos Street between Palm Street and Upham Street
These roadways were analyzed for both the AM and PM peak hours for each direction of travel. Multimodal analysis of
these roadways establishes baseline conditions and sets the stage for future examination and evaluation of these and
other roadways. The purpose for selecting these roadways was to establish a cross-section of facility and area types,
providing opportunities to compare and contrast performance on various facilities and in assorted areas. Future analysis
of these and additional roadways will contribute to development of a multimodal network within the city.
Note: Multimodal Level of Service is based on the user’s perspective of a given mode’s quality of service. Quality of
Service is based on multiple factors including the physical features within the shared right-of-way environment as well as
traffic operations and service provisions.
Page 679 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-4
Table B-1. Bicyclist Link Level of Service (LOS) Summary
LOS Sample Description Photo
A
Superior
Level of
Service
Bike lane with ample width (buffered bike lane is
shown here)
Excellent pavement condition that is free of potholes,
damage, and debris
Bike lane positioned away from vehicular traffic
Vehicle volumes and speeds are minimized, particularly
those closest to the bike lane
The percentage of heavy trucks is minimal, particularly
in the travel lane closest to the bike lane
On-street parking is prohibited Image source: City of Bloomington buffered
bike lane
Location: East 3rd Street between Jordan
and Bryan, Bloomington, IN
B
Very Good
Level of
Service
Compared to LOS A results:
Narrower bike lane width
On-street parking allowed
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between
Monterey and Marsh
C
Good Level
of Service
Compared to LOS B results:
Higher vehicle volumes and speeds in lane closest to bike lane
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Foothill Boulevard between Broad
and Tassajara
Page 680 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-5
LOS Sample Description Photo
D
Fair Level of
Service
Compared to LOS C results:
Higher vehicle volumes and speeds in lane closest to
bike lane
Higher percent of heavy vehicles
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between Laurel
and Bishop
E
Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS D results:
No bike lane
Shoulder width narrow
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Pismo and
Marsh
F
Very Poor
Level of
Service
Compared to LOS E results:
No bike lane
Poor pavement condition
High vehicle volumes and speeds
High percent of on-street parking
Higher percent of heavy vehicles
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Pismo and
Marsh
Page 681 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-6
Table B-2. Pedestrian Link Level of Service (LOS) Summary
LOS Sample Description Photo
A
Superior Level of
Service
Walkway with ample width that allows side-by-
side walking
Walkway is buffered from vehicular traffic using
bike lanes, shoulders, on-street parking,
buffers, trees, and landscaping
Vehicle volumes and speeds are minimized,
particularly those closest to the walkway
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Monterey Street between Morro
and Chorro
B
Very Good Level of
Service
Compared to LOS A results:
Higher vehicle volumes and speeds due to one-
way street system
Less of a buffer between the sidewalk and due
lower percentage of parked vehicles
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Marsh Street between Broad and
Garden
C
Good Level of
Service
Compared to LOS B results:
Less distance between traffic and sidewalk
Higher volumes of traffic in the lane closest to
sidewalk
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between Marsh
and San Luis
Page 682 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-7
LOS Sample Description Photo
D
Fair Level of Service
Compared to LOS C results:
Higher vehicle volumes and speeds
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Foothill Boulevard Santa Rosa
and Chorro
E
Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS D results:
No sidewalk
Bike lane serves as a shoulder
Higher vehicle volumes
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Madonna Road between
Oceanaire and Los Osos Valley
F
Very Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS E results:
No walkway or shoulder
No buffered area between where pedestrians
walk and traveling vehicles
Vehicle volumes and speeds are high
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: West Lane between West Lane
Frontage and Pyrenees in Stockton, CA
Page 683 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-8
Table B-3. Transit Passenger Segment Level of Service (LOS) Summary
LOS Sample Description Photo
A
Superior Level
of Service
Reliable transit service with frequencies of 15
minutes or less
Higher transit travel speeds
High quality walkways leading to the transit stops
Numerous transit stop locations with benches and
shelters
Passengers can easily find seats on-board
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Foothill Boulevard between
Chorro and Santa Rosa
B
Very Good Level
of Service
Compared to LOS A results:
Fewer transit stop amenities
Narrower sidewalk that is closer to the vehicle
travel lanes
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Marsh Street between Broad and
Garden
C
Good Level of
Service
Compared to LOS B results:
Transit service not as frequent or reliable
Bus speeds lower
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Palm and
Monterey
Page 684 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-9
LOS Sample Description Photo
D
Fair Level of
Service
Compared to LOS C results:
Transit service not as frequent or reliable
Bus speeds lower
Fewer transit stop amenities
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Broad Street between High and
Buchon
E
Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS D results:
Transit service not as frequent or reliable
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between Lizzie
and Ella
F
Very Poor Level
of Service
Compared to LOS E results:
No transit service
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Pismo and
Marsh
Page 685 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-10
LOS Thresholds – Based on AADT
SH Urban (>5,000 Population) Uninterrupted Flow Highways
Lanes Divided
Level of Service
A B C D E
