HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2025 ATC Agenda Packet
Active Transportation Committee
AGENDA
Thursday, July 17, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight and
policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its
relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City.
Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of
complimentary parking; restrictions apply, visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline ma not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready
material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's
Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Garrett Otto will call the Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation
Committee to order.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda.
Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and
address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this
time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
3.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Active Transportation Committee pull an item for discussion. The
public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three-minute time limit.
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - MAY 15, 2025, ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Active Transportation Committee Minutes of May 15,
2025.
4.BUSINESS ITEMS
4.a BOB JONES TRAIL: BROADSTONE PROJECT PRELIMINARY
DESIGN CONCEPTS
9
Provide feedback on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and
circulation considerations for Broad Stone Village Development, with
specific focus on:
Alignment of Bob Jones Trail Extension between Los Osos
Valley Rd and the S. Higuera/Buckley Intersection
1.
At-grade bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between
existing Bob Jones Trail terminus, new trail extension and
Broadstone Village development
2.
Strategies for grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing
of Los Osos Valley Road
3.
4.b 2025 HOUSEHOLD TRANSPORTATION SURVEY 79
Receive update and provide comment to guide development of the next
Household Transportation Survey
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES
Receive a brief update from Active Transportation Committee members.
5.b STAFF UPDATES
Receive a brief update from Active Transportation Manager Adam
Fukushima on the following topics:
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan1.
SLO Classical Academy2.
FY 2025-27 Budget3.
Bike Month Recap4.
5.c FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima will provide a forecast
of items coming before the Active Transportation Committee.
6.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee meeting is
scheduled for September 18, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible
to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting
should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Active Transportation
Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes. Meeting recordings may be found on the City’s website:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60965
1
Active Transportation Committee Minutes
May 15, 2025, 6:00 p.m.
Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Active Transportation
Committee Members
Present:
Member Dave Amos, Member Lea Brooks, Member Tyler Coari,
Member Francine Levin, Member Russell Mills, Vice Chair
Kimmie Nguyen, Chair Garrett Otto
City Staff Present: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, Recording
Secretary Lareina Gamboa
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was
called to order on May 15, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Otto.
2. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW ATC MEMBER
Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima administered the Oath of Office
to newly appointed Active Transportation Committee Member Tyler Coari.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
Aaron Posternack
--End of Public Comment--
4. CONSENT
4.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - MARCH 20, 2025, ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion By Member Brooks
Second By Member Amos
To approve the Active Transportation Committee Minutes of March 20,
2025.
Page 5 of 81
2
Ayes (6): Member Amos, Member Brooks, Member Levin, Member Mills,
Vice Chair Nguyen, and Chair Otto
Abstained (1): Member Coari
CARRIED (6 to 0)
5. BUSINESS ITEMS
5.a OFFICER ELECTIONS
Motion By Member Coari
Second By Member Amos
To nominate Member Garrett Otto as Chair of the Active Transportation
Committee.
Ayes (7): Member Amos, Member Brooks, Member Coari, Member Levin,
Member Mills, Vice Chair Nguyen, and Chair Otto
CARRIED (7 to 0)
Motion By Member Levin
Second By Member Coari
To nominate Member Kimmie Nguyen as Vice Chair of the Active
Transportation Committee.
Ayes (7): Member Amos, Member Brooks, Member Coari, Member Levin,
Member Mills, Vice Chair Nguyen, and Chair Otto
CARRIED (7 to 0)
5.b UPDATE ON SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL EFFORTS
Public Comment:
Helene Finger
--End of Public Comment--
6. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
6.a COMMITTEE MEMBER UPDATES
Active Transportation Committee members provided a brief update.
Page 6 of 81
3
6.b STAFF UPDATES
Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima provided updates on the
following topics:
1. Update on Tank Farm Road Paving Project
2. SLO Classical Academy
3. Update on the FY 2025-27 Budget
6.c FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima provided the agenda
forecast.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Active
Transportation Committee is scheduled for July 17, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
_________________________
APPROVED BY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/202X
Page 7 of 81
Page 8 of 81
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Active Transportation Committee
AGENDA REPORT ITEM 4A
DATE: July 17, 2025
FROM: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
PREPARED BY: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: Bob Jones Trail: Broadstone Project Preliminary Design Concepts
Recommendation:
Provide feedback on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and circulation considerations
for Broad Stone Village Development, with specific focus on:
1. Alignment of Bob Jones Trail Extension between and the S. Higuera/Buckley
Intersection
2. At-grade bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between existing Bob Jones Trail
terminus, new trail extension and Broadstone Village development
3. Strategies for grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Los Osos Valley
Road
Background
At the City Council meeting on April 1, 2025, the city council directed staff to proceed with
proceed with processing all applications to facilitate the Broadstone Village project, a phased
residential development consisting of 409 units across two properties (North and South Sites)
along Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR); a bypass road from LOVR to the South Higuera
Street/Buckley Road intersection; and a realigned extension of the Bob Jones Trail. To facilitate
the project, existing agricultural fields located within the identified project area would be removed
to accommodate the residential development (i.e., the senior housing and multifamily units) and
associated site improvements (e.g., supporting infrastructure such as roads, utilities, etc. and
features such as the trail extension).
The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) with a
brief update on the Broadstone Village project as it relates to the Bob Jones Trail extension. Staff
is also soliciting questions and input from the committee on the following focus areas to guide
further development of the project:
Page 9 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 2
a. The alignment of the Bob Jones Trail extension between LOVR and the S. Higuera
/Buckley intersection
b. The at-grade bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between the existing trail terminus and
the new trail extension, and
c. Strategies for grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of LOVR
It should be mentioned that planning for the development project has just begun and a detailed
traffic analysis for the development is in progress. When ready, a more comprehensive update on
the development project as a whole will come before the ATC at a later date once the analysis is
completed.
