The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-9308 (2002 Series) Amending the Bicycle Transportation PlanC� • RESOLUTION NO. 9308 (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A.NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AMENDING THE 1993 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AND RECINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8240 (1993 Series) WHEREAS, the City Council established the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and charged it with, among other responsibilities, maintaining and updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan and WHEREAS, the BAC determined that the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan did not meet current state guidelines, which inhibits the City's ability to apply for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants; and WHEREAS, the BAC appointed a "Plan Update Subcommittee" that enlisted the help of community volunteers that collected information necessary to complete the 20002 Bike Plan update; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2002, a Public Review Draft of the updated Bicycle Transportation Plan was published and later placed on the City's web page for public review; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's designee has reviewed the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Initial Environmental Study and has recommended that a Negative Declaration be approved; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2002 the BAC reviewed the draft update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Negative Declaration at a public hearing, and on April 10, 2002 the Planning Commission also reviewed the Plan materials and each body has recommended that the City Council approve the Plan and its Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan supports the goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element that call for "... the per capita reduction of automobile use in the City and the use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles..." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts associated with implementation of the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan. Section 2: The Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby amended. The amended Bicycle Transportation Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3: Resolution No 8240 (1993 Series) is hereby rescinded. Resolution No. 9308 (2002Series) O Page 2 On motion of Council Member Ewan, seconded by Council Member Marx, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland, Schwartz, Vice Mayor Marx, and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None The following resolution was adopted this 7t' day of May 2002. ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk �� c�� Bicycle Transportation Plan CITY COUNCIL Mayor Allen K Settle Vice Mayor Jan Howell Marx John Ewan Christine Mulholland Ken Schwartz Adopted October 27, 1993 Last Amended May 7.2002 BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairperson Mary Lou Johnson Vice -Chairperson Jean Anderson Mark Grayson Bruce Collier Wes Conner Chris Overby (one vacancy) ADMINISTRATION Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Michael McCluskey, Director Tim Bochum, Deputy Director Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner (Program Manager) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE............................................................................................................................. i 1. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1 II. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............ 3 III. BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS ...................6.......4 A. Introduction...................................................................................................4 B. Definitions......................................................................................................4 C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Paths (Class 1)........................................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............................................................................. ...16 VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................19 VII. APPENDECIES APPENDIX A: SLO Bicycle Commuters APPENDIX B: Existing and Proposed Land Use Development Patterns APPENDIX C: Description of Existing Bikeways (January 2002) APPENDIX D: Description of Proposed Bikeways APPENDIX E: Existing & Proposed End -of -Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities APPENDIX F: Existing & Proposed Bike Parking at Transportation Hubs APPENDIX G: Existing & Proposed Changing & Storage Facilities APPENDIX H: Bicycle Safety & Education Programs APPENDIX I: Citizen & Community Involvement in Plan Development APPENDIX J: Relationship of This Plan to Other Adopted Plans APPENDIX K: Setting Priorities & Financial Planning for Bikeways APPENDIX L: Past Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities (1995 to 2002) APPENDIX M: City Council Resolution Amending the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure #1: Bicycle Transportation Map Figure #2: Existing Bicycle Facilities (January 2002) Figure #3: Bicycle Paths and Lanes: New Segments Figure #4: Class II Bike Lane Standards Figure #5: Signed Class III Bike Routes Figure #6: Bicycle Parking Space Standards Figure #7: Bicycle Parking for Existing Land Uses PREFACE This Bicycle Transportation Plan was originally adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council on October 27, 1993. At that time, the Plan fully complied with California Streets and Highways Code content requirements. However, since 1993 State Code requirements have been modified and expanded. In 2001, the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) initiated an update to the community's Bicycle Transportation Plan. The purpose of this effort was to ensure that the Bike Plan complies with State Code requirements, reflects new bikeway planning provisions included in adopted and pending Specific Plans and Area plans, and addresses needed revisions to bicycle parking design standards. On May 7, 2002, the City Council adopted the changes to the Bicycle Transportation Plan proposed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. For readers that may already possess a 1993 edition of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, significant changes between 1993 and 2002 editions include the following: Page 13 • Bike racks must provide two vertical contact points for bike frames. • Bike parking areas should be illuminated at night when the use is open to the public. • Bike parking areas should be sheltered when attractively accomplished as part of the project's architecture. Appendix A • Estimate of bicycle commuters. Appendix B • Existing and proposed settlement patterns. Appendix C • Description of existing bikeways Appendix D • Description of proposed bikeways. Appendix E . Existing and proposed bike parking. Appendix F • Bike parking at transportation hubs Appendix G Appendix H . Changing and storage facilities Appendix I • Bicycle education and safety programs Appendix J 0 Citizen involvement in Plan development Appendix K * Relationship to other plans • Setting_priorities and financial planning for bikeways 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 alternatives 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 C. mmittee 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. c 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 H 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. • Fundthe 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. 3 r y fi' �w i .a. � � 't. .a•w.h F S �a � Y'6'�.��.�[�,yS� �1t11�..' ?t`_'G3¢`.M-'S''R,w��ar��-'•rvJP 9 Y } 3 . v >a'?_'�'.a�' '�r�SyF� '�"gtv`�.r+C,•'�'�'^t.'f"'Y"•�, X ?,>'' ' 4 t$ SECTION 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 A are reserved for bicycles and separated from roadways. Bicycle Lanes (Class II) 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. n W a 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. I 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 C- Oty0 o y z CD C G) MOOOD) @ r CD CD M (n U) Ca 0 —1 CL 0 cc o S HtGU ES now fill • LjULJ d PA-I 0 rm m rm no (A R z m z —7N s cq m m m # � v 0 000 �, ❑D�a o 0 ,O ��o ,0o0a °Q ❑ ❑❑oo - O ro� -16 o -75 rr PAN a) V- 0 CDCL 0 0 � � � � o z C 0 < CD CO) CL U) n C y z O H N CA CLCD N • 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. 1.1 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 In "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. "liven 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, 1"2. 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 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 E PROVEM ENTS Strew From To Description Foothill** at Santa Rosa Install tight turn pockets,through bicycle slots,and facilities that:enable safe pedestrian crossing of Route:.l. Highland(WB)** at Santa Rosa Install through blcycle slot. Higuera (NB)+* at South Widen tuin-pocicec and, through bicycle slot. Santa Rose(NB)**.at Highlatu! Install thrgno btcycle s1oL. Santa Rosa(SB). Palm .Monterey ;Eliminate asphalthwerete:seam in`bike lane. South(EB) at:Broad Install through bicycle'dot. S.:Higuem at.Los 0sos Valley Road Install through bicycle slot:. ..; :S: Hies: at Margarita liminate<atiplta[ticoncrete seam m b&e lane. S. Higuera . ' Granada Frontage Road Romove sidewalk, nstall'Chrss II iitke lane/gutter, and build new atdeivalk in.back of trees. %GMEN.TS'TO BE CONSIDERED'FOR'FURTHER STUDY StreetFrom To: Dption Broad Marsh High Evaluate b&eway options Bullock Orcutt city l'tniits Evaluate for Bike lane installation California Marsh San Luis Evaluate . :for° bridge widening/]ane installation Chorro Foothill Lincoln Shown as Bicycle Route: evaluate other bikeway options. Foothill at California Evaluate . intersection design for improvement Higuera** South Madonna Evaluate intersection design for improvement Los Osos Valley Auto Park Calle Joaquin Monterey Hwy 101 Santa Rosa Evaluate for bike lane installation Osos Leff Marsh Evaluate bikeway options Pacific 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. 8 Figure # 4: Class 11 Bicycle Lane Standards (a) Type of Lane Mnimmn ADT 95% Vehicle Speeds Grades (c) Bicycle Speed Width (b) Class II-A 4 feet <10,000 <35 mph <4% <20 mph 5 feet Z10,000 >35 mph >4% <20 mph 6 feet >10,000 2!35 mph >4% >2.0 mph °Class 11-B 5'feet(d) <10,000 <35 mph <4% <TA mph 6 feat >i0,o00 >35 mph >4% >20 mph Notes: (a) Tlie width of a Tricycle lane is measured from-the<outside of the parking bay stripe to the'can ter-of the bilce'1ane.stripe for Class BA lanes,and from the faceof cu6:to'the center of the bice latte striping. for Class II11 lanes. The reginred width of a bicycle path is contingent upon all ofthe criteria(ADT;vehicle , and Tiicycte speeds)being met...Where one'of the criterion is ex the wider btcyole lanes sbopld. benstalled. (c) Gm&is calculated on slopes.1hat are 500^feet 6r7onger (d). Where:space is.iraited,a 4 foot=Class II=B'<bicycle'lanes is allowed where the roadway paving extends to the face of the curb and provides a sear less muface fbt vyclists or where a widegutter(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. 