2 Undivided 1,680 5,520 10,320 14,560 19,920
2 Undivided 2,100 6,900 12,900 18,200 24,900
2 Divided 2,205 7,245 13,545 19,110 26,145
4 Undivided 13,950 22,650 32,700 42,375 48,150
4 Undivided 17,670 28,690 41,420 53,675 60,990
4 Divided 18,600 30,200 43,600 56,500 64,200
6 Undivided 20,925 33,900 49,125 63,525 72,150
6 Undivided 26,505 42,940 62,225 80,465 91,390
6 Divided 27,900 45,200 65,500 84,700 96,200
Urban (> 5,000 Population) Interrupted Flow Arterial (Signalized)
Lanes Divided
Level of Service
A B C D E
2 Undivided 0 3,200 10,480 12,400 13,040
2 Undivided 0 4,000 13,100 15,500 16,300
2 Divided 0 4,200 13,755 16,275 17,115
4 Undivided 3,450 20,925 24,600 25,650 25,650
4 Undivided 4,370 26,505 31,160 32,490 32,490
4 Divided 4,600 27,900 32,800 34,200 34,200
6 Undivided 5,175 32,100 36,975 38,550 38,550
6 Undivided 6,555 40,660 46,835 48,830 48,830
6 Divided 6,900 42,800 49,300 51,400 51,400
Urban (> 5,000 Population) Interrupted Flow Arterial (Signalized > 2 per mile)
Lanes Divided
Level of Service
A B C D E
2 Undivided 0 0 8,400 11,600 12,240
2 Undivided 0 0 10,500 14,500 15,300
2 Divided 0 0 11,025 15,225 16,065
4 Undivided 0 2,775 18,300 22,950 24,150
4 Undivided 0 3,515 23,180 29,070 30,590
4 Divided 0 3,700 24,400 30,600 32,200
6 Undivided 0 4,500 28,500 34,575 36,300
6 Undivided 0 5,700 36,100 43,795 45,980
6 Divided 0 6,000 38,000 46,100 48,400
Page 686 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-11
Rural Uninterrupted Flow Arterials in Undeveloped Areas
Lanes Divided
Level of Service
A B C D E
2 Climb Lane 2600 5300 8600 13800 22300
2 Climb Lane 3250 6625 10750 17250 27875
2 Undivided 2,080 4,240 6,880 11,040 17,840
2 Undivided 2,600 5,300 8,600 13,800 22,300
2 Divided 2,730 5,565 9,030 14,490 23,415
4 Undivided 13,125 21,450 30,600 39,300 43,725
4 Undivided 16,625 27,170 38,760 49,780 55,385
4 Divided 17,500 28,600 40,800 52,400 58,300
6 Undivided 19,650 32,100 45,900 58,950 65,550
6 Undivided 24,890 40,660 58,140 74,670 83,030
6 Divided 26,200 42,800 61,200 78,600 87,400
LOS Criteria – Signalized Intersections
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle) Description
A < 10 LOS A represents free-flow travel with an excellent level of comfort and convenience
and the freedom to maneuver.
B > 10 and < 20
LOS B has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other road users causes a
noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort, convenience, and maneuvering
freedom.
C > 20 and < 35 LOS C has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is
substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream.
D > 35 and < 55 LOS D represents high-density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in
speed and freedom to maneuver, with poor levels of comfort and convenience.
E > 55 and < 80
LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a
low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver is difficult with users
experiencing frustration and poor comfort and convenience. Unstable operation is
frequent, and minor disturbances in traffic flow can cause breakdown conditions.
F > 80
LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown conditions. This condition exists
wherever the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues
can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stop-and-
go fashion.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2000. (For signalized intersections)
Page 687 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-12
Level of Service Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Average Delay
(seconds / vehicle) Description
A < 10 Little or no delay
B > 10 and < 15 Short traffic delay
C > 15 and < 25 Average traffic delays
D > 25 and < 35 Long traffic delays
E > 35 and < 50 Very long traffic delays
F > 50 Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection
Suorce: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2000.
Multimodal LOS Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria
The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all four modes
of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per the table below and the Highway Capacity manual.
Travel Mode LOS OBJECTIVE MINIMUM LOS STANDARD
Bicycle 1 B D
Pedestrian 2 BC
Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower
Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes)
Notes:
(1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan.
(2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with
neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density.
(3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.
Page 688 of 712
Circulation Element
Page B-13
Multimodal Priorities
In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, Multimodal service levels should be prioritized in accordance with
the established modal priorities designated in the table below, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one
mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode.
Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking
Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Vehicle
Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicle
2. Bicycles 4. Transit
Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians
Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles
2. Transit 4. Pedestrians
Notes:
Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character,
topography, street design, and existing density.
Page 689 of 712
Chapter 2
Page B-14
Please see the next page.
Page 690 of 712
Circulation Element
Page C-1
Appendix C. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology
1. Identify the visual resources.
2. Conduct field investigations:
(a) Identify the Freeway, Highway-Regional Routes and arterial streets (reference Figure 1).
(b) Designate points of view along each street.
(c) Record observations.
1. Transfer field observations onto a worksheet and assign valences to each visual unit.
2. Multiply good or fair or poor (3, 2, 1) views by major or minor (2, 1) assessments.
(a) Good (3) Major visual unit (2)
(b) Fair (2) X or = 1 - 6
(c) Poor (1) Minor visual unity (1)
1. Sum the products for each point to determine a visual index value at each point.
2. Calculate the statistical mean, median, and mode.
3. Categorize the visual quality index numbers into High, Moderate, and Low classifications.
4. Map the Scenic Roadways with a High or Moderate classification.
Page 691 of 712
Chapter 2
Page C-2
Please see the next page.