Potential for LOVR Bypass Road
The Circulation Element to the General Plan proposes consideration of a new bypass road with
any new development in this area to connect Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera with consideration
of potential impacts to agricultural operations, open space, creeks, and other issues. As part of the
project, the proposed public right-of-way improvements include the installation of a signalized
intersection on LOVR serving as primary access to both North and South Sites, construction of a
bypass road between LOVR and South Higuera Street/Buckley Road, and construction of the Bob
Jones Trail extension between LOVR and Higuera Street.
It should be noted that a new bypass road would relieve traffic congestion at the LOVR/Higuera
intersection as it is projected to exceed the City’s adopted thresholds with or without the proposed
development and widening or reconstructing the existing segments of those intersecting roads is
infeasible without acquiring already developed, private property. In addition, a bypass road may
create potential for future bicycle and pedestrian enhancements at the intersection that may
otherwise not be possible. On the other hand, if a bypass road is not constructed, then a signal
would not be warranted at the new development site driveway and it would remain right-in, right-
out with no left turns allowed. Given these considerations, a signalized, protected intersection at
LOVR/Bypass Road is proposed for further study in the traffic analysis. If feasible, there is the
potential to extend the Bob Jones Trail from LOVR to the S. Higuera/ Buckley Rd intersection and
connect to the County’s portion of the Trail.
Previous Planning Context
Completion of the Bob Jones Trail and connecting to the County’s Trail portion leading to Avila
Beach has long been a goal of the City of San Luis Obispo. To date, a portion has been completed
from Prado Rd to Los Osos Valley Road with the goal of one day extending the trail from
downtown to the County’s portion.
-Connection Study/Initial Study
To facilitate completion of the “gap” between the City and County portions, a City of San Luis
Obispo Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study/Initial Study was completed in 2013,
which studied the alignment of the Trail and potential options for crossing Los Osos Valley Road
and Higuera. The study considered alignment options along San Luis Creek, adjacent to the Los
Verdes II residential project, or along the LOVR and South Higuera Roadway. The Connection
Study also considered the environmental impact tradeoffs involved in locating the Trail adjacent
to the creek in addition to at-grade and grade-separated crossing options at South Higuera and at
Page 10 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 3
LOVR. Ultimately, an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by City staff
and adopted by the Planning Commission. The adopted preferred alignment included the following
features:
1) Alignment of the Trail adjacent to San Luis Creek to provide a riding experience along the
creek and in the creek setback to minimize impacts to agricultural operations.
2) Between the existing terminus of the Trail at LOVR and the new Trail portion, the
alignment would use both sides of the LOVR bridge sidewalks to create parallel shared use
paths (the bridge has subsequently been widened to incorporate these widened sidewalks)
3) Utilization of the signalized intersection at the NB US 101 freeway ramp to cross LOVR
from the existing to the future segment of the Trail.
4) A signalized, at-grade crossing of Higuera at Buckley.
5) Consideration of potential grade separated crossings at LOVR and Buckley were studied
but not ultimately included as part of the preferred alternative
-ATP and County segment of the Bob Jones Trail
The portion of trail from the Octagon Barn to LOVR is proposed as a Tier 2 priority project in
the Active Transportation Plan with the caveat that if the County was successful in acquiring
funding for their portion of Trail, then the Octagon Barn to LOVR segment would be
recategorized as a Tier 1 project. In 2022 the County was awarded a state Active Transportation
Program grant to complete their portion of the Trail and just this spring was awarded a new time
extension to complete the project.
Figure 1: 2021 Active Transportation Plan Proposed Bikeway Network Map (Excerpt)
Page 11 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 4
City Policy for Shared Use Paths Along Creeks
The design guidelines of the Active Transportation Plan provide important direction on the
consideration of active transportation facilities near creeks, adjacent to agricultural lands, and near
flood control channels including policies 8.6 through 8.8. The policies state that:
Shared-use paths shall be located outside creek setbacks and that the extent of the intrusion
be minimized
The number of bicycle/pedestrian bridges over creeks shall be minimized, be of clear span,
and be located to the extent possible to avoid removal of native trees and streamside habitat
or important aquatic habitat areas
Minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the channel alignment
Use existing service roads where shared use is compatible with agricultural and bicycling
operations and avoid dividing properties in a way that unduly complicates agricultural
operations
Funding
While there is an opportunity with the Broadstone project to construct a portion of the LOVR
bypass road and the Bob Jones Trail with Transportation Impact Fees and through the developer,
it is expected that the cost will significantly exceed the developer’s fair share contribution. Thus,
a significant amount of funding will need to be picked up by the City General Fund. Given the
construction costs for a completely new roadway in the City as well as the Trail portion, it might
not be financially viable for the City to pursue funding at this time.
Discussion
Peck Planning and Development, LLC and Wallace Group, a local engineering consulting firm,
have begun preliminary study of the Bob Jones Trail (Trail) alignment and have prepared
preliminary design concepts.
See Attachment 1 for the Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Study by Peck
Planning and Development, LLC and Attachment 2 for Wallace Group’s conceptual maps of
alignment alternatives for the Bob Jones Trail extension between LOVR and S. Higuera/Buckley
Rd.
Focus Area 1 – Trail Alignment between LOVR and S. Higuera / Buckley intersection
Two conceptual alignments have been developed to connect the Trail between LOVR and the S.
