HomeMy WebLinkAboutR 8240 Approving and Adopting a Bicycle Transportation Planc c
RESOLUTION NO. 8240 (1993 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council established the Bicycle Committee in August, 1991 and
directed the Committee to update the 1985 Bicycle Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Committee held public meetings between July 1992 and March
1993 to provide Staff with input to the preparation of a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1993, the Public Works Department published a draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan and the plan was reviewed at five public hearings held by the Bicycle
Committee between June 21 and July 26, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Committee has forwarded recommendations to the City Council
for adoption of the Plan and action on the Plan's Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has published a negative
declaration for the Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and has identified
specific mitigation measures identified in the following sections of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, at public hearings on August 31, September 10, and October 27, 1993, the
Council considered Bicycle Committee recommendations, staff recommendations, and public
testimony concerning the content of the Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan supports
its Circulation Elements goals and policies that call for the "... the per capita reduction of
automobile use in the City and the use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles..."
(Reference Resolution 4755, 1982 Series).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
. Section 1: Thee Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby
adopted. The text of the adopted Plan is attached as Exhibit A;
Section 2: The City Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts associated with implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan with the following
mitigation measures:
R -8240
C O
Page 2 -- Resolution No.
A. Impact: Proposed bicycle parking provisions inconsistent with current zoning
regulations.
Mitigation: Initiate amendments to the Zoning Regulations and other City land use
and development regulations to implement the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Section 3: The Bicycle Facilities Plan adopted by Council Resolution Number 5672 (1985
Series) is hereby rescinded;
Section 4: The Public Works Department shall publish and make available to the public
the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan and shall distribute copies to appropriate members of
City government, to the California Department of Transportation, and other appropriate agencies
and local libraries.
On motion of council Member Settle ,seconded by Council Member Rappa and
on the following roll call vote: .
AYES: Council Members Settle, Rappa, Roalman, Romero, and Mayor Pinard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 27 day of October , 1993.
1/ 1
ATTEST:
j //
- . 1
APPROVED:
��� � ���r�..
V �% � •
J�
��' � �1; �
h
,:
-.
411,
It
Bicycle Transportation Plan
CITY COUNCIL
Peg Pinard - Mayor
William Roalman, Vice Mayor
Penny Rappa
David Romero
Allen Settle
Adopted October 27, 1993
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Richard Marshall - Chair
Craig Anderson
Wes Conner
Ron Brown
Jim Lopes
Linda Fitzgerald
Gary Sims
David Pierce
Wayne Williams
Terry Sanville
ADMINISTRATION
John Dunn, City Administrative Officer
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike McCluskey, Director
Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner (Program Manager)
Craig Anderson, Bicycle Coordinator
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa.e
I.
INTRODUCTION .................................
1
H.
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...
3
M.
BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS ........
4
A. Introduction . . . . . . . . ..... . . .. . .. . .. . ... . . .. .. . . . . .
4
B. Definitions . . .. . . . . ..... . . . .... . . . . .... . . . .. . . . . .
4
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Paths (Class I) ...............
5
D. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Lanes (Class II) . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
7
E. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Routes (Class III) .............
10
F. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Boulevards ................
10
G. Policies and Standards for Maintenance of Paths, Lanes and Routes ...
11
IV.
BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES ..............
12
A. Introduction ...... .. . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . ..........12
B. Definitions .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . ... ..........12
C. Policies and Standards ...............................
13
D. Programs.......................................13
V.
BICYCLE PROMOTION AND EDUCATION ..................
16
A. Introduction .. . .. .................................16
B. Promotional Programs ............................... 16
C. Educational Programs ................................ 17
VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................. 19
VII. APPENDICES
A. Benefits of Bicycling ............... ................. 21
B. Bicycle Promotion and Education Outlets .................... 22
C. Bicycle Programs in Other Communities .................... 23
D. References.......................................25
E. Support Information ................................. 26
F. City Council Resolution Adopting Plan . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .... . . 27
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure #1: Bicycle Transportation Map (w/cross sections of bike paths and lanes)
Figure #2: Bicycle Paths and Lanes - New Segments (Map and listing)
Figure #3: Bicycle Lane/Intersection Improvement Areas
Figure #4: Class II Bicycle Lane Standards
Figure #5: Signed Class III Bicycle Routes
Figure #6: Bicycle Parking Space Standards
Figure #7: Parking Standards for Existing Land Uses
Figure #8: Interface With SLO Transit System Routes (Appendix E)
Figure #9: Rest Facilities Available to Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo (Appendix E)
Figure #10: Bicycle Parking Facilities (Appendix E)
Figure #11: Community Land Use Patterns (Appendix E)
Figure #12: City Council Resolution Adopting the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Plan
In 1982, the City adopted a Circulation Element as part of its General Plan. The Circulation
Element includes the following goal:
Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting akernatives such as
walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
(The proposed 1993 update of the Circulation Element also includes this same goal.) This modal
shift is recommended to avoid traffic congestion caused by single -occupant vehicles, avoid the
cost of expensive street widening projects, conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce
air and noise pollution impacts associated with motor vehicles. Bicycling can help achieve all
of these objectives.
The use of bicycles as an alternative to motor vehicles is, in part, dependent on the provision
of safe routes and secure parking. A primary purpose of this plan is to identify facilities that
provide for safe and convenient bicycling. To encourage bicycling and to increase bicycle safety
awareness, this plan also identifies promotional and educational programs that the City should
sponsor.
This Bicycle Transportation Plan carries out the goals and objectives broadly stated in the
Circulation Element by recommending projects and programs that will encourage and enhance
bicycling in San Luis Obispo.
History and Public Participation
The City adopted a Bicycle Facilities Plan in 1985. In 1991, the City Council established a
Bicycle Committee to update the 1985 Bicycle Facilities Plan and hired a Bicycle Coordinator
to manage this update and perform other related bicycle activities.
Between June, 1992 and March, 1993, the Bicycle Committee held 17 meetings to study options
for installing bicycle lanes and paths, setting bicycle parking standards, and establishing
promotional and educational programs. City residents were kept apprised of the Committee's
progress through news articles, television and radio coverage, special events and City mailings.
The Committee received considerable input from the community at its study sessions.
In June, 1993, the Bicycle Committee held five public hearings to review a draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The public was notified of these meeting through direct mailings and
advertisements in the Telegram Tribune newspaper. In July, 1993, the Committee forwarded
recommendations to the City Council. On October 27, 1993, the Council considered the
Committee's recommendations at a public hearing and adopted this plan.
1
Relationship to Other Adopted Plans and Programs
This plan is consistent with the proposed San Luis Obispo's General Plan Circulation Element
(1993). While the Circulation Element establishes broad objectives for improving bicycling, this
plan identifies specific activities for meeting these objectives.
This plan is supported by provisions of the Downtown Concept Plan (1993) which states that
the City should "provide more facilities that encourage and enhance the use of bicycles"
(Downtown Concept Plan, transportation policy "e").
This plan supports the policies and standards of the General Plan Open Space Element (1993)
by including standards for the sensitive development of Class I bicycle paths along creeks, on
hillsides, and across open space areas at the edge of the City.
This plan supports the goals, objectives and programs called for by the Clean Air Plan (1991)
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Air Pollution Control Board. Since
50% of air pollution in California is caused by motor vehicles, achieving this plan's goals will
help to achieve the Clean Air Plan's goals.