9 • 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 #5c 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:: . Nipoa►o. Peach High Brimolara 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 underYreeway culvert conswcted. MiU '; California `Chorro JeaniferlElla . Iohnson Railroad Sign when Bridge over.railroad constructed Dana Nipomo End Sign when creek path established South Higuera WeWadSrgnwhea 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 .v�r..a�♦". d kS RNI' � ^�..� AL�:• a°t, � n.CwR a IY.R •. I,�/�pYM1�.� i n y L h •f t� f ��{ i A YA I\J) r r ` 4 �Y, f d. pt 6i i� 710 ,1I PARKING 1 ' 1 SUPPORT , 1 I IV. BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILIZZFS 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, 1"3. 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 by providing at least two vertical contact points for the bicycle's frame. They should be coated with, or constructed of a durable material that prevents rust or corrosion. • Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame) to be locked to the rack using common locking devices such as a standard -sized "U" lock. • Be installed with mounting brackets on a concrete surface with access provided by aisles at least five feet wide. • Be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible, at least as convenient as the most convenient automobile parking space available to the general public. • Be visible from the interior of the destination. • Be placed where vehicles will not damage them. • Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured. • Be illuminated at night to the extent that the destination supports nighttime activity. • Be sheltered, when shelter can be attractively integrated with the project's architecture. 3. 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. D. 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 A: BICYCLE PARSING:SPACE"UIREME Land Use Jt bike:spam as 11Sijjjh n t Minn un % Category a % of regtured Short Term Long term auto spaces(a) Bicycle.Spaces Bicyde Spaces Medium ;-Medium 5% 100%, (b) Miigh;&High Density Residential' Central.Retail(c) General Retail 1595. 5096, .. ;... . .40% d. Neighborhood Retail Offices:. 15% 1095 -:80% Tourist Commercial ..5% 1096 8096 Services& :15% 1.0% SG% 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 the 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 F7: BICYCLE PARKING FOR EXISTING CONOMCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES Number of Employees Parldog By: 100 or more 1995 50 to 99 1997 20 to 49 1,999 15 i .. i ., y • i Y - (Tio PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATe 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 Sheriffs 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. • 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. 18 1 VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 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. b. 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 1. 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 Illlli s+r 'w APPENDIX A: SLO Bicycle Commuters & Impact of Bike Plan Implementation To prepare an estimate of the number of bicycle commuters' within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve, information was taken from: The 2000 Federal Decennial Census; and The 2001 Transportation Survey —a random sample of the transportation behaviors of 3,500 households in San Luis Obispo. The transportation survey provided an estimate of the number of adults that ride bicycles at least once a week and the percentage of their trips that were commute trips. The survey's estimate (a percentage of all respondents) was then applied to the number of adult City residents, as reported by the 2000 Federal Census. The result is an estimate of adult bicycle commuters within the City limits in 2001. California Polytechnic State University adjoins the City Limits and has an on -campus resident population of 2,800 students. The transportation survey provides an estimate of the percentage of Cal Poly students that are bicycle commuters. This percentage was applied to the total on -campus student population to estimate the number of university student bicycle commuters. Adding the results described above provides an estimate of the 2001 adult bicycle commuters within the City's urban reserve — San Luis Obispo's planning area (see item "i" below). The 2001 transportation survey also provides an estimate of the number of "non -bike riders" that would ride a bike for commute purposes if certain inducements (e.g. additional bikeways and parking) were provided. These types of inducements are central components of this Bicycle Transportation Plan. Therefore, from the survey, we can estimate how many additional adults bicycle commuters might result from full implementation of the bicycle plan. Adding this number to the number of existing bicycle commuters provides an estimate of total potential bicycle commuters in San Luis Obispo using base year population (see item "p" below). a. Ue tt►' Percentage of adult riders in SLO iMsult 27.2% s ' "'° '" ....... ....... . 2001 Transportation Surve b. Total number of adults in SLO 38,011 2000 Federal Census c. Adult bike riders in SLO a x b 10,339 -- d. Percentage of bike riders that commute 63.0% 2001 Transportation Survey C. Adult commute bicyclists in SLO (c x d) 6,514 -- f. University students living on Cal Poly Campus 2,800 Cal Paly University Percentage of on -cam us students that bicycle commute 23% 2001 Transportation Survey h. Cal Poly resident bike commuters (f x 644 -- i. Existing adult bike commuters in SLO's urban reserve a+h 7,158 -- j. Percents a of adults that do not ride bikes 72.8% 2001 Transportation Survey k. Non -bike riding adults in SLO(b x ') 27,772 -- 1. Percents a of non -riders res and to my inducements 91.7% 2001 Transportation Surve m. % of non -riders that res and to bike plan inducements 54.4% 2001 Transportation Surve n. Number of potential riders x 1 x m 13,854 -- o. Percentage of potential riders that are commuters (d x n) 8,728 -- Total potential commute bike commuters, 2001 o ulation i +0 15 886 — Estimated San Luis Obispo Urban Area Po ulation 2001 48,000 1 A "bicycle commuter" means a person making a trip by bicycle primarily for transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, travel to work, school, shopping, or other destination that is a center of activity, and does not include a trip by bicycle primarily for physical exercise or recreation without such a destination (reference Section 890.2 of the California Streets and Highway Code). A-1 APPENDIX B: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Settlement Patterns History and Existing Development Pattern The community of San Luis Obispo began in 1772 with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. During its first century, a retail and financial district and government center formed around the Old Mission. Today this area employs more that 6,000 people. Following a traditional expansion pattern, offices and residential neighborhoods now surround the "Downtown Core," extend outward and are served by arterial streets, some of which are also State highways. With this outward expansion over the second century came new shopping and employment centers located near the town's periphery. At the close of the 19`h Century, the Southern Pacific Railroad (now the Union Pacific Railroad) pushed through the eastern side of San Luis Obispo, forming a circulation barrier for community residents but providing a vital link to interstate destinations. In 1901, the California Polytechnic School was founded at the north edge of the City, adjoining the railroad. Today Cal Poly State University employs more than 2,600 faculty and staff that support 17,000 students. In the mid 1950s, Highway 101, a four -lane freeway, was constructed along the town's western edge, dividing some older neighborhoods and again limiting cross-town access. Today, San Luis Obispo occupies about ten square miles, has a total daytime workforce of 34,000, and a resident population of 45,000 living in 19,000 dwellings. Residential neighborhoods have developed following a more -or -less traditional pattern and often include, schools, churches, retail shopping centers, and neighborhood and community parks. San Luis Obispo is the County seat and includes offices for City, County, State and Federal agencies located in the Downtown Core, on South Higuera Street near Prado Road, and at several other scattered locations. Major employment centers include Cal Poly, the Downtown Core, and light industrial and office development along Broad and South Higuera Streets. Proposed Settlement Pattern To the north and east, outward growth of San Luis Obispo is limited by topography (e.g. the Santa Lucia Foothills and Bishop Peak) and by State-owned land (Cal Poly University). To the west, productive agricultural lands and a flood plain surrounding Laguna Lake border Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill Boulevard. These areas are part of a "green belt" proposed for preservation as open space. Most urban growth is slated for areas along the southern edge of the City. The extent of future growth is shown on the accompanying map and includes two new residential neighborhoods (the Margarita and Orcutt Areas), significant expansions of retail commercial uses along Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road, and substantial industrial development north of the County Airport in the Airport Area. Specific Plans have been prepared for these "expansion areas" that incorporate a network of Class I and II bikeways connected to the existing system. Full development of land, as envisioned by San Luis Obispo's General Plan, will result in the City occupying about 12 square miles, with a total daytime workforce of 45,7001 people, and a resident population of 58,000 people living in 24,000 dwellings. 