Higuera Buckley intersection:
Alternative A – Trail Alignment with Bypass Road
Alternative B – Trail Alignment without Bypass Road
City staff and the design team are requesting input from the ATC on these preliminary design
concepts to guide further development of the project.
Page 12 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 5
Design Approach
Both design options share some general design elements. They include:
Project Limits – The path would extend approximately 2,600 feet between the existing trail
terminus of the Trail to the northwest and the intersection of Buckley / Higuera to the
southeast.
Surface Material – The path would likely be constructed with reinforced concrete,
consistent with recent installations in the Orcutt Area, San Luis Ranch and Avila Ranch
developments.
Width – The path would have a 12-foot paved width, with a 2-foot shoulder at the back of
path and a minimum five-foot shoulder/buffer between the path and edge of the bypass
road option.1
Lighting – City standard, pedestrian-scale path lighting would be pursued along the extent
of the path but would need to be consistent with city policy regarding impacts to wildlife
in the creek.
Alignment – With both design options, the approach is to set the path alignment to conform
with future plans for a bypass road so that the path would not need to be reconstructed in
the future with consideration for impacts to the creek and agricultural operations. The
General Plan target is for the roadway to be classified as a residential collector with a posted
speed of 25 mph, similar to other residential collector streets. There is potential to include
bike lanes on the bypass road as an amenity in addition to the adjacent trail. However, this
would increase the footprint of the roadway and thus the impacts to agricultural land,
increase construction and maintenance costs, and potential for illegal speeding. Any
proposed roadway features such as bike lanes or traffic calming measures, if proposed,
would also need input from an emergency response perspective.
1 Per applicable state (Caltrans) and national (AASHTO) design guidelines, a minimum five -foot buffer should be
provided between an off-street pedestrian/bicycle path and adjacent roadway. Any reduced setback would need to be
approved by the City Engineer via formal design exception but would need to be justified.
Page 13 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 6
Comparing Design Options
The table below compares various characteristics of each path design option.
Topic Alternative A
(Trail with Bypass Road)
Alternative B
(Trail without Bypass Road)
Impact on
Agricultural
Land
Reduces productive ag land by
4.2 acres including Trail, bypass
and required riparian setback.
However, the riparian setback
would be severed from rest of ag
land
No added impact than with
Alt A but would result in
2.65 acres of ag land loss if
Trail aligned adjacent to 50
ft riparian setback and both
the setback and 20 ft Trail
setback area are counted
Impact on creek
habitat/riparian
area
The portion of the trail within
the city limits requires a 20-foot
creek setback
Annexing County property for
the segment outside the city
requires a 50-foot creek setback
The same creek setback
requirements apply to the trail
without the bypass road
Connectivity Bidirectional bike/ped access of
trail from LOVR just east of the
bridge over San Luis Obispo
Creek, following a creek
alignment behind the Broadstone
development, then paralleling
the new bypass road to the
signalized intersection of S.
Higuera / Buckley
Secondary Shared Use Path
(bidirectional) starting at the
intersection of LOVR and the
bypass road and continuing
south along the development
frontage until it meets the new
Bob Jones Trail extension
Access from back of
development to trail (could be
access restricted for security)
Potential for bike lanes on
bypass road as another bikeway
option
Coordination of signal crossing
at S. Higuera/Buckley with
County (not a City intersection)
Bidirectional bike/ped access of
trail from LOVR just east of the
bridge over San Luis Obispo
Creek, following a creek
alignment behind the
Broadstone development and
continuing along a creek
alignment to signalized
intersection of S. Higuera /
Buckley
Sidewalk only along new
access road that terminates at
the end of the property frontage
in a cul de sac. Intersection of
access road would not meet
signal warrants.
Page 14 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 7
Cost Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate = $1.3M if built with the
bypass*
*Costs include right-of-way, at-
grade crossings. However, these
estimates are very preliminary and
are likely to change significantly.
See Attach 1 for more discussion of
costs
Preliminary Construction Cost
Estimate = $3.9M*
* Cost is significantly higher as a
standalone project. Costs include
right-of-way, at-grade crossings.
However, these estimates are very
preliminary and are likely to
change significantly. See Attach 1
for more discussion of costs
Focus Area 2 – At-Grade Bike & Pedestrian Connectivity Between Existing Bob Jones Trail
Terminus and Broadstone Development and Bob Jones Trail Extension
The second focus area for discussion is regarding the connection of the current terminus of the
Bob Jones Trail and its connection to the Broadstone development and the Bob Jones Trail
extension. The current proposal includes the following elements:
1) Elevated Shared Use Paths between LOVR/Bypass Road intersection and the US 101
Northbound ramps. When the LOVR bridge was reconstructed in 2016, 12-foot sidewalks
were intentionally included on both sides of the bridge in order to accommodate a future
connection of the Bob Jones Trail extension. With the development, the current wide
sidewalks would be extended eastward to the Bypass Road intersection and signed and
stripped as bidirectional shared use paths.
2) On-Street Stripped Bike Lanes. With the addition of the elevated shared use paths on
LOVR, there is also the potential to retain on-street bike lanes from the Bypass Rd
intersection to the US 101 NB Ramps. This redundancy could benefit bicycle through
movement along the LOVR corridor for riders who may not desire using the Bob Jones
Trail or are serving other destinations. This option could come with tradeoffs, the main one
being managing conflicts and controlling crossing distance and vehicular speeds at the
protected intersection at the Bypass Rd. Staff would welcome input on the concept of
retaining bike lanes on this segment of LOVR. It should also be mentioned that while
upgrading the stripped bike lanes to protected bike lanes would be an added amenity, this
is unlikely to occur given several factors. One is that dual shared-use paths will already be
accommodated on the bridge and that Caltrans is unlikely to approve widened bike lanes
to include separation on the LOVR bridge without removing a lane (or lanes) from the
roadway, which is not an option due to the vehicular volume on LOVR due to the
significant regional traffic that accesses other parts of the County via US 101.