Page 692 of 712
Circulation Element
Page D-1
Appendix D. Summary of Circulation Element Projects and Programs
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program
Traffic Reduction
2.2.1 Agency Cooperation X
2.2.2 City Trip Reduction X
2.2.3 Large Employers X
2.2.4 Incentives for Educational Institutions X
Transit Service
3.2.1 Transit Plans X
3.2.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes X
3.2.3 Commuter Bus Service X
3.2.4 Transit Service Evaluation X
3.2.5 Marketing and Promotion X
3.2.6 Short Range Transit Plan X
3.2.7 New Development X
3.2.8 Regional Transit Center X
Bicycle Transportation
4.2.1 Bike Share X
4.2.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan X
4.2.3 Campus Master Plans X
4.2.4 Zoning Regulations X
4.2.5 Railroad Bikeway and Trail X
4.2.6 Bicycle Friendly Community X
4.2.7 Regional Coordination X
4.2.8 Bicycle Licensing X
Walking
5.2.1 Downtown Pedestrian Plan X
5.2.2 Pedestrian Network X
5.2.3 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance X
5.2.4 Safe Routes to School X
5.2.5 Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan X
Multi-Modal Circulation
6.2.1 Traffic Count Program X
Traffic Management
7.2.1 Traffic Reduction Priority X
7.2.2 Transportation Monitoring X
7.2.3 Transportation Survey X
Page 693 of 712
Chapter 2
Page D-2
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program
7.2.4 Transportation Model X
7.2.5 Cooperative Street Design X
7.2.6 Subdivision Regulations
7.2.7 Traffic Access Management X
7.2.8 State Highway HOV Lanes X
7.2.9 Transportation Funding X
Neighborhood Traffic Management
8.2.1 Traffic Management Plans X
8.2.2 Traffic Control Measures X
8.2.3 Quality of Life X
8.2.4 Regional Cut-trough Traffic X
Street Network Changes (1)
9.2.1 Building Setback Lines X
9.2.2 Prado Road Improvements X
9.2.3 Street Amenities Plan X
9.2.4 Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center X
9.2.5 San Luis Ranch/Dalidio Development X
1 Prado Road Extension West X
2 Prado Road Extension East X
3 Buckley Road Extension X
4 Bullock Lane Extension X
5 Santa Fe Road Extension X
6 Bishop Street Extension X
7 Mission Plaza Expansion X
8 Victoria Ave. Extension X
9 Mid Higuera (Marsh to High Street) X
10 Orcutt Road (Johnson to UPRR) X
11 Tank Farm Road (Higuera to Broad) X
12 South Higuera (Madonna to City Limits) X
13 Hwy 1 (Santa Rosa) X
14 Tank Farm to Buckley Collector X
15 LOVR Bypass X
16 Froom Ranch Road X
17 Highway 1 (Santa Rosa) & US 101 Interchange
Upgrade X
18 Broad St. & US 101 Interchange Closure X
19 Prado Road & US 101 Interchange X
20 Monterey Street Right of Way (Santa Rosa to
Grand) X
21 Prefumo Canyon Rd. Median X
Page 694 of 712
Circulation Element
Page D-3
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program
22 Garden Street Makeover X
23 Marsh & Higuera 2-Way Conversion X
24 Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments X
25 Madonna / Higuera Realignment X
26 Pismo / Higuera / High Street X
27 Various Intersection Upgrades X
28 Various Specific Plans X
29 Various Trans. Plans X
9.2.6 Streetscapes and Major Roadways X
Truck Transportation
10.2.1 Truck Idling Regulations X
10.2.2 Home Occupation Permit Regulations X
10.2.3 Commercial Loading Zones X
10.2.4 Truck Circulation X
Air Transportation
11.2.1 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft X
11.2.2 Airport Facilities Development X
11.2.3 Airport Funding X
11.2.4 Update of the Airport Land Use Plan X
Rail Transportation
12.2.1 Daily Train Connections X
12.2.2 Intra-county Rail Service X
12.2.3 Interagency Cooperation X
12.2.4 Railroad Hazards Reduction X
12.2.5 Transport of Combustible Materials X
Parking Management
13.2.1 Parking Management Plan X
13.2.2 Monitor Public Parking X
13.2.3 Park and Ride Lots X
13.2.4 Public Parking Structures X
13.2.5 Curb Parking Evaluation X
13.2.6 Downtown Trolley X
Neighborhood Parking Management
14.2.1 Neighborhood Parking Permits X
14.2.2 Financing Districts X
Scenic Roadways
15.2.1 Visual Character X
Page 695 of 712
Chapter 2
Page D-4
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program
15.2.2 Architectural Review Guidelines X
15.2.3 Street Corridor Landscaping X
15.2.4 Billboards X
Circulation Element Implementation, Funding & Management
16.2.1 Transportation Work Program X
16.2.2 Multi-modal Impact Fee X
16.2.3 Evaluation of Alternatives X
16.2.4 Evaluate Transportation Effects X
Number of Programs 37 17 48
(1) City sponsored street projects are those listed on Table 5 where:
The City is identified as the “lead agency,” and
The City has primary funding responsibility or the street project is not associated with new development.