This plan is consistent with and complementary to the bicycle element of the Regional
Transportation Plan (1990). Bicycle paths and lanes in the City have been linked to important
routes that extend throughout the County.
The bicycle facilities in this plan are consistent with the standards presented in the California
Highway Design Manual, fourth edition, published by the California Department of
Transportation.
This plan includes all information needed to comply with provisions of the California Bikeways
Act (Sections 2370 through 2392 of the Streets and Highway Code) which requires agencies to
adopt a General Bikeway Plan (GBP) to be eligible for state funding of bicycle facilities.
Organizations and Individuals Consulted
■ San Luis Obispo County
■ San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
• San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (RTPA)
■ San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare Program
■ California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5
■ Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
• San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
■ Downtown Business Improvement Association (BIA)
■ Sierra Club
• Local bicycle clubs and interested individuals
2.
H. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOALS
■ Increase the percentage of trips taken by bicycle within the City.
• Establish and maintain an integrated system of facilities that provide safe and convenient
travel for bicyclists.
■ Promote bicycling as a method of reducing motor vehicle use, thereby preserving clean
air, reducing traffic congestion, and conserving energy.
OBJECTIVES
To achieve the goals stated above the City will:
■ Complete a network of Class II bicycle lanes and Class III routes within San Luis Obispo
by 1995 and extend the system to serve new growth areas, connect with County bicycle
routes, and improve linkages to Cal Poly State University.
• Construct a network of Class I bicycle paths within the City's urban reserve to connect
with paths in surrounding county areas.
* Fund the construction of bicycle facilities, bicycle parking, promotional and educational
programs.
Sponsor promotional and educational programs in cooperation with other government
agencies, community civic and business groups, school districts, Cuesta College and Cal
Poly State University.
• Work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to acknowledge and promote
bicycle use as part of the APCD's Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901).
■ Amend City land use regulations to establish standards for the design and installation of
bicycle facilities.
• Provide technical assistance to property owners and developers and institutions such as
Cal Poly in the design and location of facilities that encourage and accommodate
bicycling.
Rl
_. I
710SECTION III
BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS
III. BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS
A. Introduction
Bicycles use the same transportation corridors as private motor vehicles, buses, and pedestrians.
Consequently, the design of the street system needs to provide for safe passage for all four
modes of transportation. The lack of bicycle paths and lanes is a major deterrent to bicycling
in San Luis Obispo.
A 1990 survey of San Luis Obispo residents indicates that the most significant action that the City can take to
increase bicycling is to provide bicycle lanes and bicycle paths.
Recommendations for new bike lane segments included within this plan were made following
extensive public testimony and review by the Bicycle Committee. At twelve public meetings,
the Committee addressed the issue of removal of on -street parking to accommodate bicycle
lanes. Numerous options were studied. This plan represents a balance between the needs of
cyclists and motorists in allocating roadway space for bicycle lanes.
This section presents policies and standards that describe how the City will provide for and
maintain bicycle paths, lanes and routes.
B. Definitions (Reference Figure # 1)
Bicycle Paths (Class n are reserved for bicycles and separated from roadways.
Bicycle Lanes (Class In are located within the roadway and are reserved for bicyclists. Class
II -A bicycle lanes are located on the outside of parking bays. Class II-B bicycle lanes are
located at the edge of the roadway (adjacent to the curb where present).
Bicycle Routes are generally lightly travelled streets that provide alternative routes for
recreational, and in some cases, commuter cyclists. Where these routes are signed, they are
considered Class III facilities.
Bicycle Boulevards are streets that have been closed to through motor vehicle traffic and where
stop controls on side streets give preference to bicycle traffic and other forms of alternative
transportation.
Highway Design Manual, fourth edition (July 1990) is published by the California Department
of Transportation. Chapter 1000 of the Manual presents design standards for bicycle facilities.
Low -Flow Crossings are locations where bicycle paths cross creeks. Part of the creek bed is
paved and connected to paths that ascend and descend the creek banks.
4
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Paths (Class n
1. Bicycle paths should be established at locations shown on Figure #1: The Bicycle
Transportation Map. With further study, the Public Works Director may modify the
location of these paths to reduce environmental impacts or to better serve the needs of
bicyclists.
2. All bicycle paths should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California
Highway Design Manual and those in this plan.
3. The City should secure adequate rights -of -way in developing and redeveloping areas as
part of any development or annexation activity.
4. Areas adjacent to riparian corridors should be used for bicycle paths where they will not
cause significant environmental impacts.
5. Bicycle paths should provide smooth, hard surfaces at least 8 feet wide. Exceptions to
this standard may be made in hillside areas where grading would cause visual impacts
or along creeks where space is limited.
6. The planning of bicycle paths should be coordinated with the implementation of the
Urban Trails Plan called for by the Circulation Element. Where dual facilities are
proposed, the need for separation between cyclists and pedestrians will be evaluated.
7. Bicycle paths should be installed where interruptions by street intersections or driveways
are minimal. A standard of 1,000 feet of uninterrupted length is desirable. However,
each potential location will be evaluated on its merits.
8. All access points to bicycle paths should be clearly signed and marked and have
convenient connections from public streets.
9. Bicycle paths on agricultural properties should:
• Be fenced and signed to discourage trespassing onto adjoining areas.
• Use existing service roads whenever possible.
• Avoid dividing agricultural areas in ways that significantly impact their operations.
The City will work with property owners to identify locations where bike paths can
best fit in with agricultural operations.
10. Bicycle paths along creeks should:
Be located outside setbacks required to protect creek banks and riparian vegetation.
Access points to the creek should be limited in number and avoid the removal of
significant habitat or impacts on important fishery areas.
5
BICYCLE PATHS, LANES AND ROUTES
CLASS 1 BIKE PATH
SEPARATED
i
Separated Open AM*
Path
R
Motor Vehicle Lanes
CLASS 11-A BIKE LANE
I
I
e• 51 Motor Vehicle Lanes 51 81
Parking Lane Bike Lane Bike Lane Parking Lane
CLASS 11-13 BIKE LANE
Ir
5'
Bike Lane
Motor Vehicle Lane 5'
Bike Lane
CLASS III BIKE ROUTE
SIGNAGE ONLY
E I 1
Parking Lane Motor Vehicle Lanes 81
Perking Lane
t Z
_ ERMA
a
FIG= # 1 �
BICYCLE
TRANSPORTAMN MAP
BICYCLE PATHS
uwa(M � ar ra racm7 N
wnm sow commullm
BICYCLE LANES --��
(CLAW H)
NO roa coawrala
BICYCLE
BOULEVARDS
vatu MR oNWWA
BICYCLE ROUTES
uSID FW Rtp UMN Alb
ALT"m7w COlaan[ Amm
UNDERPASS
OVERPASS r
OCTOBER 1993
* Provide a landscape buffer of indigenous vegetation between the top of the creek
bank and the path. The buffer should ensure visual access to the creek while
controlling the location of pedestrian/bicycle access.
• Avoid causing creek bank erosion, siltation of stream beds, or the removal of trees
with trunk diameter of 12 inches or greater.
• Be closed when flood hazards exist.
11. Where bicycle paths cross creeks, lightly -constructed clear span bridges or low -flow
crossings should be installed where they:
• Avoid the removal of significant trees, streamside vegetation, or impact important
fishery areas.
• Minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the creek channel.
12, Bicycle paths around Laguna Lake should:
• Be located beyond any wetland habitat.
• Be constructed at grade, not impede the flow of flood waters, and be closed when
flooded.