3) Transitions to Planned Protected Bike Lanes North and South of US 101. Along LOVR
north and south of the US 101 bridge, protected bike lanes are planned as part of the Froom
Ranch Development project. With the Broadstone development project, transitions from
the stripped bike lane to the protected bike lane would be included in the design
improvements along LOVR.
4) Bike/Ped Signals Across LOVR at Bypass Road Intersection. If the LOVR bypass road is
built, it will warrant a signalized intersection at the LOVR/ Bypass Road intersection. With
this opportunity, staff is recommending dedicated bike and pedestrian signals across LOVR
at the intersection.
Page 15 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 8
5) Enhancement to Existing Signalized Crossing at LOVR/US 101. Currently, a dedicated
bike signal with push button actuation exists at the current Bob Jones Trail terminus in the
SB direction. With the addition of the Bob Jones Trail extension, staff recommends adding
a dedicated bike signal with push button actuation in the NB direction and adding NO
TURN ON RED restrictions during the bike signal and pedestrian head start phase. Since
the LOVR/US101 intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction, these recommendations
would require their approval.
Focus Area 3 – Grade-Separated Ped/Bike Crossing of LOVR
The third focus area for discussion and ATC input is regarding how the existing segment of the
Bob Jones Trail will cross LOVR to the new Bob Jones Trail extension.
Three conceptual, alignment alternatives are currently under consideration to facilitate the
crossing:
Alignment 1 – Cross Under LOVR at SLO Creek Culvert (South of LOVR)
Alignment 2 – Cross Under LOVR at SLO Creek Culvert (North of LOVR)
Alignment 3 – Cross Under LOVR at US 101 Bridge
See Attachment 3 for conceptual plans for all three alignments and illustration of potential flood
impacts.
City staff and the design team are requesting input from the ATC on these preliminary design
concepts to guide further development of the project.
Description of Each Design Alternative
Alignment 1 – Cross Under LOVR at SLO Creek Culvert (South of LOVR). This undercrossing
would connect to the existing BJT approximately 150 feet east of the current trail terminus at
LOVR , and would then drop almost fifteen feet in elevation along a 170-foot path along the north
bank slope of San Luis Creek that would be created by a 10-to-13-foot cut in the north bank slope,
and 5 feet of fill adjacent to the creek bed. The path would turn west through the northernmost
arched culvert and extend along the upper portion of the north bank of San Luis Creek, and span
San Luis Creek with a 200’ to 250’ long bridge. Significant issues include having the trail unusable
during the rainy season, significant grading and tree clearance, redefinition of the north bank of
San Luis Creek, cut of about 2,000 cubic yards in the north bank of San Luis Creek, removal of
riparian vegetation, public safety concerns regarding isolated areas away from public view, and
challenging sight/stopping distance around curves. The preliminary cost of this facility is estimated
to be $5 million to $7.5 million.
Alignment 2 – Cross Under LOVR at SLO Creek Culvert (North of LOVR). This undercrossing
option would meet the current Bob Jones Trail terminus at approximately the same point as
Alignment 1 and then cross the San Luis Creek channel with a 370-foot-long clear span bridge to
the south bank of San Luis Creek. The path would then ramp down vertically 15 feet along the
Page 16 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 9
south bank, through the easternmost culvert arch, then ramp up approximately 10 feet where it
would join the Bob Jones Trail extension in the riparian setback. Graded banks of the San Luis
Creek would be approximately 24,000 square feet, including a 5 to 10 foot cut out of the south
bank yielding approximately 5,000 cubic feet of cut. Like Alignment 1, there are significant
downsides with this alternative include having the trail unusable during the rainy season (and the
need to have an at-grade backup facility), significant grading and tree clearance over half an acre
of creek bank, redefinition of the south bank of San Luis Creek, cut of about 5,000 cubic feet in
the south bank of San Luis Creek, removal of over half an acre of mature trees and riparian
vegetation, public safety concerns regarding isolated areas away from public view, and challenges
with adequate sight/stopping distance. The preliminary cost of this facility is estimated to be $5
million to $7.5 million.
Figure 2: Illustration of LOVR Underpass from Connection Study (Looking South)
Alignment 3 – Cross Under LOVR at US 101 Bridge. Alignment 3 is what was studied and
described in the 2013 Connection Study. This connection would begin about 380 feet north of the
current terminus of the Bob Jones Trail and proceed under LOVR adjacent to US 101 within
Caltrans property. It would then curve up and gain 20 vertical feet before meeting the intersection
of LOVR/ US101 NB Ramps on the south side. While this alignment would eliminate the crossing
of LOVR, it would introduce a crossing of the NB US 101 on and off ramps to reach the Trail
extension. This alignment would have less challenges with biological resources and flooding
issues but would introduce challenges of a close proximity to high-speed freeway traffic, a less
pleasurable riding experience due to freeway noise, and concerns for personal safety and visibility
at night. In addition, depending on the location of the trail alignment under the bridge, a barrier
between the trail and the freeway may be necessary to protect trail users from freeway operations,
which may also create concerns for freeway safety by introducing a new fixed object in proximity
to the freeway mainline. Other potential concerns may include whether the trail would compromise
the bridge integrity if retaining walls are needed to provide a flat surface for the trail footprint.