Page 696 of 712
Circulation Element
Page E-1
Appendix E. Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures)
ID
# Location Road Type Lanes
Divided
Roadway
Left Turn
Lanes
Baseline
AADT LOS
1 Augusta (Bishop – Laurel) W / Laurel Collector 2 NO YES 2,688 B
3 Broad ( S / South) Regional Route 4 YES YES 29,980 C
4 Broad (Foothill – Lincoln) Collector 2 NO NO 4,799 C
5 Broad (Monterey ‐ Marsh) Collector 2 NO NO 5,867 C
6 Broad (Marsh – Upham) Arterial 2 NO NO 9,479 C
7 Broad (Upham – South) Arterial 4 YES YES 13,526 B
8 Broad (South – Orcutt) Arterial 4 YES YES 29,980 C
9 Broad (Orcutt – Tank Farm Road) Regional Route 4 YES YES 26,308 B
10 Broad (Tank Farm Road – Buckley) Regional Route 4 YES YES 18,771 B
11 Broad (Buckley South) Regional Route - County 2 NO YES 15,573 E
12 Buchon (High – Santa Rosa) Collector 2 NO NO 1,340 B
13 Buchon (Santa Rosa – Johnson) Collector 2 NO NO 3,543 C
17 California ( Cal Poly – Foothill) Arterial 4 NO YES 8,675 B
18 California (Foothill – Taft) Arterial 4 YES YES 17,302 B
19 California (Taft – Monterey) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,469 C
20 California (Taft – San Luis) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,676 C
21 Capitolio (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad Collector 2 NO YES 3,427 B
22 Chorro (Highland – Foothill) Collector 2 NO NO 4,878 C
23 Chorro (Foothill – Lincoln) Collector 2 NO NO 8,570 C
24 Chorro (Lincoln – Palm) Arterial 2 YES YES 5,662 C
25 Chorro (Palm – Pismo) Arterial 2 NO NO 5,555 C
26 Foothill ( Los Osos Valley ‐ Patricia) Residential Arterial 2 NO NO 9,500 C
27 Foothill (Patricia – Broad) Residential Arterial 2 YES YES 13,621 C
28 Foothill (Broad – Santa Rosa) Arterial 4 YES YES 17,650 B
29 Foothill (Santa Rosa – California) Arterial 4 YES YES 16,638 B
32 Grand ( Cal Poly ‐ Mill) Arterial 4 YES YES 9,612 B
33 High (Higuera ‐ Broad) Collector 2 NO NO 2,460 B
34 Highland (Patricia ‐ Ferrini) Arterial 2 NO NO 4,401 C
35 Highland (Ferrini ‐ Cal Poly) Collector 2 NO YES 7,032 C
36 Higuera (Johnson – Santa Rosa) Arterial 2 NO NO 3,058 B
37 Higuera (Santa Rosa – Nipomo) Arterial 2 YES YES 7,750 C
38 Higuera (Nipomo – Marsh) Arterial 2 YES YES 9,029 C
39 Higuera (Marsh – South) Arterial 2 YES YES 11,976 C
40 Higuera (South – Madonna) Arterial 4 YES YES 26,342 B
41 Higuera (Madonna – Prado) Arterial 4 YES YES 14,773 B
42 Higuera (Prado – Tank Farm Road) Arterial 4 YES YES 16,487 B
43 Higuera (Tank Farm Road – LOVR) Arterial 4 YES YES 21,789 B
44 Higuera (LOVR – South of City Limits) Arterial 2 NO YES 7,024 C
45 Industrial (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad Collector 2 NO YES 5,696 C
46 Johnson (Monterey ‐ San Luis Drive) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,774 C
Page 697 of 712
Chapter 2
Page E-2
ID
# Location Road Type Lanes
Divided
Roadway
Left Turn
Lanes
Baseline
AADT LOS
47 Johnson (San Luis Drive ‐ Laurel) Arterial 4 YES YES 15,695 B
48 Johnson (Laurel – Orcutt) Arterial 2 YES YES 6,851 C
50 Laurel (Johnson – Orcutt) Arterial 4 NO YES 8,811 B
52 Los Osos Valley (W / City Limits) Arterial 2 NO NO 10,107 C
53 Los Osos Valley (North City Limits ‐
Prefumo Canyon) Arterial 4 YES YES 20,542 B
54 Los Osos Valley ( Prefumo Canyon ‐
Madonna) Arterial 4 YES YES 24,893 B
55 Los Osos Valley (Madonna – Route 101) Arterial 4 YES YES 29,560 C
56 Los Osos Valley (Route 101 – Higuera) Arterial 4 YES YES 26,028 B
57 Los Osos Valley (Route 101 – Higuera)
Southern Bypass Buckley Arterial 4 YES YES 27,028 B
58 Madonna (LOVR ‐ Oceanaire) Arterial 4 YES YES 20,105 B
59 Madonna (Oceanaire ‐ US-101) Arterial 4 YES YES 23,606 B
60 Madonna (US-101 ‐ Higuera) Arterial 4 YES YES 24,175 B
61 Margarita (E / Higuera) E / Higuera Collector 2 YES YES 3,735 B
62 Marsh (Higuera – Santa Rosa) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,156 C
63 Marsh (Santa Rosa ‐ California) Arterial 2 YES YES 4,498 C
64 Mill (Grand – Chorro) W / Pepper Collector 2 NO NO 2,042 B
65 Monterey (Chorro – Santa Rosa) Arterial 2 YES YES 4,220 C
66 Monterey (Santa Rosa ‐ California) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,425 C
67 Monterey (California ‐ US-101) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,167 C
69 Oceanaire (LOVR – Madonna) S /
Lakeview Collector 2 NO NO 2,403 B
70 Oceanaire (LOVR – Madonna) South Side Local 2 NO NO 702 B
71 Orcutt (Broad – Laurel) Arterial 4 YES YES 14,640 B