• Due to the sensitivity of the area's bird population, be preceded by a census of bird
life in adjoining wetland areas. Bird populations and related available research
efforts should be periodically monitored to determine any residual impacts of the
path's use.
13. The installation of bicycle paths in sensitive resource areas (as defined by the Open Space
Element) should:
• Be preceded by a survey of wildlife resources along the trail alignment.
• Whenever possible, avoid direct or indirect damage to sensitive wildlife resource
areas and limit impacts to those associated with constructing the path.
14. Bicycle paths in areas where archaeological resources may be present should:
• Be preceded by a surface survey and records search conducted by a qualified
archaeologist to determine the presence of significant archaeological resources.
* Minimize subsurface disturbances.
* Comply with other mitigation strategies, including relocation of the paths, as
required by Archaeological Survey Guidelines adopted by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
31
15. The Railroad Bicycle Path should extend north of Highway 101 to the Taft Street
intersection and be terminated. The Taft Street intersection should include stop controls
to allow bicyclists safe access to on -street lanes from the Railroad Bike Path. When a
bicycle crossing system is designed for Foothill Boulevard (eg. underpass or special
signal system at California and Foothill), the Railroad Bicycle Path may be extended
north of Taft Street to connect with the Cal Poly Campus and beyond.
D. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Lanes (Class M
"The planning for future bicycle facilities should place a priority on linking major activity centers and on
the completion of an intra-city bicycle network with regional and county bicycle network connections. In
particular, bike routes within downtown and routes connecting downtown and Cal Poly need to be
considered." Source: Phase I Circulation Study, DKS Associates, December 1988.
"Even at the possible sacrifice of on -street parking on one or both sides of some street segments (e.g.
Monterey), the connections to downtown, Cal Poly and along busy arterials should be improved. Once
one discovers how fast and convenient bike trips are in San Luis Obispo, it is probable that many more
commute trips will occur without such dependence on private automobiles. Even a one- or two -day -a -week
shift for diversity and exercise would have a major impact on downtown traffic and parking `problems'.
It is so economical for individual local trips in comparison to a car that the importance of improved route
safety (or perceived hazards) is one of the few logical explanations why bike use is not already higher."
Source: Transportation Management Agency Feasibility Study, January, 1992.
1. Bicycle lanes should be established along streets shown on Figure #1: The Bicycle
Transportation Map. The Public Works Director may approve alternative designs where
they will improve bicycle safety and convenience.
2. In the long term, all City arterial streets should safely accommodate bicyclists through
the installation of bicycle lanes.
3. All bicycle lanes should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California
Highway Design Manual and those in this plan.
4. Bicycle lanes should be installed at the times specified by Policy 3.7 of the General Plan
Circulation Element.
5. The flow of traffic, impacts on surrounding land use, and changes to the level of service
on surrounding streets are factors that should be considered when establishing Bicycle
lanes.
6. Efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate the visual impact of "bike lane - no
parking" signs.
7. The City should coordinate with the County, Caltrans, and Cal Poly University to
provide a connected network of consistently demarcated bicycle lanes.
8. The standards shown in Figure #3 should direct the installation of bicycle lane
improvements shown on Figure #2.
7
BICYCLE PATH AND LANE ADDITIONS
Class I Bicycle Paths
Location
Destaiption
Wbo's Responsible
Acatia Creek
Rockview s/to culvert
Area development
Acatia Creek
Sacramento to Broad
Area development
Acatia Creek
Broad south
Area development/City/County
Dalidio property
Prado to Calle Joaquin
Dalidio area development
Edna/Islay Creeks
Broad Street to Tank Farm
Area development
Laguna Lake area
Extend paths to Foothill
City Laguna Park project
Orcutt Road Creeks
Between Orcutt and Bullock
Area Development
SLO Creek
Dana Street to south CL
City project/development
South Street Hills
Various bike paths
Margarita area development
Southern Pacific Railroad
Cal Poly south
City project
Siusheimer Park
Southwood to Helena/
City project
Southwood to Del Campo
City project
Sinsheimer School (east or west side of creek)
Southwood to Augusta
City project
West of Route 101
Broad Street to Madonna
City/Caltrans project
Class II Bile Lanes
Street
FnNm/To
Description
Who's Responsible
Bullock
Orcutt,to city limits
Class II-B both sides
City project (needs further evaluation)
Bullock
City limits to Tank Farm
Class II-B both sides
Adjacent development
California
Marsh to Higuera
Class II -A east side
City project
Class II-B west side
City project
Capitolio
Sacramento to Broad
Class II -A north side
Area development
Class Il-B south side
Area development
Chorro
Palm, to Lincoln
Class II-B both sides
City project
Industrial
Broad east 700 feet
Class II-B both sides
Adjacent development
Industrial
700 east of Broad to RR
Class II -A both sides
City project
Johnson
Ella to Orcutt
Class II -A both sides
City project
Johnson
Ella to Pismo
Class II-B both sides
City project/development
Johnson
Pismo to Marsh
Class II -A east side
City project
Class II-B west side
City project
Johnson
Marsh to Monterey
Class II -A both sides
City project
Laurel
Orcutt to Southwood
Class I1-A east side
City project
Class II-B west side
City project
Laurel
Southwood to Johnson
Class II -A both sides
City project
Los Osos Valley
Madonna to Calle Joaquin
Class II-B both sides
Adjacent development
Madonna
North of Oceanaire
Class 11-B east side
City project
Marsh
Higuera to Johnson
Class II -A east side
City project
Marsh
Johnson to California
Class II -A both sides
City project
Orcutt
Broad to Railroad
Class II-B both sides
City/adjacent development
Orcutt
Railroad to Laurel
Class 11-B both sides
City project
Orcutt
Laurel to Johnson
Class II -A north side
City/adjacent development
Class II-A/B south side
City/adjacent development
Prado Road
Madmma to Route 101
Class II-B both sides
Adjacent development
Prado Road
Route 101 to S. Higuera
Class II-B both sides
Adjacent development
Prado Road
City Limits to Broad
Class 11-B both sides
Adjacent development
Sacramento
Orcutt to Capitolio
Class II -A east side
Adjacent development/City
Class 11-B west side
Adjacent development
Sacramento
Capitolio south
Class II -A east side
City project
Class Il-B west wide
Area development
Santa Rosa
Higuera to Marsh
Class II-B both sides
City project
Santa Rosa
Marsh to Pismo
Class II-B east side
City project
Class II -A west side
City project
South
Broad to Johnson
Class II-B both sides
City project
Southwood
Laurel to end
Class II-B both sides
City project
S. Higuera
Suburban to Tank Farm
Class II-B east side
Adjacent development
South
Higuera to Beebe
Class I1-11 south side
Adjacent development
Broad
Orcutt south
Class 11-B both sides
State project
Buckley
Vachell to S. Higuera
Class II-B both sides
County project
Buckley/VacheB
Broad to S. Iliguera
Class II-B both sides
County road project
O'Conner
Foothill to Cuesta College
Class II-B both sides
County project
Orcutt ,
Johnson south
Class II-B both sides
County project
Saute Fe
Tank Farm to Prado
Class II-B both sides
Area development
South Higuera
City Limits to Route 101
Class II-B both sides
County project
Tank Farm
Broad to S. Higuera
Class II-B both sides
County project
m.u.--._._._._._ J
e
otio
�cnyoFsanuasossvu
1BICYCLIMP
ll 1�tilLV sii�®� ll Cil 1.1 �1�1V �
I�ILAII� I
5
l
_ FIGURE N 2
BICYCLE PATHS AND
1 POW ILANW: NEW SIEGM ENTS
,
ng
��.��
�lr■■■�,
�:E
I %� ro
40010#
J#
ems` Ei
BICYCLE PATHS Rsti r� � RR■
(CLASS I)
USED PRWARLLY FOR RECREATION
wrrm SOIL comwvnNO
BIC:Y= L-WES
(CLASS II)
USED FOR COYYUTINO
BICYCLE ! ! ! ! ! ! !