Ultimately, given the proximity to freeway operations along the mainline of US 101 and
introducing a new crossing of both ramps of US 101, it may be highly challenging to gain approval
from Caltrans and require a long review period. The cost of this undercrossing in 2013 was
estimated to be $1.5 million to $3 million. With the increase in the cost of construction over the
Page 17 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 10
last 12 years, the preliminary cost estimate of this alignment is estimated to be $3.25 million to
$6.50 million.
Page 18 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 11
Comparing Design Options
The table below compares various characteristics of each path design option.
Topic
Alignment 1
(Cross Under LOVR
North of Creek)
Alignment 2
(Cross Under LOVR
South of Creek)
Alignment 3
(Cross Under
LOVR at US 101
Bridge)
Trail User
Experience/Comfort
Option would
remove at-grade
crossing of LOVR
Would create sight
distance concerns
and sharp turns in
undercrossing
Along
undercrossing
would introduce a
4.5% path grade
Alignment would
be somewhat
indirect than an at-
grade crossing
with a 210-foot-
long clear span
bridge on south
side of LOVR
Undercrossing of
LOVR will be
unusable during
major flood events
necessitating use
of at-grade
crossing
Concerns for
personal safety
along underpass
portion
Option would
remove at-grade
crossing of LOVR
Would create sight
distance concerns
and sharp turns in
undercrossing
Along
undercrossing
would introduce a
4.5% path grade
Alignment would
be more indirect
than an at-grade
crossing with a
370-foot-long
clear span bridge
on north side of
LOVR
Undercrossing of
LOVR will be
unusable during
major flood events
necessitating use
of at-grade
crossing
Concerns for
personal safety
along underpass
portion
Option would
remove at-grade
crossing of
LOVR
Introduces a new
at-grade crossing
of both US 101
NB ramps
Along
undercrossing
would introduce
a 4.5% path
grade
Concern for
public safety and
isolation under
LOVR bridge
and along US
101
Potential for
Flooding & Public
Safety Concerns
Would be 12 feet
underwater during
10-year storm
events closing the
trail to close
frequently
Would flood
during 10-year
storm events
closing the trail to
close frequently
Concerns for
public safety
Given isolation
of alignment
along US 101,
concerns for
public safety of
trail users
Page 19 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 12
Concerns for
public safety
during storm
closures and ability
to close trail in a
timely manner and
keep people out
during storm
closures and
ability to close
trail in a timely
manner and keep
people out
Geometric &
Regulatory
Challenges
Would require 210
ft long clear span
bridge and create
sharp curves and
sight distance
issues
Inconsistent with
City’s FEMA and
Drainage Design
Manual regulations
Would require
regulatory
approvals from
FEMA, Army
Corp of Engineers,
National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Approvals
challenging given
the impacts and
would need a long
lead time to
approve
Would require 370
ft long clear span
bridge and create
sharp curves and
sight distance
issues
Inconsistent with
City’s FEMA and
Drainage Design
Manual
regulations
Would require
regulatory
approvals from
FEMA, Army
Corp of Engineers,
National Marine
Fisheries Service.
Approvals
challenging given
the impacts and
would need a long
lead time to
approve
Given potential
impacts to the
US 101 freeway
operations,
overpass, and
introduction of a
new at-grade
crossing of NB
US 101 ramps,
approval from
Caltrans is
unlikely and
require a lengthy
approval period
Cost Preliminary
Construction Cost
Estimate = $5-7.5M
Preliminary
Construction Cost
Estimate = $5-7.5M
Preliminary
Construction Cost
Estimate = $3.25-
6.5M
Staff Recommendation for Crossing of LOVR
Given the unfortunate challenges with cost, flooding, creek impacts, public safety, and lengthy
jurisdictional hurdles, staff’s recommendation is to not pursue a grade-separated crossing of LOVR
at this time but to retain it as a concept in the ATP as a lower priority project for future
consideration. In the interim, the crossing improvements described in Focus Area 2 will provide
connectivity across LOVR without the likelihood of seasonal closures.
Page 20 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4A, July 17, 2025 Page 13
Potential Questions and Focus Areas for ATC Review & Input
The following suggested questions/focus areas are highlighted to help guide the committee’s
review and discussion.
1. Does the committee have comments on the new Bob Jones Path extension alignment with
the consideration of a bypass road and without?
2. Does the committee have any comments about Focus Area 2, especially regarding
accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian through travel along LOVR with the extension
of the shared use paths on either side? Specifically, does the committee have any
comments/recommendations for improving pedestrian and bicycle crossings and
connectivity at each end of extended shared-use paths on LOVR?
3. Does the committee have any comments on pursuing a grade separated crossing of LOVR
given the complex challenges with its implementation and consideration of other budget
needs with Active Transportation in the city? ,
4. Are there alternative design options not currently proposed that the committee would like
to discuss further?
Next Steps
The next step in this project will be to prepare a detailed Transportation Impact Study (TIS)
analyzing the considerations for the Bob Jones Trail as well as possible impacts from the proposed
development project in an environmental study. Staff will then provide an update to the ATC
before the project is considered for approval.
Attachments:
1. Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Study
2. Bob Jones Trail Extension Conceptual Alternatives
3. LOVR Crossing Alignment Options
Page 21 of 81
Page 22 of 81
Bob Jones Trail Design
Policy Conformity and Feasibility Study
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Summary
The City and County have spent a considerable amount of time planning and implement-
ing the Bob Jones Trail (BJT). The County has successfully designed, approved and funded its
share of the BJT. As a result, the City’s remaining portion is now a Tier 1 ATP improvement. The
City has also received a development application for the Broadstone property that has the ability
to flnalize the design and construct the remaining portion in partnership with the City. It is now
necessary to flnalize a feasible design for the alignment and crossings for the BJT. This summary
(prepared for the Broadstone property applicant) evaluates the work to date and decisions on
the matter and recommends modiflcations of the Broadstone project description for use in the
next design iteration and for project-level environmental evaluation.