72 Orcutt (Laurel – Johnson) Arterial 2 NO NO 2,416 B
73 Orcutt (Johnson – Tank Farm) Arterial 2 NO NO 6,819 C
74 Orcutt (S / City Limits) Arterial 2 NO YES 2,151 B
75 Palm (Chorro – Santa Rosa) W / Osos Collector 2 NO NO 4,194 C
77 Pismo (Higuera ‐ Santa Rosa) Collector 2 NO NO 3,218 C
78 Pismo (Santa Rosa ‐ Johnson) Collector 2 NO NO 3,013 B
79 Prado (Madonna ‐ US-101) Arterial 2 NO YES 6,818 C
80 Prado (US-101 ‐ Higuera) Arterial 2 NO YES 6,818 C
81 Prado (Higuera ‐ Broad Street) Regional Route 2 NO YES 3,302 B
82 Prefumo (LOVR – CL) W / LOVR Collector 2 NO YES 4,825 C
83 Ramona (Patricia – Broad) W / Broad Collector 2 NO NO 4,873 C
84 Sacramento (Orcutt – Industrial) Collector 2 NO NO 3,558 C
85 San Luis (California – Johnson) Arterial 2 NO YES 9,761 C
86 SR-1-Santa Rosa St (US-101-Foothill) Arterial - Caltrans 4 PARTIAL YES 27,800 C
87 SR-1-Cabrillo Hwy (Foothill to northern city
limit) Arterial - Caltrans 4 YES YES 25,000 B
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Page 698 of 712
Circulation Element Page F-1 Appendix F. Existing Intersection LOS AM and PM Peak Hours Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North-South East-West Traffic Control 1 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 1 Chorro St Highland Dr SSSC NB B 11.1 0.21 NB A 9.8 0.11 2 Patricia Dr Foothill Blvd Signal B 11.0 0.65 A 6.3 0.5 3 Tassajara Dr Foothill Blvd Signal A 4.2 0.36 A 4.3 0.46 4 Broad St Foothill Blvd Signal C 31.4 0.39 C 27.3 0.41 5 Chorro St Foothill Blvd Signal C 30.6 0.69 D 42.9 0.75 6 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Foothill Blvd Signal C 25.8 0.79 D 41.7 0.91 7 California Blvd Foothill Blvd Signal B 14.7 0.44 B 18.6 0.6 8 Grand Ave Slack St AWSC SB D 26.1 0.7 SB D 28.6 0.35 9 Broad St Murray St SSSC WB A 9.6 0.07 WB B 10.2 0.11 10 Chorro St Murray St AWSC NB A 9.4 0.24 NB A 10.0 0.22 11 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Murray St Signal B 13.0 0.58 C 21.6 0.75 12 California Blvd Taft St SSSC WB D 26.8 0.59 WB F 405.9 1.65 13 Grand Ave Hwy 101 SB SSSC WB C 21.9 0.49 WB C 23.8 0.26 14 Grand Ave Hwy 101 NB Signal B 12.6 0.57 A 9.3 0.4 15 Broad St Lincoln St AWSC WBL A 8.8 -- EB A 9.6 -- 16 Chorro St Lincoln St AWSC WB B 10.9 -- EBR B 11.1 -- 17 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Olive St Signal A 6.0 0.55 A 4.5 0.52 18 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Walnut St Signal B 15.1 0.72 B 14.8 0.7 19 Broad St Palm St AWSC WBL A 9.6 -- WBL A 9.3 -- 20 Chorro St Palm St Signal A 9.7 0.2 B 10.2 0.22 21 Chorro St Monterey St Signal A 6.6 0.16 A 8.4 0.22 Page 699 of 712
Chapter 2 Page F-2 Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North-South East-West Traffic Control 1 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 22 Morro St Monterey St Signal A 9.4 0.16 A 7.5 0.15 23 Osos St Monterey St Signal B 15.1 0.14 A 10.6 0.23 24 Nipomo St Higuera St Signal B 10.6 0.21 B 10.4 0.31 25 Broad St Higuera St Signal B 13.5 0.24 B 14.7 0.35 26 Chorro St Higuera St Signal C 25.6 0.16 C 22.6 0.27 27 Morro St Higuera St Signal C 22.6 0.21 C 21.5 0.22 28 Osos St Higuera St Signal B 12.7 0.28 B 12.0 0.35 29 Higuera St Hwy 101 Signal B 14.0 0.46 B 17.1 0.55 30 Nipomo St Marsh St Signal A 9.5 0.25 B 10.1 0.28 31 Broad St Marsh St Signal A 7.2 0.26 A 7.8 0.33 32 Chorro St Marsh St Signal A 6.1 0.21 A 8.6 0.34 33 Morro St Marsh St Signal A 4.6 0.21 A 7.4 0.25 34 Osos St Marsh St Signal B 11.7 0.22 A 8.8 0.33 35 Broad St Pacific St Signal A 5.0 0.29 A 9.1 0.41 36 Pismo St High St Signal B 10.1 0.44 B 15.9 0.53 37 Broad St Pismo St Signal A 6.6 0.35 A 9.3 0.42 38 Chorro St Pismo St AWSC EBR A 7.7 -- NB A 8.3 -- 39 Osos St Pismo St Signal B 10.7 0.39 B 11.0 0.42 40 Broad St Buchon St Signal A 5.0 0.28 A 5.2 0.3 41 Osos St Buchon St Signal A 9.0 0.5 A 9.0 0.52 42 Hwy 101 NB California Blvd SSSC SB D 26.1 0.7 SB D 28.6 0.35 43 Santa Rosa St Mill St Signal A 6.2 0.33 A 5.8 0.33 44 Johnson Ave Mill St AWSC NB A 8.2 0.38 NB A 8.7 0.24 45 California Blvd Mill St Signal A 6.4 0.44 A 5.1 0.37 46 Santa Rosa St Palm St Signal B 11.9 0.39 B 10.6 0.49 47 Santa Rosa St Monterey St Signal A 9.3 0.38 B 17.7 0.44 48 Johnson Ave Monterey St Signal B 13.0 0.5 B 12.1 0.5 Page 700 of 712