1 Estimate assumes that the proportional relationship between San Luis Obispo's labor force and resident population does not change in the future with full development within the General Plan urban reserve. I11M Downtown Core - 'Pa A N 0 0.5 1 Mile 0 0.5 1 Kilometer Areas dominated by residential use - Areas dominated by trade, services, and employment ® Major retail shopping center ® Major employment center Principal outdoor recreation areas Rural and open space uses ,Tank Farm Rd Airport Area Major public facilities QS School © Government center © Corporation yard San Luis Obispo Urban Area Development Patterns cr a Major transportation hubs Train station © Bus station Airport This map is not a statement of land -use policy and does not show small land -use features. APPENDIX C: Description of Existing Bikeways (January 20Q2) Class I Bike Paths Separated From Streets. In 1995 the City began to construct a bike path along the 4.5-mile stretch of the Union Pacific Railroad that bisects San Luis Obispo. Class I bike paths have been constructed along 1.5 miles of this corridor — about 1 /3 of its total length. Part of this system includes paths at the south end of town that parallel the east side of the railroad and were constructed as part of housing subdivisions. In this area, an under -track crossing that links neighborhoods separated by the railroad is being designed, using a refurbished arched stone culvert originally installed by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Along with the development of this "Railroad Bicycle Path," the City erected a 5 1 -meter-long pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the railroad at Jennifer Street, linking eastern neighborhoods to San Luis Obispo's Downtown Core. Class II Bike Lanes Along Streets. The accompanying map shows the location of existing Class I and Il Bike Lanes in San Luis Obispo. There are over 25 miles of bike lanes located along major streets. It is the City's long-term goal to establish and maintain Class II bike lanes along all "Arterial" streets and highways (except U.S. 101) since these corridors provide the most direct access to important destinations and are frequently used by commuting bicyclists. San Luis Obispo's bike lanes are designed to comply with standards presented in Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. However, the City's standards are somewhat more generous, requiring new bike lanes along heavily trafficked streets to be 1.8 meters (six feet). Since the vast majority of existing City streets were not originally designed to accommodate bikeways and land within the community is almost fully developed, achieving a full 1.8-meter width may not always be possible. San Luis Obispo's bike lanes are located at the edge of the roadway adjoining raised concrete curbs or along the outside of parking bays where parallel vehicle parking is provided. In this latter situation, the City stripes both sides of the bike lane to provide greater guidance to motorists for efficiently parking their vehicles outside the bike lane. Some arterial streets within the City's Urban Reserve are under the jurisdiction of San Luis Obispo County or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Portions of Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads are examples of County roads, while portions of Broad and Santa Rosa Streets (Route 227 and Route 1 respectively) are State highways under Caltrans control. The County has installed bike lanes or paved shoulders along their streets so that reasonable connectivity with the City's bikeway network can be maintained. However, some of the bike lanes are of minimal width (1.2 m) and may warrant improvement given the number and speed of passing motorists. Caltrans has included bike lanes or paved shoulders along State Routes 1 and 227. Class III Bike Routes. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies a number of streets in residential and commercial districts that that are used by cyclists to connect to the Class Il bike lane network. These streets have been identified by the Plan as "Bike Routes." The City's policy is to install bike route signs along streets that provide important links to the Class 11 bike lane network. C-1 i r�o , ' 1 �dy �O U 1S \ N 1\ mn 1.. UUIJ O �. 000 Fin 4-` r i Y , \ T O CD Z a) o o o o m y N `C N N y C n N N N cn N N CD — CO __ 7� Of j C CD CD —+ cc con z N C7 APPENDIX D: Description of Proposed Bikewa s The tables on the following pages and Figures # 1 and #2 identify bikeways proposed by this plan. Proposed new bikeways include 25 kilometers of Class I facilities separated from streets and 9.5 kilometers of Class II bike lanes along segments of existing and proposed streets within the City's urban reserve. Where bikeways are included within "Specific Planning Areas" or where the City Council has adopted "Route Plans" for a particular bikeway, these adopted ancillary plans shall guide the bikeway's more precise placement while this plan presents its location in conceptual form. Class I Bikeways include paths along the Union Pacific Railroad and parallel to major creek corridors within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve. Paths along these corridors have been divided into segments or "phases" that can be individually implemented over time and collectively create continuous uninterrupted access for bicyclists and pedestrians. The following tables provide a synopsis of the detailed listings on the following pages. The cost of these facilities is substantial, because of the number of structures (bridges and under crossings) that are required to overcome obstacles. These projects also include connections to the local Class lI bikeway network. Additional Class I facilities are proposed within the Margarita expansion area, shown on Figure #4. Specific Plans have been or are being prepared for these new residential neighborhoods that will establish the paths' precise alignments. Therefore this plan only shows a conceptual representation of Class I connections. Within the Margarita and Orcutt Areas, Class I and II bikeways will be installed as a condition of new residential subdivisions. If the City chooses to accelerate their implementation, additional City costs will be incurred. Class II and Miscellaneous Projects are those that provide additional connectivity within the community. Some of these projects will be within proposed expansion areas and include new linkages through: the Orcutt Area between Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads; the Margarita Area between South Higuera Street and Broad Street; along Buckley Road between Vachell Lane and Broad Street, and through the Dalidio Property between Madonna Road and U.S. 101. Numerous other small projects are necessary to overcome barriers created by major highways and arterial streets, creeks, the Union Pacific Railroad, and in some cases topography. Each project can be implemented individually and have a positive effect on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. More than a few of these miscellaneous projects utilize a non-standard design. The following table summarizes these types of projects taken from the attached listings. D-1 Figure # : P n. , ta$eO M14selplIaneousWk Wa s Type of Project Number of Projects Estimated Total $ Cost Creek crossings (bridges or underpass) 4 543,000 New Class II connections 5 300,000 Small segments of Class I facilities 6 3,730,000 Bicycle slots at intersections 6 901,000 Miscellaneous street widenin 2 1,320,000 Storm drain safety improvements 1 25,000 GRAND TOTALS 24 6,819.000 Bicycle Boulevards. The City is developing Morro Street south of the downtown as a "Bicycle Boulevard." This plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a street "...that has been closed to through motor vehicle traffic and where stop controls on side streets give preference to bicycle traffic..." The Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard will extend from Marsh Street to Santa Barbara Street and include the closure of the street at its south end and installation of a traffic signal at the Morro - Upham -Santa Barbara intersection. D-2 APPENDIX E. Existing and Proposed End -of -Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities Evolution of Current Standards Until 1993, San Luis Obispo did not have bicycle parking standards. With the adoption of the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993), bicycle parking became a "condition of approval" for new development, except for very small-scale projects. This bike plan's standards stipulate that both short- and long-term bicycle parking be provided and specify the amount of bicycle parking to be provided — keyed to the number of required motor vehicle spaces required for a particular land use. This bike plan also includes location and design standards for bike racks. As part of the 2002 update, the design and location standards were refined to include new provisions that address night lighting, shelter, and level of support for bicycles that don't have kickstands, among other refinements. In November 1994, San Luis Obispo adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element contains broad policies and programs that address bicycling in San Luis Obispo, including the provision of parking by new development. Relevant Circulation Element provisions include: New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and standards (reference Policy 3.4, page 14). The City will modify its zoning regulations to establish standards for the installation of lockers, secured bicycle parking, and showers (reference Program 3.12, page 15). Finally, in 1999 the City amended its zoning regulations to include Table 6.5. This table is identical to the one shown as Figure #6 on page 14 of this plan. The zoning regulations also stipulate that development projects that provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle spaces, up to a 10%reduction. All bicycle parking that exceeds the required number of spaces shall be apportioned between short-term and long-term bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6.5. In sum, guidance for bicycle parking is currently provided in the following ways: Broad Policy Direction General Plan Circulation Element (1994), a es l4 & 15 Number and Type of Bike Parkin S aces Zonin Re ulations, Table 6.5 of Section 17.16.O60 Location and General Design of Bike Bicycle Transportation Plan, page 13, paragraph C.2 of this Racks document Installing Bicycle Racks @ Existing Bicycle Transportation Plan, page 15 of this document. Commercial & Institutional Uses Additional Guidance for Bike Rack Installations The following additional provisions support those shown on page 13 of this plan and should assist those designing bicycle parking in deciding where racks should be located. Visibility. Cyclists should easily spot short-term parking when they arrive from the street. A highly visible location discourages theft and vandalism. Avoid locations "off on the side," "around the corner," or in unsupervised parking structures or garages. E-1 Avoid conflict with pedestrians. Locate racks so that parked bicycles don't block a pedestrian path. Select a bike rack that is of sufficient height to be visible, with no protruding bars that could trip or injure cyclists or pedestrians. Avoid conflict with motor vehicles: Separate bicycle parking and auto parking and road areas with space and a physical barrier. This prevents motor vehicles from damaging parked bicycles and keeps some thieves at a distance. (Many professional bike thieves use vans or similar vehicles to hide their activities and make a get -away with their booty easier. The closer bicycle parking is to automobile parking, alleys, roads, etc., the better the opportunity for a bike thief. Access. The parking area should be convenient to building entrances and street access, but away from normal pedestrian and auto traffic (see below). Avoid locations that require bicycles to travel over stairs. Access for those on tricycles should be near