BOULEVARDS
USED FOR OOYYUTINO
Uf4DERPASS / O
OVERPASS
11
OCTOBER 1993
9. Bicycle lanes on the outside of parking should be striped on both sides. The line closest
to parked vehicles should provide a reference for motorists to park efficiently next to the
curb.
FIGURE #3
BICYCLE LANE AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Street From To
Foothill ** at Santa Rosa
Highland (WB)**
at Santa Rosa
Higuera (NB)**
at South
Santa Rosa(NB)**
at Highland
Santa Rosa (SB)
Palm Monterey
South (EB)
at Broad
S. Higuera
at Los Osos Valley Road
S. Higuera
at Margarita
S. Higuera
Granada Frontage Road
Description
Install right turn pockets, through bicycle slots, and
facilities that enable safe pedestrian crossing of
Route 1.
Install through bicycle slot.
Widen turn pocket and install through bicycle slot.
Install through bicycle slot.
Eliminate asphalt/concrete seam in bike lane.
Install through bicycle slot.
Install through bicycle slot.
Eliminate asphalt/concrete seam in bike lane.
Remove sidewalk, install Class II bike lane/gutter,
and build new sidewalk in back of trees.
SEGMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER STUDY
Street
Broad
Bullock
California
Chorro
Foothill
Higuera **
Los Osos Valley
Monterey
Osos
Pacific
From
To
Description
Marsh
High
Evaluate bikeway options
Orcutt
city limits
Evaluate for bike lane installation
Marsh
San Luis
Evaluate for bridge widening/lane
installation
Foothill
Lincoln
Shown as Bicycle Route: evaluate other bikeway
options
at California
Evaluate intersection design for
improvement
South
Madonna
Evaluate intersection design for
improvement
Auto Park
Calle Joaquin
Hwy 101
Santa Rosa
Evaluate for bike lane installation
Leff
Marsh
Evaluate bikeway options
Higuera
Santa Rosa
BIA, Chamber of Commerce and Sierra Club to
evaluate Bicycle Boulevard options with City staff
support.
Consider bicycle trails in open space areas at the periphery of the City and coordinate their development with
City and County open space and recreation planning efforts.
** At these locations, coordination with Caltrans will be required to develop specific design solutions.
Figure # 4: Class H Bicycle Lane Standards (a)
Type of Lane Minimum ADT 85% Vehicle Speeds Grades (c) Bicycle Speed
Width (b)
Class II -A 4 feet
< 10,000
<35 mph
<4%
<20 mph
5 feet
> 10,000
> 35 mph
> 4 %
< 20 mph
6 feet
> 10,000
> 35 mph
> 4 %
> 20 mph
Class II-B 5 feet (d)
<10,000
<35 mph
<4%
<20 mph
G feet
> 10,000
> 35 mph
> 4 %
> 20 mph
Notes:
(a) The:width of a bicycle lane is measured from the outside of the parking bay stripe to the center of the
bike lane stripe for Class II -A lanes, and from the face of curb to the center of the bike lane striping
for Class II-B lanes.
(b) The required width of a bicycle path is contingent upon all of the criteria (ADT, vehicle speeds, grades
and bicycle speeds) being met. Where one of the criterion is exceeded, the wider bicycle lanes should
be installed.
(c) Grade is calculated on slopes that are 500 feet or longer
(d) Where space is limited, a 4 foot Class II-B bicycle lanes is allowed where the roadway paving extends
to the face of the curb and provides a seamless surface for cyclists or where a wide gutter (4 foot wide
Or more) is constructed.
10. At intersections:
• With right-hand turn pockets for vehicles, through -moving lanes for bicycles
should be provided to the left of the turn pocket. (See Figure 1003.2C in the
Highway Design Manual.)
• Where right-hand turn lanes are not present, all bicycle lane delineations should
be dashed prior to the intersection to remind through -moving bicyclists to merge
with through -moving traffic.
11. Consistent with Section 1004 of the Highway Design Manual, signs and pavement
markings should be installed as follows:
• Signs and bike lane pavement markings should be installed at the beginning of
each block.
• Where blocks are longer than 500 feet, an additional sign and pavement marking
should be placed at mid -bock.
I
• Whenever possible, bike lane signs should be installed on existing sign poles,
traffic signal poles, street light standards or other utility poles.
• Along newly -established Class II-B bike lanes, the Public Works Director may
require additional signage or pavement markings to help enforce the prohibition
of parking. Extra signs should be removed after the bicycle lane is operational
for a 12-month period.
• Painting the curb red or placing a single sign at the mid -point may be utilized
where segments of Class II-B bicycle lanes are less than 250 feet.
• Signs should be provided along designated bike lanes and routes that direct
bicyclists to major destinations such as Cal Poly, and the downtown.
E. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Routes
1. Figure #1: The Bicycle Transportation Map identifies all bicycle routes within San Luis
Obispo. Figure #5 identifies those bicycle routes designated as Class III facilities.
2. All bicycle routes should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California
Highway Design Manual and those in this plan.
3. Traffic levels and 85 % vehicle speeds along streets designated as Class III bicycle routes
should not exceed 10,000 ADT and 35 mph respectively. If these standards are
exceeded, designated facilities should be considered for upgrading to Class II bike lanes
or Bicycle Boulevards after further study of alternatives.
4. The City should require Class III facilities in developing and redeveloping areas where
they link major activity centers and serve the needs of commuting bicyclists.
5. Convenient and safe shortcuts for bicyclists should be identified as bicycle routes
wherever possible.
6. The standards for bicycle routes will be as prescribed in the Highway Design Manual.
F. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Boulevards
1. The flow of traffic, impacts on surrounding land use, and changes to the level of service
on surrounding streets are factors that should be considered when establishing Bicycle
Boulevards.
2. The design of bicycle boulevards will be undertaken on a case -by -case basis.
10
G. Policies and Standards for Path, Lane and Route Maintenance
1. Bikeways demarcation (striping and stenciling) should be remarked on a regular basis.
2. Rubberized crossing systems should be installed at railroad grade crossings.
Figure #5: Class III Bicycle Routes
Street
From
To
Comments
Broad
Foothill
Murray
Signage to encourage use of Bicycle Boulevard.
Peach
Chorro
Nipomo
Signage on Chorro for downtown bypass route .
Nipomo
Peach
High
Brizzolara
Culvert
Nipomo
Sign when under freeway culvert constructed.
Margarita
South Higuera
City Limits
Sign when paths on South Street Hill installed.
Bridge/Beebe
South Higuera
South Street
San Luis
California
Highway 101
Sign when under freeway culvert constructed.
Mill
California
Chorro
Jennifer/Ella
Johnson
Railroad
Sign when bridge over railroad constructed.
Dana
Nipomo
End
Sign when creek path established.
South
Higuera
West End
Sign when creek path established.