Circulation Element Page F-3 Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North-South East-West Traffic Control 1 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 49 California Blvd Monterey St Signal C 29.3 0.72 C 32.8 0.71 50 Grand Ave Monterey St Signal B 11.3 0.5 A 8.9 0.5 51 Santa Rosa St Higuera St Signal A 6.0 0.31 A 7.4 0.32 52 Johnson Ave Higuera St SSSC WB C 15.5 0.04 WB C 15.6 0.08 53 Santa Rosa St Marsh St Signal A 9.6 0.4 A 8.9 0.46 54 Johnson Ave Marsh St Signal C 26.9 0.53 D 41.2 0.68 55 San Luis Dr California Blvd AWSC NBL E 46.5 -- NBL E 45.3 -- 56 Santa Rosa St Pismo St AWSC NB B 11.2 0.38 WB B 11.8 0.03 57 Johnson Ave Pismo St SSSC WB C 24.7 0.11 WB B 12.4 0.03 58 Johnson Ave Buchon St SSSC EB D 33.9 0.68 WB C 18.4 0 59 San Luis Dr Johnson Ave Signal B 18.4 0.77 B 14.5 0.49 60 Johnson Ave Lizzie St Signal B 11.4 0.51 B 11.7 0.42 61 Fixlini St (Exit) Lizzie St SSSC NB A 9.7 0.09 NB B 9.6 0.03 62 Fixlini St (Entrance) Lizzie St None EB A 7.2 0.13 EB A 5.4 0.05 63 Johnson Ave Ella St Signal B 11.2 0.51 A 9.3 0.41 64 Fixlini St Johnson Ave SSSC WB B 13.1 0.02 WB B 11.9 0.01 65 Los Osos Valley Descanso St Signal A 5.3 0.39 A 2.8 0.39 66 Los Osos Valley Rd Laguna Lane Signal B 12.2 0.59 B 14.0 0.57 67 Los Osos Valley Rd Royal Way Signal B 13.6 0.62 B 12.7 0.43 68 Los Osos Valley Rd Madonna Rd Signal D 38.5 0.57 E 58.1 0.6 69 Pereira Dr Madonna Rd SSSC SB C 22.3 -- SB B 10.8 -- 70 Oceanaire Dr Madonna Rd Signal B 13.5 0.8 A 9.0 0.78 71 Dalidio Dr Madonna Rd Signal B 12.1 0.51 B 18.3 0.61 72 El Mercado Madonna Rd Signal B 11.4 0.41 B 16.6 0.51 73 Madonna Inn Dwy Madonna Rd Signal C 24.7 0.62 C 28.5 0.72 74 Hwy 101 NB Madonna Rd Signal B 13.7 0.47 B 17.9 0.68 75 Higuera St Madonna Rd Signal B 14.8 0.49 C 20.4 0.69 Page 701 of 712
Chapter 2 Page F-4 Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North-South East-West Traffic Control 1 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 76 Higuera St South St Signal A 8.3 0.42 A 8.3 0.42 77 Los Osos Valley Rd Garcia Dr Signal NB A 9.5 0.01 SB B 10.6 0.03 78 Los Osos Valley Rd Froom Ranch Way Signal B 17.0 0.41 D 36.3 0.58 79 Los Osos Valley Rd Calle Joaquin Signal A 7.1 0.36 B 11.1 0.54 80 Los Osos Valley Rd Hwy 101 NB Signal C 20.8 0.73 C 27.0 0.72 81 Hwy 101 NB Los Osos Valley Rd Signal B 18.0 0.78 B 18.4 0.61 82 Higuera St Los Osos Valley Rd Signal B 13.0 0.67 B 15.6 0.88 83 Higuera St Vachell Lane SSSC WB F 181.0 1.02 WB F 127.6 0.87 84 Higuera St Suburban Rd Signal A 6.7 0.5 B 11.8 0.64 85 Higuera St Tank Farm Rd Signal C 21.6 0.46 C 28.5 0.66 86 Higuera St Prado Rd Signal B 17.1 0.47 C 20.1 0.59 87 Higuera St Margarita Ave Signal A 9.9 0.4 A 9.9 0.34 88 Santa Barbara St Upham St Signal A 3.9 0.41 A 5.1 0.48 89 Broad St High St SSSC WB B 13.9 0.04 WB C 16.1 0.05 90 Broad St South St Signal C 25.6 0.7 C 27.5 0.71 91 Johnson Ave Bishop St Signal B 19.0 0.75 A 9.3 0.42 92 Broad St Orcutt Rd Signal B 19.6 0.51 C 22.4 0.62 93 Laurel Lane Johnson Ave Signal B 14.9 0.47 B 16.4 0.59 94 Broad St Rockview Pl SSSC EB C 20.5 0.18 EB C 23.4 0.12 95 Broad St Capitolio Way SSSC WB B 14.5 0.1 WB C 17.9 0.32 96 Johnson Ave Orcutt Rd AWSC NB C 15.4 0.05 NB B 11.4 0.11 97 Broad St Industrial Way Signal B 10.1 0.47 B 17.6 0.67 98 Broad St Tank Farm Rd Signal C 32.8 0.73 D 51.1 0.95 99 Poinsettia St Tank Farm Rd SSSC NB B 11.4 0.11 NB B 12.5 0.08 100 Brookpine Dr Tank Farm Rd SSSC NB B 13.8 0.28 NB C 16.4 0.22 101 Broad St Aero Dr Signal A 7.5 0.46 A 9.3 0.51 102 Broad St Airport Way SSSC EB C 20.0 0.05 EB F 91.9 0.3 Page 702 of 712
Circulation Element Page F-5 Int. # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour North-South East-West Traffic Control 1 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 Critical Move 2 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 3 Intersections operating at sub-standard conditions (LOS E or F) are highlighted; Intersections under state control are italicized. 1 Traffic control: Signal = Signalized; SSSC = Side-street stop-controlled; AWSC = All-way stop-controlled2 Critical Move = Critical movement; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; R = Right turn; L = Left turn, does not apply to signalized intersections3 v/C = Volume to capacity Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Mid-Day Int # Intersection Mid-day North-South East-West Critical Move 1 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 2 22 Morro St Monterey St A 8.2 0.15 25 Broad St Higuera St B 15.4 0.39 27 Morro St Higuera St C 20.5 0.22 30 Nipomo St Marsh St B 10.4 0.31 31 Broad St Marsh St A 7.9 0.31 33 Morro St Marsh St A 7.6 0.27 37 Broad St Pismo St A 8.8 0.44 53 Santa Rosa St Marsh St A 9.2 0.49 78 Los Osos Valley Rd Froom Ranch Way D 36.2 0.58 79 Los Osos Valley Rd Calle Joaquin B 11.9 0.53 80 Los Osos Valley Rd Hwy 101 NB C 28.0 0.73 81 Hwy 101 NB Los Osos Valley Rd B 17.9 0.59 87 Higuera St Margarita Ave B 14.3 0.40 1 Critical Move = Critical movement, does not apply to signalized intersections2 v/C = Volume to capacity Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 703 of 712