a ramp used by people in wheelchairs. Security. Surveillance is essential to reduce theft and vandalism. For security, locate parking within view of passers-by, retail activity, or office windows. Lighting. Bicycle parking areas should be well lit for theft protection, personal security and accident prevention. Weather protection. Whenever possible protect bicycle parking areas from weather. Alternative treatments include using an existing overhang or covered walkway, constructing a canopy or roof —either freestanding or attached to a building. Inventorying Existing Conditions and Needed Improvements Citizen volunteers and members of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee surveyed many of the retail shopping areas, employment centers, and major public facilities throughout San Luis Obispo that are identified in Appendix B (City Development Patterns). While this initial inventory was not exhaustive and will require future refinements, it did point out areas where bicycle parking should be improved, either by installing bike racks for the first time, replacing racks that are poorly designed, or improving bike rack placement. The table beginning on page E-4 identifies the locations of bicycle parking outside of Downtown San Luis Obispo, identifies the type of bike rack, and points out correctable deficiencies, using the following notation. eva Area has bicycle parking, although some racks may be older styles. ® Some bicycle p.aKking, but locations not convenient; oor!placed for full use. X No visible bicycle parking accommodations. Area should be revisited to encoura a owners to install bicycle parking. WV I BR series "wave" style with single to 6 loops. WP1, VP2 I Viper 1000 or 2000 style inverted "U" racks I BA Parking slots on both sides BAX Parking slots on one side only WM Single -face rack DR Singe- or double -face rack E-2 The downtown commercial core and government center contains the highest concentration of bicycle racks installed by the City. The accompanying map and spread spreadsheet identify the general location and number of bicycle. Racks. The City of San Luis Obispo has an annual program of inspecting downtown bike racks and replacing or repairing those that are in poor condition. Also, on request by business owners, the City installs bike racks close to downtown land uses that will likely attract bicyclists, at locations that don't conflict with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. E-3 u y w ap to p t m xe s w ors v 11� .d W �79 m u N iiCgCq m€It't 4 04 m+011 xcD4 ao U N N U a � Pw u $ z ° r� h zzz (� v1 C� � � N1 �O l� 01 v1 O O' Q1 OC � ✓1 of pp 00 C fV � � v1 4 1+1 0 Z M S $ 1 4! oil .1 > �a y I N ~ h � �, N N N .-. N N M�j en M u e p va -jig -1-11 ti n n n v, rnp p � O --- ttn^ o ao p Co �Con tr ape oar o N n �+ ��++f fin+ pq pno M � .� 7 I I:i 1:2 11 WI"4I1ItirI�141 m p� ao I pa z O H z o o� Q-8-v-0-a-0 -a � L'DVm V a 0 0 0 ►.. r 0 0 0 0 0 `o 0 o 0 0 0 L `- L L L ` L 70 O o o o 0 0 0 0 o a'm $'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0•m o a a'� o'co 00•co ra $ cu 00 c��o 0(9(D(DC7C�00(90 (awaaCDC7(Da-0-0LL0m �wC7w4LL.LLCLLLCL �LL H U 0 O c c � c �UUUUUUa.000UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU N tV c�] c7 N cri M aD N M oD N N N N cD cp N N N N o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w U Q a CO O z Z -v 'o -a -v v -v -o v -v v � o v v •n � � -o v 'a � w �i � �i a�i a'oi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ti 0 4 0 0 Ti o a 0 O O O O 75,5 0 0 0,5 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 �mmmmmmmmmagmmmmmmaocgmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O N QI a) __ N N = 2 2 � N N 0- O O N d N 0 0 I L U0oa��v'ov oaCC�Cv ��c 10 C��ai�i �-0yw(D i It N O (v) alu aQc-c) > a ca � C a ��!%)c� OO�� c c c c�—an c c c cpcC) c c c c c c c c c c c c C Q: ~ '6 'o m z 0) UE 2 E - E E E u) E—amR 2 -S A N EaaaO��, to N N H N a n0aCLOfoaNg2g2M02Z2 C0C 000�0N 0N =� Y 0 -O'D co -�;N Q. � .r m3 ma�ia'imnai o�� a��ia,�, dam V/ f-I E o ._► E E E � Q1 W q6 2 �' N C c G N fopn w m w w w m o m w �a O is rn m cN m m c c G c c o O o p o c c E 9 0 0 0 ran 0 0 rn v> (,y wa2o_ �, �.cao_a a� ��-� vU °�� g O om00000002= riWNtoo ( t m8 mm oogwwN v�i CN�ONtt�O4C�GDGDf� �(DCo�D(o(D�O�O a�ornrnOda oaprnaoa°Doac°orn�oocoaooaootiw00000CD CD r r r' r m r M 0) 00 a) CL C a ° o a m CD a CDCAJJ� U m N m• O(a a CM_C a) O m _m m �Q rn .2 to m n (i m C a d pa°iid �0.dE�voiN rn��0m $�aa)a)�i �y L m c= E a rn c a c N E y m nC X m m gi 4 Vj is m m m o O m O c c c H m m v` 0 o f0 �+ 0 0 UE c�yF-==N � �'o H e aa)i•o $ o o1�ctm vrn��i c� c c c in in a 0 a�Q�Yo vN cwrn c¢C m cm m m 'oa O O m'J a 0 U C— $ N .y O O 7 0� C U U t3 U U o Jo_o_UcoUU.-UUU�Ym2m—�'m`'<XF--iC)aaoHaYjjjjjj to(0f-MmOW►-mM4rcyM19tIn0tiwMCrrNMv4nw r r r r r t- � r r N N N N N N N N N N M M CV) m M M c7 p p 0 4 L. L L V O L MO L 0 L O O L O 0 0 O O O .= .= ~ .� .L O O 4 O .� O O O .� OO8 VVV o O c� m o o O o (o 8 O o O m m m et ro m g O O m o m O o 0 o m 00U-u_C7aa.(.DLL(DC�aaLLLLLLLLLLu.aa(�LLau 0MCL0-LL(DLL(9 LL0LL(7 w w UcaL)n.aCLO0000Goo 66cac�t�tatUUcac�i�Uc�UUtai3UM50 5 N N N 0( D M V N N[ V N N N M CO) M C e 7 e e) M N N N N N N N N N N N N N NLf) N IT N r.+ ++ .r .� ++ � a-. ++ � a+ ++ a+ ......+ ++ � ++ r.+ � �•+ r.+ r+ +J �.. r.+ � ar r.+ ++ � ar r.+ �+ �,..' (� r.+ mmmmmUmmmmmmintommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm0m L � :2 :2 LO y 2 2 w w _1 'v ul N OO > > 2 = > > > D D Z) 73 > > > D > M > > M s :D D b 'O O N N N N N N Ow N N M M M M 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 0 0 7 G C C 0 0 3: C C C C C C ig3: :� 3: C c G C C C G C C C G C C C vj G Fn C 00 0 w 0) wcD .im L C L L t L t rn.a�rnmrom(mmmmm C C C G C C w w w w w w UUUUUU t G C C C c w 0 m 0 0 0 Q 0 9) 0MOOODOOMM 0 0 10 °E221!Lu2T1!11!mmrnLnc0 O N` � a)N N tit w w w a) w E M m O O M M M�= m m 7 .� = .e O _0)1m c rnrnrnrnrnrnrnLMm Let L ==UU===zi==ia=a'z w (acLa o mm O4�OcocLam�a�a�a�OcLoc`o rnrn,rnv0 o i �' ' 22xO�mmUmrn.0mmmmmmmm�.�. �------------ U U •- _ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ ._ u7rr0 ��0)w:c 22x2222= (OOONgMM� a)m0)0000400001Cb(O(DMN(DwC) DGoO00MOr(O r 000OrQ)0) t tiODODO)0)0)CDmCD0)0)1,-►►1� OOCDCOwmIm0)1� (p(DODOD r r r r r OD OD , OD O OD OD OD OD OD OD OD co OD 0 OD OD r r 1�- h 1� 1� (O (0 to Ln In In LO m +. w (p m w O w w 0. G o U E Ea m �c X M :3 w U w a C w w w w w w O 07 w E w to 32 Qs o �' �U¢ w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 uoi V CLE= U- 0 E m 7 V -)t�FE N w._._ U C)ZZZZZZ CO �- O ;=Z O E LL c 0 0 3 m m � y N m w L r 0 0 0 c vas .-.- oZf a�f o6 �tS �S otS n rn w L Y 0 a r- U m Z'G¢--�ao w w m oUU m m w rn w v, m et a0a._U o m0 c aa� o �,sc m�4ac°a° �a�miWEEccccEEw2ud) MEmmmmv.-cwmm L Q w c cn CO O J L �. M M M m m m m m L ... _ s Ou 02»>UcnLLLL-5mmmmmmP(n��U(n¢��U7p7�Ucn��na r~r°Dir°'i��v� v vvC'r,�u7(Nr��uVi�(�iLOinL�OW0Dmc`�cc0D(`f'D(cpc~D�c�a��tin v L L L L L L o Q 0 o L `LLLLm.U'gLLLLLLLLLMLLL ia(DIFa°(DC7LT 22 m m m m m a a. it m �c�vcacaiac�vc�c�i�Ut� co cD co N O N *t N N N N N N N N N co N T- a-aaaa 'aaaaaa �a mmmmmmmmmmmmmaQ[1, mmom a% a� a) a% o 2 (D Z Z 2 C 4) �:o3: 0 $avaaa '@ L N til W a) a) U) O Vi C V) Cco C C G C C C C C C3: C to J J m O 7. a) 2:222Lae'2mmm555c m m m m m m m o O 2 2m L m 0.— m aa2Z-220mmm===CD2222 2�, 4) (1) ��-a m ma`)wcygsc T) e e FE aim m m m m�j m �.rnar�rnc�g c�a�°g _m��ao (D.— 3===m2cDc�� Mo� CD � r CO Or Q r 0) M h C7 r'r M N N U') CO CO I- h r— r my r am 0) r— e r r O O m U co d U C C a) y m E C CO ~ C L Q C m CO j 0 t� CO U) w N t C O lA w li =❑ G C N N t F CUa y U Q O a C L y a m y� m `- 7 j U t m o rnm�am M_5 O w 0 arna � a� Q o.c .0.9 arms or m c os �cn�(9�F--��mmE-air-cn¢m� 'T LO W 1- w d) b r N M� u7 w 1-- co CD n r n 1-- 1- f- f,- i- co w GD co co w ap w co 00 CA CA APPENDIX F: Existing & Proposed Bicycle Parking at Transportation Hubs The map on page G-2 identifies the location of existing bicycle parking at bus, rail, and airport hubs in and surrounding San Luis Obispo. The following table identifies each location and inventories the number and type of parking facilities. Any proposed additional facilities are also noted by type and capacity. Fi ure'#c E><sfa .A".r, +aged B cle ParkiDl ra�lis" Pr`.o 111e Location Type Facility Capacity Facility Total Capacity Amtrak Passenger Rail 5 angle tube lock 10 bicycles Replace existing with 4 8 bicycles Terminal: 1011 Railroad racks inverted "U" bike racks Avenue Greyhound Bus Station: 146 None NA Install 2 Inverted "U" 4 bicycles South Street bike racks CCAT Bus Transfer Center: 1 "wave" bike rack 6 bicycles Add I `wave" bike rack 12 bicycles 1050 Monterey Street Downtown Transit Center: 1 slotted wheel 3 bicycles Replace with 6 inverted 12 bicycles 990 Palm Street bike rack "U" bike racks SLO County Aiprort: 835 None NA Install 2 Inverted "U" 4 bicycles Airport Drive bike racks San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) operates a six -route, nineteen -bus local system within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve, serving major employment centers and all residential neighborhoods. Each SLO Transit bus includes a front -mounted bicycle rack that can carry two (2) bicycles. As growth occurs, the SLO Transit system will be expanded into new areas along the southern edge of the community. The Airport Area Specific Plan identifies a proposed transit routing strategy. All buses serving new growth areas will be equipped with on -board bicycle racks. The City is improving its Downtown Transit Center located at 990 Palm Street. The improvements will include the replacement of the older slotted wheel bike rack with new inverted "U" racks, placed parallel to each other for maximum support. The Central Coast Area Transit System (CCAT) operates an eight -route regional transit system that serves all urban quadrants of San Luis Obispo County, with its major hub in the Downtown Core of San Luis Obispo. Each CCAT bus has front- and rear -mounted bicycle racks that have a capacity for four (4) bicycles per bus. CCAT's transit center is located adjacent to the Downtown Transit Center. It includes a "wave" bicycle rack for CCAT patrons. Since San Luis Obispo is an employment destination with a substantial influx of workers each morning, it does not provide park -and -ride lots since they are normally located at the origin of commute trips. San Luis Obispo is served by AMTRAK passenger rail service: the Coast Starlight and the Coast Surfliner. Bicycles can be accommodated on the Starlight when they are properly packed in boxes provided by AMTR.AK. They must be checked as baggage and there is a box and handling fee. For the Coast Surfliner, bicycles can be directly loaded onto the passenger cars; three storage spaces are provided per car. F-1 APPENDIX G. Existing and Proposed Changing and Storage Facilities The Streets and Highway Code requires that this bike plan describe and map existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. Few facilities exist in San Luis Obispo that are specifically designed to provide long-term bicycle parking, changing rooms with storage for cloths and equipment, and showers at the same