3. Loop detectors at signalized intersections should be sensitive enough to detect bicycles.
City staff should routinely
inspect detectors
in San Luis Obispo for proper bicycle
actuation.
As an alternative to loop detectors, signal actuation buttons convenient for
bicyclist use may be installed.
4. Potential hazards and needed improvements, such as the following, should be corrected
as identified:
• Sweeping and litter removal.
• Improvements to grates, manholes, longitudinal and transverse cracks or joints,
or other obstacles in the portion of the roadway typically used by bicycles.
• Vegetation removal.
• Sight distance improvements at intersections/spot removal of on -street parking or
fixed obstacles.
5. Standards for maintaining bicycle paths, lanes and routes will be consistent with the
Highway Design Manual and otherwise will be left to the discretion of the Public Works
Director.
6. When streets are repaved or their surface materials changed, Class II bike lanes will be
defined by striping, pavement markings and signage (consistent with the Highway Design
Manual and this plan). Surface materials with contrasting color and/or texture may be
considered.
11
ash"`:.: ; r �,�,..� ' .--•..' � �, �_�'
Ok AW*
AIAL
Aim
I
IV. BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILTITES
A. Introduction
"Bikeways will be most successful in reducing travel in communities with complimentary policies such as
bike parking, shower and lockers at job sites..." Source: Energy Planning Guide, California Energy
Commission, January, 1993.
Convenient and secure parking encourages people to ride bicycles. This plan presents design
standards and requirements for the installation of bicycle parking for multi -family housing and
commercial land uses in San Luis Obispo. Requirements vary depending on whether the
destination is for shopping, working, living, or visiting.
Showers installed at work sites will serve as an added incentive for those with a one way
commute distance of over 5 miles. Consistent with policies of the Circulation Element, this plan
recommends standards for installing showers at employment sites.
The following policies and • standards were developed in cooperation with the County Air
Pollution Control District and are supportive of the District's Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule
901).
B. Definitions
Short -Term Bicycle Parking is used by visitors to multi -family housing and by patrons of
commercial and institutional uses. Bicycle racks are used to satisfy this need.
Long -Term Bicycle Parking is used by employees of commercial and institutional uses and by
residents. Fully enclosed lockers are used to satisfy this need. Lockable rooms reserved for
bicycle storage and secured parking areas managed by attendants are other acceptable forms.
Showers are bathing stalls accompanied by clothing lockers and changing areas reserved for each
gender at the work site.
Multi -Tenant Work Sites are known by a common name, are governed by common set of
covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's), were approved as an entity by the City, are
covered by a single tentative or final subdivision map, or are located on a single, or adjacent
assessor's parcels.
12
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Parking and Showers
1. Short- and long-term bicycle parking should be provided whenever a new structure is
erected or enlarged or whenever a new use is established requiring more spaces
according to the schedule shown on Figure #6. For existing commercial and institutional
uses, including multi -tenant work sites, bicycle parking should be installed as shown in
Figure V.
2. Bicycle racks should:
• Stand a minimum of 30 inches from ground level and support bikes in a stable
position. They should be coated with rubberized plastic, PVC or a similar
material to avoid damage to bicycle frames.
+ Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame) to be
locked to the rack using a standard -size "U"-lock.
• Be installed on a concrete or asphalt surface with access provided by aisles at
least five feet wide.
• Be located as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible and be
located at least as conveniently as the most convenient automobile parking.
• Be visible from the interior of the destination.
+ Be placed where they will not be damaged by vehicles or vandals.
• Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured.
• Be accompanied by pavement markings or symbols on the rack to show proper
parking orientation for bicycles.
2. Area employers should provide showers for commuter bicyclists consistent with
provisions of the Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901) adopted by the County Air
Pollution Control Board.
A Programs
1. City zoning regulations will be amended or other ordinances adopted to incorporate
provisions that implement the parking and shower standards prescribed by this plan.
2. The downtown parking in -lieu fee program will be amended to address bicycle parking
standards prescribed by this Plan.
3. The Architectural Review Guidelines will be amended to reference this plan's design
guidelines.
13
4. The City will pursue Federal and State grant programs that can provide funding for
bicycle parking.
5. The Public Works Department will periodically review the need for additional downtown
bicycle parking facilities, seeking input from the BIA and affected businesses.
6. The Public Works Department will maintain a library of vendor information on bicycle
racks and lockers and will assist developers with the selection and location of bicycle
parking facilities.
FIGURE ;#6: BICYCLE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Land Use
# bike spaces as
Minimum %
Minimum %
Category
a % of required
Short Term
Long Term
auto spaces (a)
Bicycle Spaces
Bicycle Spaces
Medium-, Medium-
5 %
100 %
(b)
High, & High
Density
Residential
Central Retail (c)
General Retail
15 %
50 %
40 %
Neighborhood Retail
Offices
15 %
10 %
80 %
Tourist Commercial
5 %
10 %
80 %
Services &
15 %
10 %
80 %
Manufacturing
Schools (Junior High
1 space per 3 students
to College)
Park -and -Ride Lots
10%
--
100 %
Notes:
(a) Requirements apply to uses that require 10 or more vehicle parking spaces.
(b) In addition to short-term parking, bicycle lockers or interior space within each dwelling or accessory
structure (eg. garages) should be reserved for the. storage of at least two bicycles.
(c) In ahe downtown (CC Zone), businesses pay the City an in -lieu fee for the installation of short range
bicycle parking. Where on -site space is not available, businesses pay an in -lieu fee for long-term bicycle
parking to be installed in public areas such as surface parking lots, parking garages, or areas within
street rights -of -way.
14
Figure #7: BICYCLE PARKING FOR
EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES
Number of Employees Parking By:
100 or more 1995
50 to 99 1997
20 to 49 1999
15
O SECTION V
71PROMOTIONAL
AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
V. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
A. Introduction
Promotional and educational activities are an important part of San Luis Obispo's bicycle
program.. Promotional activities can demonstrate the fun, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and
environmental and health benefits of bicycling. Educational programs can foster cycling safety
and compliance with the vehicle code. These programs can be a shared responsibility with
various government agencies, local school districts and colleges, and with civic, neighborhood
and business organizations.
The following programs should be sponsored by the City. Potential participants and/or co-
sponsors of these programs are identified in Appendix B.
B. Promotional Programs
The City should:
1. Produce and distribute maps, brochures, flyers and other literature that promotes
bicycling and informs people on bicycling opportunities within the City and County.
Material should enable citizens to provide input on needed bicycle -related improvements.
2. Work closely with:
■ The media and advertising consultants to produce Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) and promotional spots on radio, television, and in local newspapers.
+ The County Air Pollution Control District to establish bicycle programs that
support' the District's Commute Alternatives Rule.
The County Rideshare Office to develop a "bike -buddy" database that encourages
novice cyclists to ride along with experienced riders.
+ The County Sheriff's Department to expand programs for refurbishing donated
or unclaimed bicycles for use by low- or moderate income people.
• Businesses and neighborhood associations, bicycle clubs, and civic groups in
sponsoring recurring promotional activities.
3. Better integrate bicycling with transit by:
Evaluating the effectiveness of the present method of loading bicycles inside City
buses and making changes if necessary.
16
• Working with Amtrak to encourage bicyclists to take the train for both commuting
and recreation.
4. Encourage the licensing and identification of bicycles by:
• Working with local bike shops to administer a licensing program for new bicycle
purchases and for repairs.