The analysis below supports the following “project” design for the BJT:
1.Development of the BJT on the Hayashi property should be in accordance with City
creek setback policies for minimum setback. The location of the BJT on the north half of
the Hayashi property may need to be adjusted to limit creek velocity increases to com-
ply with the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM).
2.With the designation of the Broadstone sites that are currently in the City for residential
development in the 2014 LUCE, preservation of those sites for ongoing agriculture oper-
ations is no longer an impact that would be avoided by placement of the BJT in the ripar-
ian setback. Therefore, if there are hydrology, biology or riparian issues that can be
avoided by locating the BJT partially or completely outside of the setback, then that
alignment should be considered and preferred. Location of the BJT next to the Bypass
would result in 100-year storm fiood prooflng and added all-weather useability.
3.The BJT could be placed in the 20-foot riparian setback as proposed by the Connection
Study, but that location would likely require grading and flll of 2’ to 3.5’ in the setback to
achieve fiood prooflng in excess of a 25-year storm. If located in the 20-foot setback, it
could follow the edge of the FEMA-designated fioodway on the Broadstone South prop-
erty.
4.To address vehicle and bicycle confiict concerns, elevated/raised crossings should be
used for the two Broadstone South entrances.
Page 23 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 2 of 27
5. The road crossing options recommended in the Connection Study should be used to
connect the BJT segments. If the Bypass is implemented, the crossing at LOVR could oc-
cur either at the NB 101 ramps or the traffic signal at LOVR/Bypass intersection, or both.
The road section on LOVR connecting the existing and future portion of the BJT would be
in conformance with Figure 7-2, Section 1 of the Connection Study which would provide
a two-way shared use Class I pathway on the north and south sides of LOVR. The grade
separated crossings identifled in the Connection Study and the ATP are technically, le-
gally and flnancially infeasible for the reasons identifled in the report below.
6. The connection between the portion of the Bypass on the Broadstone South property
and the Hayashi property should be by 25 mph design curves to achieve desired traffic
calming.
Background
Implementation of the Bob Jones Trail has long been a priority for the City of San Luis
Obispo and San Luis Obispo County. Going back to at least 2007 when the City prepared its flrst
design document for Bob Jones Trail (BJT), the vision has been to provide a seamless and con-
venient connection from CalPoly to the community of Avila Beach. The County’s share of this
has been successfully designed, approved and funded recently, and the City has completed the
trail to Los Osos Valley Road where it terminates near the NB 101 on and off ramp. There is a re-
maining “gap” now between the City’s terminus at LOVR and the County’s planned completion
point at the Octagon Barn. Now that the County has completed its design work, this “gap” is
now considered a “Tier 1” priority in the City’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP).
To facilitate completion of the City BJT “gap” and to coordinate County and City designs,
the County and City prepared the “City of San Luis Obispo Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn
Connection Study” (“Connection Study”) in 2013. It studied the location and alignment of the
bike path, and potential crossing designs for Los Osos Valley Road and for South Higuera. The
study considered alignment options along San Luis Creek, adjacent to the Los Verdes II residen-
tial project, or along the LOVR and South Higuera Roadway. It also considered at-grade and
grade-separated crossing options at South Higuera and at LOVR. The preferred alternative from
that study is illustrated in Connection Study Figure 7-2, and included the following design fea-
tures:
1. Location of the BJT adjacent to San Luis Creek and within the creek’s riparian setback.
This was done primarily to enhance the riding experience along the creek and to limit ad-
verse impacts to agricultural operations and residential areas.
Page 24 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 3 of 27
2. Between the current terminus of the BJT north of LOVR and the alignment adjacent to
the creek, the BJT would be along the North and South side of LOVR in widened side-
walks to create parallel Class I shared use paths.
3. Usage of the signalized intersection at the NB 101 ramp to cross LOVR from the future
portion of the BJT south of LOVR and the existing portion of BJT north of LOVR.
4. A surface/at grade crossing at South Higuera at the Buckley Road/South Higuera signal-
ized intersection.
5. Grade separated crossings were considered at LOVR and South Buckley but were not
part of the preferred alternative in the study.
Subsequent to the preparation of the 2013 Connection Study, the City adopted a new
Land Use Element which designated some of the agricultural properties next to the BJT for resi-
dential development, and included consideration of a Bypass Road (“Bypass”) that would con-
nect LOVR to the new Buckley Road extension. As part of the LUCE Creekside Planning Area, the
newly designated residential properties were to consider the feasibility of the Bypass, as well as
the implementation of the BJT. Further, the introduction of the residential land uses for the
Creekside area moots some of the land use compatibility issues that drove the decision to lo-
cate the BJT in the San Luis Creek riparian setback, and potentially activates the Active Transpor-
tation Plan’s policy to locate the BJT adjacent to the Bypass road if the Bypass road deemed fea-
sible and constructed. Subsequent to the adoption of the Connection Study (which did not rec-
ommend grade-separated crossings at either South Higuera or LOVR), Figure 23 of the 2021 Ac-
tive Transportation Plan identifled a grade separated crossing at LOVR. Further, Figure 23 shows
the alignment for the BJT connection along the same basic route as the 2013 Connection Study.
Both the BJT Connection and the grade separated crossing are identifled as Tier 1 improvements.