location. Exceptions include a few larger employers such as Caltrans, some County agencies, and RRM Design, which provide them for employees who commute to work by bicycle or public transit combined with bicycling. Other employers (for example, downtown City offices) provide bicycle lockers for their employees (that provide some storage), restrooms that enable changing, with showers located in separate nearby buildings. However, the provision of showers is most likely the missing component. In -town employee work commute trips are generally less than four miles in length and 20 minutes in duration. Therefore, showers may not be necessary. In contrast, inbound work commute trips from surrounding communities generally are in excess of twelve miles. Showers may be warranted for these commuters and for bicyclists touring the central coast; however they comprise a small segment of the bicycling public. The City maintains parks and public plazas scattered throughout San Luis Obispo that include public restrooms, accessible during daylight hours. The map on the following pages identifies the locations of these facilities. While restrooms in parks and plazas provide opportunities for changing, they do not provide for long-term storage of cloths or equipment and may be remote from long-term bicycle parking. City construction codes currently require that non-residential uses provide restrooms when there are on -site employees. These restrooms can be used for changing. However, construction codes do not specifically require changing rooms and storage lockers. The City's Community Development Department uses its discretion to require changing rooms, lockers, and showers for moderate- to larger -scale commercial projects as air quality and traffic reduction mitigation measures. An example is the newly developing office project at 100 Cross Street. However, at this time there are no specific standards established by either the City or the County Air Pollution Control district. Given the characteristics of the City's bicycling population, the following programs are recommended: 1. The City should work with the County Air Quality Control District to establish specific standards for providing changing rooms, storage for clothing and equipment, and showers that apply to non-residential development projects. These standards should target moderate- to large-scale employers and be consistently implemented as part of the City's land development process. 2. The City should evaluate the need for providing a facility that addresses the storage, parking, and hygiene needs of touring bicyclists. G-i N v O • O o _ D . o O ....- 0°000 c 6 : ❑❑� O z as , ` 0 0o O C.:• a �.1 �. c oo ° Ec O� o O., LJL Lj 0 ic WO cr y O 0onnnno cr CD � 3 s � C7 N N N NBIB -n O cD Os ^ o Cpm C C rt p l—j N � �- N O n. A c N a o V z v \J) \J) 0 cr m = cn APPENDIX H: Bicycle Safety and Education Programs Existing Programs. The Police Department is the principal agency responsible for the City of San Luis Obispo's bicycle safety and education programs. Primary activities include the following: Annual Bicycle Safe , Rodeo: since 1998 the Police Department has sponsored an annual safety rodeo in September or October. The purpose of the rodeo is to teach safe riding practices and vehicle code compliance to elementary and secondary school children. The rodeo is typically held in a large parking lot and includes a skills course, demonstrations of safe riding practices, and the distribution of literature. Participants come from throughout San Luis Obispo County, the event is broadly advertised, and attracted 165 children in October 2001. Safety Assemblies: In 2001, the City Police Department received an Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant that supports the cost of presentations at each elementary school throughout San Luis Obispo. Students are provided basic information about safe riding techniques and vehicle code requirements. The San Luis Obispo County Rideshare Coordinator also sponsors bicycle safety and education programs during "Bike Week," typically scheduled in May each year. The Rideshare Coordinator has developed an abbreviated form of a bicycle rodeo that is set up in a public plaza or street area, sometimes as an ancillary activity to bicycle sporting events. The Coordinator also provides some outreach education to elementary schools outside the City of San Luis Obispo but within the County. Proposed Programs. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Advisory Committee proposes to sponsor two bicycle rodeos at elementary schools in San Luis Obispo during the spring of each year. These programs would be put on by the City's Police Department with support from the Recreation Department and elementary school personnel and would present an abbreviated version of the PD's annual bicycle rodeo. The City will publish a bicycle safety program brochure that will be distributed at these assemblies as well as at the annual rodeo. Effect on Accidents Involving Bicyclists. Since current bicycle safety activities are relatively new, the City does not have sufficient data to determine if there is a relationship between bicycle safety programs and the incidents of accidents involving bicyclists. Also, the City's programs are geared toward resident elementary school children. Therefore, it is necessary to screen the overall incidence of bicycle collisions by the age of those involved to determine if there is a regressive relationship between child education programs and bike accidents. This information is not readily available from the SWITRS system and the City's own database, established in 1999, has insufficient historical data to determine a relationship between safety programs and collision data. Current programs do not educate the City's adult bicycle riding public, which includes Cal Poly University students that ride bicycles the most. H-1 APPENDIX I. Citizen and Community Involvement in Plan Development Background In 1991 the San Luis Obispo City Council created a Bicycle Advisory Committee and asked it to prepare a bicycle transportation plan that met State law requirements in place at that time. This work was completed and a Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted on October 27, 1993. Since 1993, State codes that establishes the content of bicycle plans has changed. Therefore, updating the City's 1993 plan focused on developing and including new information as required by Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This "update" process involved City staff, members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and its subcommittee, and citizen volunteers. Their work is described below. Citizen Involvement With Fieldwork A subcommittee of the SLO Bicycle Advisory Committee was appointed to help update the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. Because work on the 1993 plan was performed about a decade ago, the subcommittee required more recent information and counts. During the months of January and February 2002, some 15 cyclists responded to a request (posted to Internet announcement/discussion lists for the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club and the SLO County Bicycle Coalition) for volunteers to ride different sections of the city to survey and inventory bicycle parking facilities and overall concerns for cyclists. Selecting items to be surveyed was based on a recent work program developed by Evanston Illinois and sent to the subcommittee by Randy Warren, a former San Luis Obispo resident and cyclist now living in Illinois. The cyclists who volunteered generated other concerns and questions. One of the cyclists, a Caltrans planner who commutes into work from another community, suggested that the group stress objectivity. The group recognized that a simple form is not always easy to fill out and that it can be difficult not to be subjective. Volunteers were encouraged to look at conditions from the point of view of an elementary school student, not only because some of the data collected will be used to generate information for a "Safe Routes to School" program, but because most of the information will be valuable for planning safe commute routes for adults. Survey/Inventory During a meeting of most of the volunteers at Meadow Park, a large map of the city was divided into 13 areas and spreadsheet forms were distributed to each of the participants. The Chamber of Commerce provided, free of charge, copies of their 1999 map of San Luis Obispo and each map was marked with all 13 areas outlined with a green highlighter pen and distributed to volunteers (with help from the staff at the Parks & Recreation Department. These maps were used because they show clearly all parks and open space areas, schools, hospitals, public buildings, transportation hubs, etc., and the city limits. Also, the maps are large enough with type that is easy to read. 1. The spreadsheet format listed the following conditions to be inventoried, street -by - street, with comments keyed to each entry listed separately: - danger spots for cyclists (intersections, markings, signs, etc.); - condition of pavement and markings for [class 21 bike lanes, - difficult intersections for cyclists; - difficult or improperly -working traffic lights; - debris, street cleaning needs; I-1 - drainage grates, utility covers that pose a risk for bicycles; - physical barriers to cycling, especially for commuters; - dangerous railroad crossings (such as on Marsh Street); - transit (bus, train) connections; - improper parking of any kind of vehicle that impedes cyclists; - connections to areas outside the city limits (especially for commuters); - other conditions as identified at our meeting/s; - higher than appropriate speeds on residential streets; and - bicycle parking facilities (public, commercial, apartment houses, etc.). 2. Cyclist counts at key locations and specified times/days. Counts will be organized for later in the spring, but several key intersections were identified by the subcommittee. 