• Working with the City Police Department to offer free bicycle identification
programs at schools and promotional events.
5. Promote bicycle tourism by:
• Working with the Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau to develop
literature, videos and other materials for distribution.
• Supporting the establishment of an American Youth Hostel if it can be shown to
enhance bicycle tourism.
6. Encourage its employees to bicycle by:
• Integrating bicycling to work efforts with Wellness program incentives.
• Providing bicycles for inspectors, police patrols and other field workers.
i Allowing employees who bicycle to work to "cash out" their parking permit, or
Providing bicycles to employees who agree to bicycle commute to work.
• Annually recognizing employees who commute by bicycle.
7. Adopt a bike -friendly City theme and establish the goal of becoming one of "Bicycling"
magazine's top -ten cycling cities in the U.S.
8. Expand existing reporting procedures that enable citizens to easily report potential road
hazards and needed improvements to the Public Works Department.
C. Educational Programs
The City should:
1. Work closely with:
• The San Luis Coastal Unified School District and PTAs to: (1) develop a "safe
route to school" program; (2) distribute information, answer questions and
develop long-term bicycle safety programs; and (3) modify driver training
programs to address cycling and motorist responsibilities.
17
Cuesta College and Cal Poly University to establish: (1) on -going bicycle
education activities, targeted at incoming students; and (2) a volunteer internship
program to aid in the implementation of this plan and provide research support.
+ Local bike shops to disseminate educational information when a bicycle is
purchased or repaired.
• The Court system to require safety seminars for bicyclists cited for violating the
vehicle code and for motorists cited for infractions or accidents involving
bicyclists.
2. Survey successful bicycle programs in other communities for ideas and information on
ways to improve conditions in San Luis Obispo.
3. Sponsor events which offer bicycle safety education information.
4. Subscribe to publications from national bicycle groups to keep abreast of developments
in bicycle planning, education and promotion on a regional, state and national level.
5. Emphasize increased vehicle code enforcement of bicycling in the following areas:
■ Riding without lights at night.
+ Riding on downtown sidewalks.
• Riding against traffic.
■ Failing to stop at traffic signals.
6. Increase theft prevention efforts that emphasize the recording of serial and other bicycle
identification numbers and the utilization of secure locks.
M?
71O SECTION VI
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
VI. PLAN IMITEMENTATION
A. Program Priorities
The following priorities describe the emphasis that will be placed on implementing the various
parts of this plan. However, work may proceed in more then one priority area as opportunities
present themselves.
1. First Priority: install facilities that promote bicycle commuting. These facilities include
Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle route improvements, bicycle boulevards, the
Railroad Bicycle Path and short- and long-term bicycle parking.
2. Second Priority: sponsor promotional and educational activities that encourage safe
bicycle riding.
3. Third Priority: install Class I bicycle paths that serve both commuter and recreational
cyclists. These facilities include the Laguna Lake Bike Path and the West Freeway
Bicycle Path.
4. Fourth Priority: install Class I facilities that serve a recreational purpose. These include
paths along creeks and on South Street Hill.
B. Program Funding
The following principles will guide the funding of bicycle facilities in San Luis Obispo:
1. New development will be responsible for installing short- and long-term bicycle parking
and bike lanes and paths along segments of the system that are impacted by the project.
2. The City will aggressively apply for State and Federal grants that support operating and
capital bicycle activities.
3. The City will earmark a portion of Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds
(or State Highway Account (SHA) funds) for bicycle lanes and paths.
4. Once installed, Class II bicycle lanes will be maintained as part of the City's ongoing
pavement management program.
5. As part of the City's financial planning cycle, the Public Works Department will identify
Class I bike path projects for City Council consideration. The Department will evaluate
all strategies for implementing targeted proposals including grant funding sources,
public/private partnerships, and the creation of a non-profit foundations to solicit private
sector participation.
6. The City will reserve a minimum of 2 % of it's Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds for bicycle promotional and educational purposes.
19
C. Plan Amendments
Any person may file an application for amendment to the Bicycle Transportation Plan
with the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. Applications will be acted on semi-
annually by the City Council.
20
APPENDIX A: BENEFITS OF BICYCLING
Reducing air and noise pollution:
R Bicycling is the most cost-effective means of reducing air pollution from transportation sources.
• If 10 % of work trips in the City currently made by single -occupant vehicles were instead made by bicycles,
the annual reduction in air pollutants would be approximately 73,000 pounds.
■ Over 60 % of air pollutants (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons) emitted in a five mile
trip are produced during the first four minutes of an auto's operation.
O The health costs of air pollution in the Los Angeles air basin exceed $14 billion per year.
i Nearly all noise pollution in San Luis Obispo is generated by motor vehicles.
Reducing costs associated with motor vehicles:
a Road widening projects typically exceed $1 million per mile. Increased bicycling and reducing vehicle use
can defer the need for these projects. Also, the cost of bike lanes only involves the cost of removing and
replacing paint.
0 The cost of owning and operating the average car for commuting purposes exceeds $3,000 per year. By
substituting a bicycle for a car, these costs are essentially eliminated.
• The cost per parking space in a newly built parking garage exceeds $15,000. Since 12 bicycles can be
parked in the same area, the cost per bicycle space is $1,250. This cost can be reduced to $100 per space
where surplus area in sidewalks and existing parking lots/garages can be used.
Improving the overall health of residents:
■ People who ride a bicycle for transportation and recreation are improving their health and well-being
through daily cardiovascular exercise. Other health benefits include: improved productivity, lowered stress
level and less time off due to sickness.
Increasing parking and transportation efficiency:
• Twelve bicycles can be parked in the space reserved for one automobile.
0 Of the San Luis Obispo residents that work in the City, 75 % or 15,300 people live within 3 miles of their
workplace -- a ten minute bicycle ride.
■ At peak capacity, an average traffic lane can carry 2,000 cars per hour. Over 9,000 bicycles would be
carried by this lane over the same time period.
■ Motor vehicles consume roughly 60 % of all oil used in California.
• The energy efficiency of a bicyclist is second only to that of a bird in flight.
21
APPENDIX B: BICYCLE PROMOTION AND EDUCATION OUTLETS
Government Agencies
- Amtrak
- Air Pollution Control District
- CalPoly - Escape Route, special events, Wheelmen Bicycle Club, Rec Sports, Mustang
Daily, Craft Center, health center, environmental clubs, WOW
- California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
- City (Police department, paycheck stuffers, Parks and Recreation Department, Wellness
program, Water/other bills, publications (promotional material, etc.), Farmer's Market,
speaking engagements, special events, lunch seminars)
- Coastal Unified School District
- Cuesta College
- Department of Motor Vehicles
- Regional Rideshare
- SLO County
- SLOCOG
Non -Profit Organizations
- American Heart Association
- American Lung Association
- Business Improvement Association
- Chamber of Commerce
- ECOSLO/environmental groups
- PTA's
- Sierra Club
Private Organizations
- AAA
- Bike clubs
- Bike Shops
- Media - TV news features, news articles, columns, radio spots
22
APPENDIX C: PROGRAMS IN OTHER CO 1ES
Agencies in California:
City of Chico
City of Cupertino
City of Davis
City of Los Angeles
City of Palo Alto
City of San Diego
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Rosa
City of Sacramento
City and County of San Francisco
County of San Diego
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Agencies Outside California:
Arizona - Tuscon, Maricopa City
Colorado - Boulder (2), Pueblo
Dist. of Columbia
Florida - 18 cities in Florida have bicycle/pedestrian coordinators
Montana - Missoula
N. Carolina - Wilmington
Oregon - Corvallis, Eugene, Portland, Springfield
Texas - Dallas
Virginia - Arlington
Washington - Seattle (6 in bike/ped program), King City
Wisconsin - Madison
23
Examples of Succes$ful Bicycle Programs:
Palo Alto, California: Alza Corporation rewards employees who use alternative
transportation with a "dollar a day" incentive.