Based on the changed circumstances and the need to advance the design to the next
level, a re-evaluation the BJT alignment and crossings has been conducted to determine the pre-
ferred alignment for the bike path where the agricultural impacts are no longer relevant, the im-
pact of the Bypass, and the ATP-designated grade separated crossing.
As part of the entitlement planning for the Broadstone development project in the
Creekside Planning Area, the applicants have studied the feasibility of the Bypass road connect-
ing LOVR and South Higuera. The Bypass feasibility study (“Wallace Study”) contained a con-
ceptual design and analysis of the Los Osos Valley Road (“LOVR”) Bypass (“Bypass”). The Wal-
lace Study evaluated the conceptual alignment of the Bypass roadway from LOVR to Higuera
St., the feasibility of a roundabout at the LOVR/Bypass intersection, the feasibility of a signalized
intersection the LOVR/Bypass intersection, and alternative alignments for the BJT from LOVR to
Page 25 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 4 of 27
South Higuera St. The Wallace Study was informed by a traffic study prepared by Central Coast
Transportation Consultants (CCTC) for the Bypass and Broadstone project, which concluded
“…the LOVR Bypass would relieve congestion at the LOVR/South Higuera Street intersection and
complete a major section of the Bob Jones Trail. The LOVR Bypass and new signalized intersec-
tion on LOVR could also benefit the Los Verdes Park neighborhoods, which experience difficulty
turning left out of their driveways during peak periods….the LOVR/South Higuera Street [intersec-
tion] would operate unacceptably without the Bypass.”
Since the Bypass concept did not officially exist when the Connection Study was done,
several BJT development scenarios with the Bypass were part of the Wallace Study. The flrst
was the development of the BJT adjacent to the Bypass from LOVR to Higuera. The second sce-
nario was the development of the BJT between Broadstone South development and the San Luis
Creek riparian corridor.
As proposed in the Wallace Study and the Broadstone application, the LOVR crossing
would be an at-grade crossing at the LOVR/Bypass signalized intersection. A new signal at this
intersection would require reconstruction work assuming the need for additional turning lanes.
Currently there are 2 lanes in each direction on LOVR through this stretch with a left turn pocket
for the US 101 northbound on ramp. It is assumed that a signalized intersection would require a
left turn pocket from westbound LOVR onto the Bypass as well as a left turn pocket to Broad-
stone Village North.
To connect the proposed LOVR/Bypass crossing to the current BJT terminus of the Bob
Jones Trail, the sidewalks on the San Luis Creek bridge would be widened as illustrated on Figure
7.2, Section 1 of the Connection Study to provide parallel Class I shared use paths along LOVR.
Signal pole modiflcations would be needed at the US 101 northbound ramp signalized intersec-
tion as well as modiflcations or extension of the LOVR curbs to achieve this improvement. The
current Class II bike lanes on LOVR between US 101 NB ramps and the Bypass would be elimi-
nated and that traffic shifted to the new parallel Class I shared use paths.
The Broadstone project proposes to do a “project-level” environmental review and com-
plete the Bypass and the BJT from LOVR to South Higuera as part of its project. The City staff and
City Council have reviewed the options and recommended that the design and environmental
review consider both the option with the BJT adjacent to the Bypass, and an option that places it
inside the riparian setback in the location recommended in the Connection Study, and as illus-
trated in Figure 23 of the ATP. As the project moves on to another level of design and review it is
useful to review the design guidelines for such projects, City policy consistency, and flnancial
feasibility.
Page 26 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 5 of 27
City Design Guidelines and Regulations
The City’s design guidelines as contained in the Conservation and Open Space Element,
the City Zoning Ordinance, Design Policies in Appendix C of the ATP, and the Community Design
Guidelines are relatively consistent in their flndings and restrictions. Relevant design regula-
tions are also contained in the City’s Improvements Standards, the Caltrans Highway Design
Manual, the City’s FEMA regulations, the DDM, and the ATP itself. The City’s design policies are
restated in Attachment 1, and summarized below.
Conservation and Open Space Element and Zoning Ordinance
The policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element and Zoning Ordinance are
contained in Attachment 1. Figure 4 from the Conservation Element (also Figure 3-2 from the
Zoning Ordinance) is shown below, along with a graphical interpretation of the required relation-
ship between the riparian corridor to be protected and how structures may and may not en-
croach into the corridor area. Zoning Ordinance Section 17.70.030 provides details on how
these Conservation Element Policies are implemented, provides dimensional details for the set-
backs along San Luis Creek and provides for the same prohibitions on construction in the ripar-
ian corridor, and within the riparian setback. Per the Zoning Ordinance regulations, the riparian
setback in the portion of the alignment area that is currently in the City is 20 feet, and the portion
that is on the current County portion would be 50 feet upon annexation.
Some uses are permitted in the riparian setback including walls or fences, provided that
in combination with buildings they enclose not more than one-half of the setback area on any
development site; uncovered parking spaces, patios and pervious walkways; impervious pedes-
trian walkways and bicycle paths subject to Director’s Hearing; decks, stairs, and landings that
are no more than 30 inches in height; detached tool and storage sheds, play houses, and similar
uses; garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and gazebos, provided they are constructed
using an open lattice design and light-weight materials; picnic tables and benches; and natural
fiood control and stormwater improvements, including vegetated buffers, bioswales, and rain
gardens. Such accessory improvements and uses are permitted provided that they do not ex-
tend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel, will not cause the removal of native riparian
vegetation, will not reduce any fiooding capacity in compliance with the City’s fiood damage pre-
vention regulations, occupy more than one-half of the total required creek setback area, or are
otherwise consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning Regulations. For
the purposes of evaluating the consistency of crossing and alignment options, any projects in
the riparian corridor would not be permitted.