3. Interview and record comments of various cyclists in the city (those who live here and those who commute into and out of SLO). This will be an ongoing activity and will include the new bicycle -based delivery service owner in the city. Of the 15 cyclists recruited, 14 actually rode different sections of the city. Others will participate at a later date and more volunteers will be sought to make up a community task force for further updates. Items 2 and 3 were not covered during these January and February. Volunteers who rode the areas include seven San Luis Obispo residents, three Cal Poly students (who commute to the university), two Avila Beach residents (who cycle regularly to and in SLO), and two Caltrans planners, one of whom commutes by bike from Arroyo Grande. Public Review All field data was analyzed and a synopsis of this work has been incorporated into the appendix of this bicycle plan. City staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study, which evaluates the project's impact on the environment, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. This initial study found that the proposed bike plan amendments would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Based on the content of the initial study, the City's Community Development Director recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued. On March 21, 2002, the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) reviewed and considered this Director's recommended Negative Declaration and a Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan at an advertised public hearing. The Committee took public testimony from _ people and discussed various elements of the draft plan including the relationship of the Bike Plan to other City planning efforts. Copies of the minutes for the BAC meeting are available upon request from the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, telephone 805-781-7210. On April 10, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the recommended Negative Declaration and the Draft Bike Plan at an advertised public hearing. The Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the Bike Plan. Copies of the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting are available upon request from the Community Development Department, telephone 805-781-7172. On May 7, 2002, the City Council considered the recommendations of its Planning Commission and Bicycle Advisory Committee at a public hearing, took public testimony, and I-2 unanimously approved a resolution adopting this document — resolution included as Appendix M. Copies of the minutes of Council meeting are available for the City Clerks Office at 805- 781-7103. The Council also identified a variety of topics that it felt its Bicycle Committee and staff should further study during Fiscal Year 2002--03, including: Identification of traffic generators outside the downtown and whether they provide bicycle parking. The relationship between in -city bikeways and those that connect to sub -regional destinations, such as recreational facilities and Cuesta Junior College. Mapping of available bicycle parking throughout San Luis Obispo. Coordinating the planning of pedestrian paths and trails with that of bikeways. a Policies and standards for developing Class I bikeways adjoining creek corridors. Reevaluation of the design of bike lanes along Prefumo Canyon Road west of Los Osos Valley Road. Developing a more continuous Class I bikeway network, without interruption by major streets or highways. Consideration of additional "Bicycle Boulevards" and "Slow Streets" throughout San Luis Obispo. I-3 APPENDIX J: Relationship to Other Plans Specific Area Plans. The City of San Luis Obispo uses the "Specific Plan" process to provide detailed planning for residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. These specific plans (sometimes called "enhancement plans" or "district plans") prescribe the arrangement of land uses, establish design standards for new development, and identify alignments for transportation corridors, including Class I and II bikeways. The City also adopts "Route Plans" for bikeways that will be retrofitted into existing neighborhoods and business districts. This plan is designed to be consistent with specific plans and route plans. Figure #1: Bikeways Map shows the type and general alignment of bikeways throughout San Luis Obispo. However, the more precise alignment of bikeways is established by specific plans and route plans adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council. Most areas covered by these particular plans are shown on Figure # 4 and described below. 1. The Railroad District Plan includes the Union Pacific Railroad and adjoining streets from Johnson Avenue to Orcutt Road. The plan shows the general configuration of Class I bikeways on both sides of the railroad and connections to neighborhood streets. 2. Railroad Sa&V Trail Route Plan establishes a specific alignment for a Class I bikeway along the Union Pacific Railroad from the AMTRAK passenger terminal on Santa Rosa Street to Foothill Boulevard. This plan overlaps in part with the Railroad District Plan, but is much more specific. 3. Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan includes properties along Higuera Street between Marsh Street and a point just south of Madonna Road. The plan shows the configuration of Class I bikeways along San Luis Obispo Creek and Class II bikeways along Higuera and South Streets and Madonna Road. 4. Edna-Islay_Specific Plan includes residential properties between Orcutt Road and Broad Street and is bisected by Tank Farm Road. Class I bikeways are prescribed along the railroad and area creeks while Class II bikeways are shown on bordering and bisecting arterial streets. S. Margarita Area Specific Plan draft establishes the design of a new residential neighborhood east of the current end of Margarita Avenue, north of Prado Road. The plan shows Class I bikeways in the South Hills Area and Class II bikeways along principal neighborhood streets and along Prado Road and Broad Street. 6. Airport Area Specific Plan (draestablishes the design of service commercial and industrial districts between S. Higuera and Broad Streets, generally north of the County Airport. The plan shows Class I bikeways extending along two area creeks and Class II bikeways along all area arterial and collector streets. 7. Orcutt, Area Specific Plan (draft) establishes the design of a new residential neighborhood east of the railroad bordering Orcutt Road. Class I bikeways are planned adjoining the railroad and along an area creek and Class II bikeways along bordering arterials streets and collector streets within the neighborhood. J-1 8. Bob Jones Ci -to-Sea Route Plan draft establishes the alignment for Class I bikeways along San Luis Obispo Creek from Madonna Road to Los Osos Valley Road and along Pref nno Creek from Madonna Road to the east end of Calle Joaquin. When this Bicycle Transportation Plan update was prepared, a number of the plans listed above were not yet adopted and are subject to public review and City Council consideration. Should the bikeways prescribed by these draft plans be modified, this plan will be amended to achieve consistency with the resultant adopted specific plan. In general, changing the alignment or type of bikeway prescribed by an adopted specific planning or area plan may require an amendment to Figure #1 of this plan. County Bikeway Plan. In September 1994, the County of San Luis Obispo adopted a County Bikeways Plan; this plan was updated in 1996. This plan prescribes bikeways throughout the County including Class II bikeways along major road corridors leading into the City (e.g. Orcutt Road, SR 227, South Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Road, O'Connor Lane, and Foothill Boulevard) and Class I bikeways along the Union Pacific Railroad from the south and Route 1 between San Luis Obispo and north Morro Bay. These bikeways generally link with similarly classified bikeways within San Luis Obispo. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2001 San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments includes provisions for non -motorized transportation. The RTP identifies a variety of Class 11 bikeways along major regional routes that pass through and border the City of San Luis Obispo as well as Class I bikeways along the Union Pacific Railroad and San Luis Obispo Creek (the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail). The projects shown on Figure 2-8b of the plan are consistent with those shown on Figure #1 of this plan. This Plan and the 2001 RTP are consistent in that each shows bikeways along routes of regional significance. However, in the Airport Specific Planning Area, the City has proposed a duel system of Class UII bikeways along Tank Farm Road, Prado Road and Buckley Roads while the RTP only shows Class II bikeways along these corridors. IDA CD O CD 0 li 0 S Hlb—UE CD Ell O� -O DO k a Airo . CD CL (D cn us 0) (D (D 0 0 G) -n CD ;UOKKFM > CD CD CL CL 000A) cr 0 o2 :r > Pr Im w 2 :r 0) o M M co U) a) ;* . C/) I CL > g .00 M > C5 z 0 o LF W 0) m > ae- m IL O F3,M -0 cn CD .0 (D 0 0 M 0 0 3 5, =r0 Crl (D 0 APPENDIX K: Setting Priorities & Financial Planning for Bikeways Creating bikeways proposed by this plan will be constrained by the availability of funding. While there are a number of competitive State and Federal grant programs that can provide support, the amount of funds needed by the City to complete the community's bikeway network ($49,000,000) is out of scale with most, available grant programs. The City has been modestly successful in receiving grant funds to build bikeways and has spent about $3.2 million over a six - year period (using both grants and local funds), the equivalent of $530,000 per year. If this spending level continues, it would take about 92 years to complete the proposed bikeways network. On way reducing implementation costs to the City is to require bikeways to be designed and installed as part of new development. To a large degree, this strategy is proposed within the urban expansion areas at the south end of the community and for major projects on "infill" properties within the urban reserve. The limitation of this strategy is that desirable bikeway links may be tied to the pace of outward community growth and take years to accomplish. The City may choose to accelerate the development of a particular bikeway link when it addresses a current critical need for bicycle commuting. The following priorities describe the emphasis that will be placed on implementing various bikeway projects. However, work may proceed on projects with lower priority ratings when opportunities present themselves. Also, bikeways shown on private property that is subject to development or redevelopment shall be installed no later than at the time development occurs, unless guaranteed by the developers for installation at a later time. Citywide Bikeway Priorities 1" Priority: bikeways that promote bicycle commuting and improve safety. 2"d Priority: bikeways that serve both commuter and recreational cyclists. 3"d Priority: bikeways that primarily serve a recreational purpose. Category Bikeway Priorities The major Class I bikeways are divided into a variety of segments. Some segments will provide a greater benefit to bicycling than others. Conversely, some segments may be easier to implement. The tables on the following pages list the bikeway projects and note both a citywide and category priority for each project. Following this structure, the highest priority bikeways are those that have a 1/1 rating --- I" priority citywide and first in their category. The lowest priority projects have a 3 citywide rating followed by their ranking within that particular category. The following listings should help guide future Bicycle Advisory Committees and City Councils in establishing implementation priorities as part of the ongoing financial planning process. K-1 4 b Z a C a V U' c N p„ "" •� N � M .� 'lY' vl b `� ['' oo O\ � ~ id ca •p is 'any LS46 C V Ii N W� N N ° C.i' Vl ity cn LLIA Vyl b d N or w -• tn to F�U�1 14o�,x 0 0 a.