Riverside, California: Fleetwood Enterprises has a bike ridership incentive plan and on -site
bicycle repair shop. Fleetwood has achieved a year round bicycle commuter rate in excess of
16%.
Monterey County, California: (Transportation Agency for Monterey County) has part time
bicycle program staffing, monthly meetings of 25 member bicycle committee; 3 cities (Salinas,
Monterey and Seaside) to have 10 member bicycle committees within the year; bike safety
programs targeted for upper ages.
Santa Cruz, California: has a bicycle committee which meets monthly; part time staffing.
Boulder, Colorado: has a marketing program entitled "GO Boulder" which promotes bicycling,
walking and transit; the campaign includes incentives like t-shirts, hats and watches; also has a
training component for local companies to educate their employees about alternative
transportation options.
State of Oregon: has developed an extensive bicycle safety and promotion targeted primarily
for children campaign called "Smart Cycling".
Corvallis, Oregon: maintains a bicycle committee staffed by a bicycle coordinator and develops
promotional and educational material and programs.
Eugene, Oregon: has a bicycle and alternative modes coordinator who provides staff support
for the bicycle committee, and monitors City bicycle projects; recently (4/93) adopted an
ordinance that requires businesses to provide short- and long-term bicycle parking and limits the
size of parking lots in the City; offers "Smart Cycling" and other classes through their recreation
department to teach bicycle safety maintenance.
Springfield, Oregon: maintains a bicycle committee that meets monthly; offers classes in
mountain biking and bicycle safety through recreation department.
State of Texas: worked in conjunction with Texas Bicycle Coalition to produce "Share the
Road" brochures and other educational material.
24
APPENDIX D: REFERENCES
AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1991, 44 P.
Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, 1991.
Bicycle Amenities Ordinance, Ryan Snyder Associates, Inc., 1993, 7p.
Business Improvement Association Transportation Management Association Feasibility Study,
Rob Strong - The Planning Mill, January 1992, 44 p.
Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 (Bikeways), 1990, 32 p.
City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan for Boulder Valley, 1989, 83 p.
City of Davis Draft Bikeway Plan, 1991, 45 p.
City of San Luis Obispo Documents:
• Bicycle Facilities Plan, 1985, 33 p.
• Circulation Study - Phase I Report, DKS Associates, December 1988, 117 p.
• Hearing Draft of Circulation Element, May 1992, 40 p.
• Minutes to the Bicycle Committee meetings, October 1991 - March 1993.
• Open Space Element, October 1992, 65 p.
• 1990 San Luis Obispo Transportation Survey Results
City of Santa Monica Draft Bicycle Master Plan, 1992, 62 p.
City of Walnut Creek Bikeways Plan, 1992, 6 p.
Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Bicycle Plan, 1992, 89 p.
Oregon Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Division, Smart Cycling Instructor's
Guide, Salem Oregon, 1992.
Pathways for People - summary of poll conducted for Rodale Press by Louis Harris polling,
Rodale Press, 1992, 26 p.
The Bicycle: Global Perspectives, Velo Quebec, 1992, 576 p.
Transportation Agency for Monterey County Draft of 1993 General Bikeways Plan, 1993, 40
P.
25
APPENDIX E: SUPS RT INFORMATION
Figure #8: Interface With SLO Transit System Routes
Figure #9: Rest Facilities Available to Bicyclists in San Luis Obispo
Figure #10: Bicycle Parking Facilities
Figure #11: Community Land Use Patterns
26
FIGURE # 8: Interface With San Luis Obispo Transit System Routes
o
u
T OPERATES '.�• � � _
E2 DAILY
MADONNA f�
:54 Leave City Hall
:56 Nipomo @ Higuera
:59 Madonna @ Hwy 101
:03 Madonna @ Los Osos
SAT-SUN ONLY �
:05 Prefumo @ Del Rio •
36 1Y 6
:OS Los Osos @Madonna
•15 Madonna Plaza
MON-FRI ONLY
:08 Higuera @ Hind Lane
:11 Higuera @ Prado�
:13 Higuera @ Chumash
DAILY
:16 Higuera @Marsh MAIN STOP AND � 1r
:18 Marsh ® Nipomo TRANSFER POINT
:21 Santa Rasa (l Higuera CITY HALL 'r
:23 Arrive City Hall PALM AT OSOS
CAL POLY — FOOTHILL 4 •
:26 Leave City Hall
:29 Santa Rosa @ Foothill
:32 Chorro @ Highland
:35 Patricia @ Foothill•
4
AB .
:37 The Village (weekends only)
,y�
k ";
PolyGraphic Arts
:4Poly " Gym
y
HIGH
.48 Grand @ Mill
:50 Arrive City Hall
'
+
PREFUMO
LOOP
:sy
SAT. - SUN,
ONLY
P -
�t���1
:�s r. •tTJ
e
i
:13
.r1
LOWER
•• '' "`}
HIGUERA
Loop
a
*
MON. - FR.
ONLY
INFORMATION
MAf( 1,41,YN
541-BUSS
'
For regional handicapped
�•
'Y�
transportation:
•• ;
541-2544 (toll free)
; ■ •
t`
For information about
other public transportation
1
services: 541-CARS
F i''A
7NH
f
y.