Chapter 2 Page F-6 Please see the next page. Page 704 of 712
Circulation Element
Page G-1
APPENDIX G. LIST OF PREPARERS
City Staff
LUCE Update
Project Management
Derek Johnson Director, Community Development Department
Kim Murry Deputy Director, Community Development Department
Peggy Mandeville Principal Transportation Planner
Jake Hudson Traffic Operations Manager
Other City Staff Shannon Bates, Recreation and Arts
Manager, (Former) Parks and
Recreation department
Erik Berg-Johansen, Planning
Technician, Community Development
Department
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Public
Works Department
Claire Clark, Economic Development
Manager, (Former) Administration
Department
James David, Associate Planner,
(Former) Community Development
Department
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director,
Community Development Department
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner,
Community Development Department
Joe Fernandez, Contract Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department
Steven Gessell, Chief, Police
Department
Daryl Grigsby, Director, Public Works
Department
Neil Havlik, Natural Resources
Manager (Former) Administration
Department
Robert Hill, Natural Resources
Manager, Administration Department
Lee Johnson, Economic
Development Manager,
Administration Department
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner,
Community Development
Department
Barbara Lynch, City Engineer,
Public Works Department
Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshall,
Fire Department
Carrie Mattingly, Director,
Utilities Department
Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project
Manager, Utilities Department
Garret Olson, Chief, Fire
Department
Freddy Otte, Biologist,
Administration Department
Wayne Padilla, Director, Finance
and Information Technology
Department
Kerri Rosenblum,
Communications and Records
Manager, Police Department
Shelly Stanwyck, Director, Parks
and Recreation department
Keith Storton, Captain, Police
Department
David Yun, GIS, Community
Development Department
Page 705 of 712
Chapter 2
Page G-2
General Plan Consulting Team
Matrix Design Group
Celeste Werner, AICP Principal in Charge
Rick Rust, AICP LUCE Update Project Manager
Mike Hrapla Infrastructure Task Manager
Bren Cox Senior Planner
Willilam Kavadas Associate Planner
Matt Simpson Engineer
Melanie Jollett Engineer
Jeff Clonts GIS Analyst
Janne Graham Word Processing
Cathy Lloyd Graphics
Mintier Harnish
Larry Mintier, FAICP Project Director
Jim Harnish, JD Planner/ Environmental Review
Ted Holzem Senior Planner
Dov Kadin Associate Planner
Jim Pepper, ASLA, MCP Senior Planner
Kittelson & Associates
Jim Damkowitch Circulation Task Manager
Alice Chen Senior Planner
Kamala Parks Senior Planner
Frank Cai, T.E. Senior Engineer
Sean Houck, P.E. Senior Engineer
Darryl DePencier Associate Planner
Mathew Braughton Transportation Analyst
Aaron Elias, T.E. Associate Engineer
Amy Lopez Transportation Analyst
Oliveira Environmental Consulting
Jeff Oliveira EIR Task Manager
Jason Kirschenstein Environmental Analyst
Kevin Merk Environmental Analyst
John Rickenbach Environmental Analyst
Steve Rodriguez, AICP Environmental Analyst
Bob Sloan Environmental Analyst
David Wolff Environmental Analyst
Page 706 of 712
Circulation Element
Page G-3
Applied Development Economics
Doug Svensson, AICP Fiscal/Financial Task Manager
Peter Cheng Economist
Flint Strategies
Kendall Flint Outreach Task Manager
Steve Flint Outreach Specialist
Eric Allen Outreach Specialist
Ascent Environmental
Honey L. Walters Senior Environmental Specialist
Dimitri Antoniou Environmental Analyst
Erik de Kok, AICP Senior Planner
UrbanGreen
Jim Heid, FASLA Urban Design Task Manager
Page 707 of 712
Chapter 2
Page G-4
Please see the next page.