�4)5Ei ° tl O O CL w p b u d O a0i s04 O 1G GA" O a 2 O 3 O N Vi N O er3 •� ° ^o C a c�i g t�t cd Q o a� w -- ., (" N •a CX O ° ed O t � hay O w ti "d .� °' U b °,3 '" b o 3 E H b b +� C O C U X O tJ cn O^ 0O 2, 4. y.'{ U O C ..�� 0w U 3 3 2�� 3 owU ° w��(nJ. �n o to O r- Co N 00 en N 00 �O © o O O N O CN t- wl �O © O O V� O � O DD v'� V1 to wl 00 C 00 O C+l b vi C- 0D I cry N M O Mwl N .-. 16 4. E ° at9¢ is w Q»Z F^AC2gv1 a. w, �10 00 It IN I� ° o w a3i ° F. p� 1.. � E C:S�oUo p wo O "C O O ri a d a � c ° � •G N G � � .°S t"1 �. �_ � O � b N y N Ry" � � ,. fir' CL, A4 r1 941t %D n ,' •"' N rat it N m to %.D 11 00 N N N N N s N N N N r+l M n1 r+l cry r+1 M M 60 4. MN p °� tij O U O � 0pq a�G O (7C+ t� rri Ls. °� •a� p v' p O U R a� °� w 3 0 e 4 O G O "2 +ii:l d O O O •+•+ O N COd N U i a) O C!J U rh vl � •-" 8 •SL N a) O N F-� •A 4. O e0 �f�' N 1"" 6, O Ori b m w w o ae '0 m 3 U o� o tea. oa. �b .�. o c°� o a N•C c? w^O f�' 6> w0 RO O N �'.� .n �D•.. �.lG R � vi I'd �o�06 �3 � O � �' '� o o u Wa awai o q "" o p °R' rn.5 "' O p ed •"" ti o m A ai �' °F.' '� a vv,¢�> o cn w a. $ c $ a CDo o o a o CD 0 0 0 O. V N N N n O vi q O te) '� O O M rbi a\ v-i O N ono O N O v1 Vj O ON L N ern s win �p ,a3 to N O Ocq MO to vN'� O 4� to V'i b C '� 000 In N 00 N M N 0 rh a.S y QO nii ` w -Ps, L: y �•� .7 O O p �aC p O �„00� R U0.�i �(Yi O� N O 61 V y..; a) � x he �, Ca/] �, '�.�e Ww� yOj 0o E U ., cd u� x� p o G `' xx to C �� N �g C ��. p � Ca4 ° o� c 0CX o 0 ;cam 3�� b op moo/ ld w _ov�°' Ld � p �+ ¢ N � �+ � N v1 5� � fr u .y� � W p b Vf f-. .� 0 o p ""% ,•d O m p b � 0 � i. "�• �a p +w+ �e�e7t �.i « w Q 1�•� � �+ p 'n 3 2 p ++ U f�•y VJ p Vl VJ O� y -� Vl �d '� � •�d O �Y/ ..�. ca W � y � v�;p�r.r u�-• G. 3a w�r�v�3G7w lQ)dw�'•,wa tC l� �. � (� GO �U a.w « •.• •0 p0p��. 4 p0.� pC�. �Oq. papd�. N 1 � C� �1 07 � •-•• v1 r{� 0.1 07 � .-. n 00 � '� O � ia4 LY PG 4L pG PC p7 A7 W� 0.1 As U U G ,� � G N � •,mod c*f � •,F_v, d v'i �D [� op Q\ w. •� �"� �` a �a ha e`b0., �4Q a�i3 ov ��s 15 I «+ o C ^O O Vol 7 U w G N d b� r � v9 o ro.b �°p cnv v,wp0Eo a'T� v °�'°'x Chi `� 'aoc °oG 53 0 v� zs4~' ao 00 O `e�� T w i� m aUi N O p ,yG 4i r•° c>;tea U O «+p N �n a' pyj ' q) ° ° y I-1 Ura ro,r N v sd 4 4 �" C p m O v $ b end to h N U '� 5 N C o O U v 11 ed a. U C p .O ° v Q a U 4.... hob y a c .r cL o 3 v p v� c0' oUo� t; �cd 3 -- •v .0 o. �d dd f� ' �0. + �..• L1n F" O °ieo 0. v Qv+ 10 R; v� �+ F" QoboN e4Z)U V .+. kn O O 40 C O `p ro O r pdp , C O O O � N pi C7 r y N IT in O M k w N N a�i 7 N v z z z ..Z ,44 C M C O O cm O M N Z 4. .mpg C O v -z; Uj O CA ;'�Cq v •� �v, U x �2 :� t4 a 0 Sae q�j .�y�. ' Cd Cd O v cad � •C _ �, -� 0 3 v ° ,+. a � '� ° ova R AR A 99 • y _N Mn V1 N N_ v 12 1 i2 s a N CV N M M M M M M I I G] u. .� •b O t7 o 'd .ta a0i N -4 c O 3 °70 m oo � � " s3 0 42 E a �> 0 o � ; a O USae C1 O .o p a> en -0 cp .A�, a> m 2 ;: 2 o a s o" t •i.� .O p Q' "C G: A yEL '..G N N ��+�,,, %t O 2 71 w �•I•w 2 4 y W a.� Vl N p cd�a�°' W 3�b�°'ti O o u U O rz CDO '.0 O a> W 7° y.., U o U o `n Q U A ,?� ,n 3� 4. o O d, U ^.. A A V 3w P3 v E� 3 3 cps .. .... °�� ° �, A euQ 'jEiY�0.Q & agw - - � .o o a� a� ❑ y (j ' ' a� o. 3 a� 0 � «� � envia 3�•ay v UaCL U A �-, •..y ^ i�.ti p cep �cn 3s o i0.33 �cn--.� pp ,.,,, N �w a z U3 S .0 h . 3 In O Ca ^ M N CD N n M N o o o t" `° M o ¢ z O CD O N o ¢ z ¢ r1 rG v N \0 z aa 4. rr + a�0i" •p o0 � oN� P4 ',�J,C t�y��/ � � A U W 'C� Nam' y' �!a\ o•� Q� �� Q 'ir cp 4. y U ?e to Eiy p ° y a� o y o y U/ 3 x CL— -t't,u o¢'� ry �cb Qcn �cn E G O 00 Y w 0 p v O v W O g cd ° 1@) �? B¢ ep O tti '3~ O cn N G a cp .. NOE 4. C C C7 cp O v O O O I o .. o ep ... u .� a. as ]C v� 1p a, �a U cka ^" ^- ••- [V fV N fV N N � ry 1C &6ard Ri6vek Patti RBP-1 Path along west side of 800 2,538,505 1,776,953 -- 761,552 RR from Marsh to the 70% 30% north end of AMTRAK TE Station parking lot RBP-2 Path along east side of 367 350,000 74,750 -- 275,250 RR from Foothill to 11.5% 88.5% Hathaway. STA RBP-3 Path along north side of 55 128,425 128,425 -- -- Try and combine with Orcutt from end of RBP 100% Orcutt Rd. at grade to Laurel Ln, crossing project RBP-4 Trail along north side of 293 350,000 -- -- 350,000 creek from RBP east to 100% north end of Southwood TE Dr. RBP-5 Path along east side of 1,660 1,073,897 741,727 -- 332,170 May be deferred and RR from Laurel Ln. to 70% 30% implemented by Orcutt Tank Farm Rd. TE or BTA Area Devela went R13P-6 Path from Hathaway 1,100 6,386,570 5,747,913 638,657 Partially -elevated path Avenue to Marsh Street 90% 10% on east side of tracks TE/BTA R13P-7 Path along east side of 160 154,542 -- 154,542 Cal Poly Funded when RR from Foothill Blvd 100% parking garage is built to campus entrance per CP master plan BRP-8 Path on east side of RR 1175 705,148 -- 705,148 Cal Poly funded as part from CP campus of master plan entrance to sports development complex n/o Highland Dr. RBP-9 Bridge over Tank Farm 295 1,457,353 1,020,147 -- 437,206 Rd. along east side of 70% 30% RR. TESTA RBP- Path on west side of RR 520 398,562 398,562 -- -- 10 from Stenner St. to 100% Foothill Blvd. RBP- Under RR connection at 60 537,648 -- 537,648 -- Orcutt Area 11 east end of Industrial 100% Development WY or other location in vicini . RBP- Bridge over Foothill 158 1,748,206 - 874,103 874,103 Target contribution 12 Blvd just west of 50% 50% from Cal Poly California Ave. RBP- Bridge over RR from 250 3,100,000 2,790,000 -- 310,000 13 Sinsheirner Park to 90% 10% Lawrence Dr. TE RBP- Bridge over RR at 45 191,900 -- -- 191,900 Could be City funded 14 Fairview St. to Connect 100% once Fairview Ave. to PennyLn. TE connected to Lizzie St. RBP- Path from east end of 225 225,000 27,000 -- 198,000 15 High St. to the East End 12% 88% of Roundhouse. TE RBP- Path along west side of 830 720,000 216,000 - 504,000 Target only for 16 RR from Roundhouse to 30% 70% SLOCOG grant funds McMillian TE K-8 Path along west side of 525 500,000 150,000 30% MAMA" 11V -- 350,000 70% Target only for SLOCOG grant funds RBP- 17 RR from McMillian to TE Orcutt Path on west side of RR 950 900,000 600,000 -- 300,000 RBP- 18 from Orcutt to Industrial 66% 33% TEBTA RBP- Path Along East Side of 595 560,000 140,000 140,000 280,000 Assumes French 19 Railroad from the 25% 25% 50% Hospital contribute to Jennifer Street Bridge to TE construction. Fairview St. J0>i�is Ci -ita-Sep Tray` BJT-1 West side of creek from 1,825 2,121,700 1,591,275 -- 530,425 Assume that Prado- Prado to LOVR 75% 25% Higuera project will TE dedicate land. BJ T-2 Separated bikeways on 260 500,000 165,000 335,000 Incorporate into P US l01/LOVR 33% 66% process and build brid a/interchan e. STIP art of new bridge: BJT-3 Parallel bridge over 45 363,200 363,200 -- -- Build as part of SLO Creek @ Prado 100% replacement of bridge BJT-4 Rd. West side of creek from 850 1,469,600 1,028,720 -- 440,880 Incorporate as part of Elks to Prado 70% 30% property TE redevelopment &/or flood pr9ject BJT-5 East side of creek from 625 1,155,700 346,710 462,280 346,710 Construct as part of Madonna Road to Elks 30% 40% 30%, redevelopment of Lane TE Caltrans site BJT-6 Past side of creek from 250 290,200 290,000 -- -- Assume land Marsh St. to Bianchi 100% dedication as part of Lane property redevelo ment BJT-7 West side of creek from 376 809,000 405,500 -- 405,500 Involves significant Bianchi to South Street 50% 50% bridge structure TE BJT-s Past side of creek from 260 260,000 260,000 -- -- Develop as part of south end of Brook to 100% entry park with rec. Madonna funds BJT-9 Cross under Madonna 60 150,000 150,000 -- - Combine with Caltrans Rd on east side of creek 100% project to widen bridge to install sidewalks BJT-10 East side of Prefumo 1,600 925,600 -- 925,600 -- Construct as part of Creek & drainage Swale 100% Marketplace/McBride from Calle Joaquin to projects Madonna Rd. 13JT-11 East side of SLO Creek 825 465,000 - -- 465,000 Joint City -County from LOVR to 100% grant request. Odta onal Barn TE BJT-12 Parallel bridge over 35 350,600 175,300 -- 175,300 Construct when Drive creek at Elks Lane 50% 50% In property redevelops TE BJT-13 Bridge over Madonna 153 1,565,200 766,948 328,692 469,560 Senior housing project Road to connect 50% 20% 30% fronting Madonna Rd. W/Laguna Lake Park TE or Rec. contributes to project K-9 "0 Act-1 01 Rockview to south end 925 of sports field complex 592,000 123,000 21% 345,000 123,000 Rockview Pl. comer 58% 21% development pays TE or Rec. small share. Act-2 West side of creek from 540 245,600 245,600 Unocal may install sports field complex to 100% when property Tank Farm - develops Act-3 Underpass @ SR 227 85 350,000 500,000 -Must receive Caltrans between existing trail & 100% approval Rockview Act-4 From Tank Farm Road 180 115,000 115,000 Part of AASP-funded south parallel to Santa 100% flood control project & Fe to south side of creek. impact fees Act-5 Along east side then 1,750 1,500,000 1,500,000 -area Part of AASP-funded west side of creek to 100% flood control project & Buckley Road. area impact fees BRP-1 Class 11 bike lanes on 840 10,000 10,000 Garcia Ranch both side of Vachel 100% development installs Lane, Higuera to with frontage facilities Buckley BRB-2 Class 11 bike lane on 4,300 1,000,000 200,000 800,000 County TE application south side of Buckley 20% 80% from S. Higuera to County TE Broad. BRB-3 Path parallels Buckley 2,100 1,540,000 770,000 770,000 Joint City -County Rd. from Broad St. to 1 50% 50% application for STIP Santa Fe Rd. STIP BRB-4 Path parallels Buckley 2,180 1,840,000 1,380,000 920,000 -project Avila Ranch Rd. Santa Fe Road to 50% 50% contributes $460K. Vachel Lane STIP TFC-2 Path along creek from 1,640 1,400,000 1,400,000 Part of -AASP-funded Tank Farm Rd. to 100% flood control project Buckley Rd. 