oRr.•vrr ',
1Ep OPERATES
MON. -FRI. ONLY
U New Evening Service
lU !luring Gal fty's Fall,
Wlr:tnr, Spring -�- Mail. -
Thurs 6:25an) - 10:50 pm
CAL POLY — FOOTHILL
:52 Leave City Hall —►—►
:56 Mill @ Grand
:58 Poly — Vista Grande
:00 Poly — University Union
:05 Poly — Graphic Arts
:14 Foothill @ Patricia
:17 Ramona
:22 Arrive City Hall
BROAD & JOHNSON -0--
:26 Leave City Hall
:29 Santa Rosa @ Pismo
:30 Santa Barbara @ Church
:33 Broad @ Caudill
:37 Southwood @ Laurel Lane
:39 Laurel Lane @ Augusta
:41 Bishop @ Johnson
:43 Johnson @ Marsh
City Hall y
(Reference Figure #1 for relationship to the Bikeways System)
FIGURE # 8: Interface With San Luis Obispo Transit System Routes
R ■■ �:oo
0 ■IiltMtrr� �i ` Lrr�sit �-
U MADONNA { INFORMATION
u9 541-BUSS
E CAL POLY
ft
i For regional handicapped
:25 Leave City Hall transportation:
:28 Nipomo @Higuera° Ij I + i- ;z y flg 541.2544 (toll free)
:32 Madonna @ Hwy 101 t
:34 Gottschalks �� - r� t}{ �- For information about
:36 Madonna @ Oceanaire �, , i ta' IR .i - 1�� other public transportation
:38 Laguna Village Shopping Ctr, { -' c5
services; 541-CARS
:40 Laguna Jr. High i Rlt,e>a{?JV,Q
:48 Ramona Drive : , E - -1 -
:52 Stenner Glen Apartments x i f i
:00 Poly — Agriculture
:05 Arrive Poly — Tahoe v l�
:15 Leave Poly — Tahoe
:20 Grand @ Mill MAIN STOP AND
:22 Arrive City Hall TRANSFER POINT:
CITY HALL
PALM AT OSOS f
r �i • •56 �. i . n s
+ v� I • •26 :35 X
,l I,lI
x
a,
� �• Ste` f1 I � •� i i • cT � 4
, 5•t7tlrrnvaou
otr
l,4-
:24
..�4 C;j • :3R { w, +tip •� 7a
• _ :' • 7s • I IF t
VD
49
4 0 ` PRADO �s3
RO New evening service
sarvice during Foly's
T Fall, Winter, Spring
h7o,z-ihurs, until 1 1
E 10:45 p.m. r Y
�MM■E� \�, �kf tfi°, 1
CAL POLY — LAGUNA LAKE
:52 Leave City Hall
:00 Arrive Poly — Univ. Unior
:10 Leave Poly — Univ. Unior
:11 Poly — Graphic Arts
:16 University Square
:18 Foothill @ Patricia
:26 Prefumo @ Del Rio
:29 Los Osos @ Madonna
:35 Marsh @ Nipomo
:42 Santa Rosa @ Higuera
:45 Arrive City Hall
Printed on Recycled Paper•
R
0
U
T
E
3
OPERATES DAILY
—►—ta
JOHNSON & BROAD
:54 Leave City Hall
SOUTH HIGUERA
:56 Osos @ Marsh
25 Leave City Hall
:58 Marsh @ Johnson
28 Marsh @ Nipomo
:01 Johnson @ Bishop
32 Higuera @ Margarita
:04 Augusta @ Laurel
34 Higuera @ Los Osos
:07 Orcutt @ Fernwood
Valley Road
:12 Tank Farm @ Poinsettia
:41 South Gn Parker
:14 Oreutt @ Broad
(GREYHOUND)
:18 Train Depot (AMTRAK)
48 Chorro @ Marsh
:20 Santa Rosa @ Higuera
:51 Arrive City Hall
:23 Arrive City Hall
(Reference Figure #1 for relationship to the Bikeways System)
n,
y
o
P^
0
V7
a'
�
E
O
'C
v
�
C
7 a
� L
EP404 0 9�: 3v°
y O
N O 7 O �•.
in
_C 7
t O O V) W �+ V) O O 8
V) V) W U V) C. a V) V) r'Ti w
y,
V
�.
^ O M pQ M
�m 'na, ONm w C.) O•p 00 10m
y
.
.
V)
aa, 0. 00�O Oen 000A 0.7m
N ••• 00 O, T •-• ^ Q, .-. N a - O\ cn •-• 0.l .. 1� n •-•
>,
N
y
ate+
fb
Ld
c
.0
i
d
� •� � •E U
r
�
�
ba
E
m
aZiF--'�
H
o a yLn
= 8
o
o
a
o
o 0 0 o
O e 3 o
w0
N Q
e r t .c t
ix y y
T•N F, N c c c c y G
_
a
y
W.
'o o'
CJv)v)Uiav) :w.J0007UP0o0P0o0
b
L4
0 U
O
CL
■
!�- t,
1 O
Q 1 H1GHL
V
18
�I
�1T
RAMONA
SEE BLOW
VA
LEGEND
UP MAP
59
NUMBER OF
BIKE SLOTS �8
e
IN RACK
f
J
LAGUNA
LAKE
,L
so f
�tZ •� 84
a
c
0
U1
0
to
�1
CAL POLY
SOUTH 1
a
iGREYHOUND
STATION
�Q
TANK FARM
City Of
i sari Luis OBI SPO
Public Works Department
10/93
4.J N
�5� v
j L� NOS ALE
�DEpOT
a x
G Z
.o � —
r
SGUTHWCCO
ORC_ UTT
o 1.
a
FIGURE * 10
Citywide Bike Parking
i
LFi�
L
El 1. 11:
A44ZA
* **
W
Z
NIFpJHQ
v �
F-
* =Public Bicycle Racks
L = Bike Lockers
J
V
SANTA Ro 5.4
osos
ca uHrr*
Cou�r L
1/ovsE
C/ry
'vA 4e
L re
I 1— 4
r47pRRo
L
C pRRO
,�4G•4G
NO SCALE
tillll{���j�?E��l��l�i'tillll�ll��ll city of FIGURE #10
san tuts mspo
Public Works Department Downtown Bike Parking
10/93
APPENDIX F: CIT. COUNCIL RESOLUTION AL._�PTING PLAN
n '1.&5VLU 1JLUA PIV. Z$24u tivy.3 benes)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING A
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council established the Bicycle Committee in August, 1991 and
directed the Committee to update the 1985 Bicycle Facilities Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Committee held public meetings between July 1992 and March
1993 to provide Staff with input to the preparation of a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1993, the Public Works Department published a draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan and the plan was reviewed at five public hearings held by the Bicycle
Committee between June 21 and July 26, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Committee has forwarded recommendations -to the City Council
for adoption of the Plan and action on the Plan's Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has published a negative
declaration for the Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and has identified
specific mitigation measures identified in the following sections of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, at public hearings on August 31, September 10, and October 27, 1993, the
Council considered Bicycle Committee recommendations, staff recommendations, and public
testimony concerning the content of. the Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan supports
its - Circulation Elements goals and policies that call for the "... the per capita reduction of
automobile use in the City and the use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles..."
(Reference Resolution 4755, 1982 Series).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1: Thee Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby
adopted. The text of the adopted Plan is attached as Exhibit A;
Section 2: The City Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impacts -associated with implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan with the following
mitigation measures:
27
Page 2 -- Resolution No.
A. Impact: Proposed bicycle parking provisions inconsistent with current zoning
regulations.
Mitigation: Initiate amendments to the Zoning Regulations and other City land use
and development regulations to implement the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Section 3: The Bicycle Facilities Plan adopted by Council Resolution Number 5672 (1985
Series) is hereby rescinded;
Section 4: The Public Works Department shall publish and make available to the public
the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan and shall distribute copies to appropriate members of
City government, to the California Department of Transportation, and other appropriate agencies
and local libraries.
On motion of Council Member Settle ,seconded by Council Member Rappa and
on the following roll call vote: .
AYES: Council Members Settle, Rappa, Roalman, Romero, and Mayor Pinard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 27 day of October 1993.
alFri P m," 4 WAVI
mr-on t' v �
ATTEST:
MAWI,MOil VA
APPROVED:
CURRENT & FUTURE
LANDUSE MAP
FLAND RESERVED AS OPEN AREA, INCLUDING OPEN
-71 RECREATIONAL USES
PARKS AND OTHER PUBLICLY -OWNED FACILITIES
SUBURBAN & RURAL RESIDENTIAL
AREAS RESERVED FOR DETACHED HOUSES WITH YARDS
AREAS RESERVED FOR APARTMENTS & CONDOMINIUMS
AREAS RESERVED FOR RETAIL & COMMERCIAL USES
INCLUDES TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS
............
AREAS RESERVED FOR PROFESSIONAL & FINANCIAL
SERVICES.
AREAS RESERVED FOR MANUFACTURING AND THE
WHOLESALING & SALES OF LARGE ITEMS
- • -- CITY LIMIT
I -LNOUSEM CSC I 1 /03/23
1 _LNDUSLPCP--00L0R
I-LND=.PCP-BLACK