Page 708 of 712
APPENDIX H. RESOLUTION 10843
A resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approvinŐamendments to the General Plan
Circulation Element ŝŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽƐƚƌĞĞƚĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
Circulation Element
Page,-1 Page 709 of 712
Chapter 2
Page,-Ϯ
Page 710 of 712
Circulation Element
Page,-ϯ Page 711 of 712
Chapter 2
Page,-ϰ
Page 712 of 712
AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATECity Council 1/18/2022
RECOMMENDATIONS1.Provide staff with direction on the scope of work to be includedwith the Access and Parking Management Plan Update Requestfor Proposals (RFP); and2.Authorize the issuance of an RFP for an update of the City’sAccess and Parking Management Plan; and3.Reallocate $100,000 from the Parking Fund’s working capital tothe program’s contract services account; and4.Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with theselected consultant for the Access and Parking Management Planup to the project budget of $100,000.2
WHAT IS AN ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN?•A framework for providing effective parking managementapproaches to meet overall City goals and objectives.oAligns parking program policies with other City guidingdocuments (General Plan, Zoning Regulations, ActiveTransportation Plan, Downtown Concept Plan)•Identify near-term and long-term strategies for the development offorward-thinking and holistically-managed public parking system.•Improve the access and parking experience for residents,employees, businesses, and visitors of the downtown area.3
PREVIOUS UPDATES TO THE ACCESS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN2002 UpdateThe Plan was amended to include a variety of parking demandmanagement strategies and programs such as:•Bus pass subsidies for downtown employees•Improve bicycle access to the downtown•Reduce free parking in structures from 90 minutes to 60 minutes•Increase 2-hour parking and limit long-term parking in thecommercial core2011 UpdateThe Plan was amended to include parking management goals insupport of downtown residential parking.4
CITY DOCUMENTS UPDATED SINCE 20115
DOWNTOWN PARKING & ACCESS6
PARKING MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGYGateless Parking FacilitiesDigitalPermittingMulti-SpacePay StationsLicense Plate Recognition Enforcement7
MAJOR GOALS OF THE ACCESS AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE•Maintain afiscally solvent Fundthat can support the constructionof new facilities.•Bring together the goals and objectivesin previously approveddocuments (General Plan, Zoning Plan, Active Transportation Plan,and Downtown Concept Plan).•Support the needs of the Downtown and preferential parkingdistrictsin Residential and Commercial Areas.•Provide strategies on how toaddress mixed-use areasthat areboth commercial and residential.•Provide policy objectives forparking demand reductionthroughvarious programs.8
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK(Packet Pages 538-540)1.Public Outreach including individual meeting with key stakeholders(Council Members, Downtown SLO, Chamber of Commerce, County ofSLO, TBID, Resident Groups, Real Estate Groups, and Cal Poly)2.Collection of Existing Resources and Utilization Rate Analysis3.Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies4.Review of Applicable Best Management Practices5.Forecasting Future Operations Requirements6.Development of Strategies and Actions7.Implementation Plan Including Evaluative Criteria8.Comprehensive Report Presented to Planning Commission and Council9
TENTATIVE WORK SCHEDULE1.Advertise and Award a Contract – Spring 20222.Data Collection and Public Outreach – Summer 20223.Document Development and Presentations – Fall 2022Schedule will be assessed with consultant team and adjusted to matchpublic outreach needs and final schedule communicated out to Council.10
RECOMMENDATIONS1.Provide staff with direction on the scope of work to be includedwith the Access and Parking Management Plan Update Requestfor Proposals (RFP);2.Authorize the issuance of an RFP for an update of the City’sAccess and Parking Management Plan;3.Reallocate $100,000 from the Parking Fund’s working capital tothe program’s contract services account; and4.Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with theselected consultant for the Access and Parking Management Planup to the project budget of $100,000.11
COUNCIL INPUT NEEDEDPublic Outreach•Which organizations and individuals should be part of the public outreach effort?•At what waypoints does Council want to be involved in the process?Identification of Case Studies•How large of an emphasis should there be on parking districts?•How to balance and integrate best practices for commercial/residentialcurbside managementForecasting Future Operational Requirements•Should the plan include triggers for construction of additional parking structuresand/or surface parking lot facilities?Development of Strategies and Actions•What should be the implementation timeline for strategies and action items? (3years, 5 years, 10 years, etc.)Other Areas12
PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK(Packet Pages 538-540)1.Public Outreach including individual meeting with key stakeholders(Council Members, Downtown SLO, Chamber of Commerce, County ofSLO, TBID, Resident Groups, Real Estate Groups, and Cal Poly)2.Collection of Existing Resources and Utilization Rate Analysis3.Development of Vision, Goals, and Policies4.Review of Applicable Best Management Practices5.Forecasting Future Operations Requirements6.Development of Strategies and Actions7.Implementation Plan Including Evaluative Criteria8.Comprehensive Report Presented to Planning Commission and Council13