'v • 101 A- Mis-I Morro St. bicycle 500 125,000 125,000 -4 A. Project under boulevard between 100% development & Santa Barbara and includes traffic signal Marsh Mis-2 Bridge over Stenner 35 187,000 2-1,500 165,500 Project programmed Creek @ Montalban 11.5% 88.5% - Mis 3 Widen South Street 200 50,000 50,000 SHA $50K is City share of a between Beebe and 100% Caltrans project Higuera to include bike lanes Mis4 Orcutt Road RR 100 1,270,000 $500,000 770,000 crossing widening and 39% 61% realignment of Bullock USHA & Lane -bike STIP Mis-5 Install eastbound 10 135,816 - $135,816 Cal Poly install as part slot on Highland Drive 100% of H-8 site at SR I Intersection development Mis-6 Install eastbound bike 10 154,409 154,409 Maybe pursue traffic slot on Foothill @ 100% safety grants California K-10 Mis-7 Install an eastbound 10 135,816 -- 135,816 Construct as part of bike slot on South @ 100% Broad Street Plaza Broad SR 227 ra'ect 8 Install northbound bike 10 250,000 250,000 -- -- Construct after City slot on Madonna @ 100% takes over Rt 227 South Street. Mis-9 Bikeway from north end 345 283,695 283,695 -- -- Consider safe route to of Flora, across County 100% school funding & church property to Fixlini Mis-10 Install Class II bike 175 Negligible -- 100% -- Cal Poly install as part lane on north side of of H-8 site Highland from SRI to development bottom of hill Mis-1I Install Class II BL @ 60 Negligible 100% -- east end of Marsh as it curves onto California Blvd. Mis-12 Reconstruct three NA 25,000 -- 25,000 -- Caltrans Minor AB g100% project unless City utters along Broad St. Old Vons Site takes over ra'ect. Mis-13 Install bike lane on 170 Negligible 100% -- -- north side of Peach Street where it adjoins Stenner Creek Mis-14 Path from end of Broad 235 256,136 256,136 -- -- Requires Caltrans n/o US 101, under 100% approval freeway to connect wBrizzolara St. Mis-15 path from south end of 400 130,000 130,000 -- Includes cost of Brizzolara St. thru 100% establishing easement. Promontory project to Hi uera Mis-16 Redefine and reinforce 10 25,000 -- -- 25,000 Include as part of ramp bike slot on SB LOVR 100% modifications to Calle Joaquin STIP LOVR interchan e Mis-17 Install Class 11 bike 465 Negligible 100% -- -- lanes on the outside of parking bays on Pref imo Rd. from LOVR east Mis-18 Path from north end of 1,700 1,600,000 480,000 Laguna Lake Park to 30% Foothill 9 O'Connor TE/ BTA Mis-19 Install bike lanes on 326 300,000 75,000 75,000 150,000 Caltrans to improve both sides of Marsh 25% 25% 50% bike link to Fernandez from Fernandez Lane, Minor AB TE Lane across their ROW under interchange to Marsh Mis-20 Install a southbound 10 200,000 -- 200,000 Do as part of Garcia bike slot on S. Higuera 100% Ranch development LOVR Mis-21 Install access controls at NA 5,000 5,000 -- the east end of San Luis 100% Drive K-11 M►s-22 Pave existing path from 200 90,500 45,250 -- 45,250 Boulevard Del Campo 50% Rec. Gant to Helena @ north end of Sinsheimer Park Mis-23 Path Under US 101 from 250 100,000 50,000 -- 50,000 San Luis Drive to 50% Rec. Grant Cuesta Park Mis-24 Connection over South 630 1,500,000 1,025,000 -- 450,000 Hills from Exposition 70% 30% Drive to Margarita SP TE Area Mis-25 Orcutt Area Bikeways NA I NA -- 100% -- Mis-26 Margarita Area NA NA -- 100% -- OBP-1 Transportation NA 5,000 5,000 -- -- information kiosk in 100% Railroad Square OBF-2 Provide additional NA 3,000 3,000 -- -- downtown bicycle 100% _p2Lking as needed OBF-3 City -Wide Bicycle NA 5,000 5,000 -- -- Parking Retrofit 100% Program OBF-4 City Park Bicycle NA 3,000 3,000 -- -- Parkin 100% OBF-5 Community Bicycle NA 15,000 15,000 -- -- Pro am 100% OBF-6 Install "Bike Route" NA 5,000 5,000 -- -- signs on targeted Class 100% III routes. TOTALS $48,522,812 1 $28,559,027 $7,397,685 1 $12,566,100 ..._ 100% 59% (2) 15% 26% Notes: (1) Developer Expectations also include area impact fees or area assessments paid by development within specific plan areas. (2) Of the City's $28,559,027 contributions, $4,253,253 is contributions from the TIF program for the Railroad Bicycle Path; and $1,659,696 for other bicycle projects supported by the TIF. If these amounts were subtracted from the City's total above, the result would be $22,646,078 or about 47% of the total cost of all bike projects listed. (3) The above listing and cost estimates does not include all bicycle projects. For example, Miscellaneous Projects #25 and 26 are unspecified projects included in the Margarita and Orcutt Area specific plan areas. Bikeway projects in these areas will be the full responsibility of area developers. Also, the Class I trail system that is shown on the Figure #1 that extends along the west side of U.S. 101 will require additional analysis and is a future study item. K-12 APPENDIX L: Past Ex enditures for Bicycle Facilities (1995 to 2002) Every two years, the City Council adopts a Financial Plan. An integral part of the Financial Plan is the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP identifies major equipment or facility needs for the next four years. The information below is taken from CIPs dating back to 1995 and reflects bicycle projects that are either completed or are under construction. Where a bicycle facility was just a part of a larger project, an estimate of only the bicycle component is shown. City expenditures for repaving and rehabilitating streets that include Class II bike lanes are not shown in the table below, although these costs are significant. In 2001 alone, the total cost of repaving of South Higuera Street and Johnson Avenue exceeded $2,000,000 with bike lanes accounting for 10-12% of the street area. Fi ure. # : Past Ex endlitures forIa'or. Bic ale Facilities 1995 to 2002 Type and Location of Facility Year Total Cost Completed $1,000 On -Street Bicycle Lanes: stripe over 4.5 miles of Class lI bike lanes along 1995 215 arterial streets. Johnson Park Bike & Pedestrian Path: a Class I bike path through the park 1995 20 between Augusta St. and Southwood Dr. Jennifer Street Bridge: a 168-foot clear span bicycle & pedestrian bridge over 1998 1,300 the Union Pacific Railroad. Railroad Bicycle Path (Phase 1): a Class I bike path along the east side of the 1998 760 railroad between Orcutt Rd. and Bushnell St. FPAC Property Acquisition: a parcel of land for the eventual construction of a 1998 90 Class I bike path along the west side of the railroad between Francis St. and McMillan Ave with connections to the east end of Lawrence Dr. Railroad At -Grade Crossing Improvements: concrete inserts between the rail 2000-01 150 (1) lines and repaving of the at -grade railroad crossings at Foothill Blvd. and Orcutt Rd. Railroad Bicycle Path (Phase II): a Class I bike path along the east side of the 2002 400 railroad between Bushnell St. and the Jennifer Street Bridge. Railroad Bicycle Path (Phase IED: preliminary engineered plans for the path 2001 70 between the AMTRAK passenger terminal and Foothill Blvd. Bob Jones City -to -Sea Bike Trail: preliminary engineering plans for a path 2001 40 along SLO Creek between Madonna Rd. and Los Osos Valley Rd. and along Prefumo Creek from Madonna Rd. to Calle Joaquin. Railroad Transportation Center (RTC): a segment of Class I bike and 2001 70 pedestrian path along the east side of a newly constructed parking lot next to the railroad. Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard: closing the south end of Morro Street to 2002 50 vehicle access while maintaining bicycle access and use of Morro Street as a downtown connector route. TOTAL $3,165,000 (1) Estimated expenditure by Union Pacific Railroad L-1 Appendix M RESOLUTION NO. 9308 (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AMENDING THE 1993 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AND RECINDING RESOLUTION NO.8240 (1993 Series) WHEREAS, the City Council established the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and charged it with, among other responsibilities, maintaining and updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the BAC determined that the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan did not meet current state guidelines, which inhibits the City's ability to apply for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants; and WHEREAS, the BAC appointed a "Plan Update Subcommittee" that enlisted the help of community volunteers that collected information necessary to complete the 20002 Bike Plan update; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2002, a Public Review Draft of the updated Bicycle Transportation Plan was published and later placed on the City's web page for public review; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's designee has reviewed the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Initial Environmental Study and has recommended that a Negative Declaration be approved; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2002 the BAC reviewed the draft update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Negative Declaration at a public hearing, and on April 10, 2002 the Planning Commission also reviewed the Plan materials and each body has recommended that the City Council approve the Plan and its Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan supports the goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element that call for "... the per capita reduction of automobile use in the City and the use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles..." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts associated with implementation of the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan. Section 2: The Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby amended. The amended Bicycle Transportation Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3: Resolution No 8240 (1993 Series) is hereby rescinded. Resolution No. 9308 (2002 Series) Page 2 On motion of Council Member Ewan, seconded by Council Member Marx, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland, Schwartz, Vice Mayor Marx, and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None The following resolution was adopted this 7t' day of May 2002. Allen K. Settle, Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk I ' ;ffAyG. rgen , C' Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE, MS 1 1120 N STREET 0 P. O. BOX 942874 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 PHONE (916) 653-0036 FAX (916) 654-2409 July 1, 2002 Mr. Terry Sanville Principal Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Sanville: J U L - 5 2002 Flex your power! Be energy efficient! The California Department of Transportation's Bicycle Facilities Unit has completed its review of the City of San Luis Obispo's Bicycle Transportation Plan, adopted May 7, 2002, and finds that it complies with Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code. The plan allows the City of San Luis Obispo to be eligible to apply for funds from the Bicycle Transportation Account program. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by telephone at (916) 653-0036 or e-mail at david nriebeadot.ca.go_v. Sincerely, DAVID PRIEBE Bicycle Facilities Unit Division of Local Assistance "Caltrons improves mobility across California " Bikeways F A/Class I J "IOU , A/ Class II � o /\/Class I I 1 Q /V Bike Blvd. 00 o Grade crossings FOO IL U. P. R. R. o TANK FARM 0 1 Miles January 2002 Fi�ur� #� I3icqcle fran5portation flan BICYCLE PATHS, LANES AND ROUTES CLASS I BIKE PATH SEPARATED I E Separated Open Area Path Motor Vehicle Lanes CLASS II -A BIKE LANE .a� I I E Motor Vehicle Lanes Bice Lana Parkin Lane Parking Lane B&e Lane 9 CLASS II-B BIKE LANE I U 6• Motor Vehicle Lane 61 Bike Lane Bike Lane CLASS III BIKE ROUTE �Q SIGNAGE ONLY 70 , y�� I 7� F Parking Lane Motor Vehicle Lanes Peaking Lane � o HL ULI 00/ �. D O. CO ) - YJ�� o❑❑❑ , S UT ` ;W TANK FARM i !I - I l J� - o CItYOf Sm Luis 0131SPO �KAInq Bike F,3CIA!05 Bikeways Class I Class II (next to curb) Class II (next to parking) Class I I I Bicycle Boulevard N W E, S 1-- - 0 - 1 Miles January 2002 mmunitq racilit!65 & Pub ic P\,o5troom5 Community Facilities M Public Restrooms ® Bicycle Parking @ Transportation Hubs Laguna Lake I.A 1, U.P.R.R. Bike routes Class I IV Class 11 (next to curb) Class II (next to parking) N Class III Bicycle Boulevard 2 0 2 Miles p 2 Miles mspo �nned Arias eways �c::::: CI ® Class III Bike Blvd. Grade crossings fined Areas Airport Area Specific Plan Edna Specific Plan Islay Specific Plan ] Margarita Area Specific Plan Mid Higuera Street Enhancement Plan ] Orcutt Area Specific Plan 1 Railroad District Plan pecific Plan] February 2002