Page 27 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 6 of 27
Community Design Guidelines (Section 7.1)
The City has a comprehensive set of guidelines for the development of major projects
and for special planning issues. Section 7.1 (B) of these guidelines provides guidance that am-
plifles and augments that are in the Zoning Ordinance. Of note is that there “…shall be no grading
or filling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian plant species, or removal of native vegeta-
tion within a creek or creekside setback area.”
Active Transportation Plan
Although the ATP is not a regulatory document, it does contain important guidelines and policies
for the implementation of bikeways and pedestrian facilities. Sections 8.6 through 8.8 of ATP De-
sign Policies relate to construction of bike paths that adjoin creeks, Section 8.9 relates to con-
struction of bike and pedestrian facilities on agricultural land, and Section 8.11 relates to such
facilities in or adjacent to fiood control channels. The ATP’s policies state that shared-use paths
shall be located outside of creek setbacks, that the extent of intrusion into the setbacks be mini-
mized, and existing riparian vegetation shall be reinforced. The impact of bicycle and
Page 28 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 7 of 27
pedestrian structures near and over creeks are to be minimized by the use of “clear span” bridge
design, avoidance of removal of native trees and streamside habitat, and minimization of grad-
ing of creek banks. Impacts to agricultural land is to be minimized by using existing service
roads where shared use is compatible with agricultural and bicycling operations, fencing the
pathway, and avoiding dividing properties in a way that unduly complicates agricultural opera-
tions.
Drainage Design Manual and FEMA Requirements
The City and County have adopted a Drainage Design Manual (DDM) to guide the protec-
tion and enhancement for the City’s important waterways and drainage facilities. The City and
county also administer regulations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as
part of the federal Flood Insurance program. Both of these are relevant to the project because
the adopted alignment for the BJT runs adjacent to, and sometimes inside, FEMA-designated
fioodways and fiood plains. According to the Preliminary Drainage Study prepared by Wallace
Group, portions of the project site are within the mapped FEMA 100-year fioodplain, as shown
on Effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel 06079C1331H (effective June 6, 2024). This
project therefore requires a hydraulic model to study the potential impacts to the fioodplain and
design improvements to mitigate for fioodplain impacts.
As required by the SLO Creek DDM, development along SLO Creek cannot increase fiood-
water surface elevations by more than 64 millimeters (0.21 feet) or stream velocities by more
than 0.1 meters per second (0.3 feet per second). These thresholds were used to guide the eval-
uation of impacts of the BJT on the fioodplain and the fioodway, and for the design of fioodplain
mitigation measures. As part of this process, Wallace Group has reconciled the City and County
models to develop a single existing conditions model that represents the Broadstone Develop-
ment and LOVR Bypass area. This preliminary Broadstone model incorporates all relevant cross-
sections and geometry from the City and County models.
The model does indicate increases in depth and velocity on the southern (downstream)
limits of the Broadstone development, which appear to be primarily a result of the LOVR Bypass
functioning as a berm and narrowing the width of the fioodplain. The model also indicates that
there could be unacceptable increases in stream velocities on the upper portion of the Hayashi
property, if the Bypass and BJT are placed at or inside the 50-foot riparian setback line and if
there is no mitigating improvements. The model also demonstrates that impacts to the fiood-
plain can be mitigated by compensatory grading on the north/west side of SLO Creek on the
Hayashi property, to increase fioodplain capacity between the LOVR bypass and US101.
The model demonstrates that only the portion of the Broadstone South property that is
designated as the 100-year fioodway is actually in the fioodplain. The portions of the Broadstone
Page 29 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 8 of 27
South property shown for development are outside of the 100-year fioodplain and no special de-
velopment features are needed to comply with FEMA or DDM regulations. If the BJT is placed in
the 20-foot riparian setback on the Broadstone South property, there would need to be 2’ to 3.5’
of flll to achieve at least a 25-year fiood resilience level.
Proposed grading would decrease existing ground surface elevation on the Hayashi prop-
erty outside of the riparian corridor. This grading would increase the100-year fiood depths on the
Hayashi property between 6 to 12 inches, while either matching or decreasing the existing 100-
year water surface elevation. The capacity of the creek channel would not be modifled as a re-
sult of grading, and the increase in fioodplain capacity would only be realized once the creek has
overtopped its banks. As noted above, the model indicates that there will be an unacceptable
increase in stream velocities on the upper portion of the Hayashi property, if the Bypass and BJT
are placed at or at or inside the 50-foot riparian setback line. The alignment of the Bypass and
the BJT will need to be modifled to eliminate the “pinch point” that is causing this velocity in-
crease.
The drainage study indicates the following preliminary conclusions and suggested modifl-
cations to the proposed alignments and crossings:
1. The alignment of the BJT in the 20-foot setback on the Broadstone South property ap-
pears to require signiflcant grading in the setback to achieve fiood prooflng.
2. The portion of the Broadstone South property proposed for development is not in the
100-year fiood plain.
3. The grade-separated crossings described in the Connection Study confiict with both
FEMA and DDM fiood and fioodway management policies.
4. The alignment of the northern half of the Bypass and BJT on the Hayashi property may
need to be shifted east, or additional compensatory grading on the west side of San
Luis Creek to mitigate any increases in creek velocity.
5. The BJT should be adjacent to the Bypass throughout its entire length. However, the
BJT could follow the Bypass on the Hayashi property, then transition to the 20-foot ri-
parian setback on the Broadstone South property along the edge of the fioodway. This
alignment would require grading and flll in the 20-foot setback ranging from 2’ to 3.5’
to achieve fiood prooflng for at least a 25-year storm.
BJT Alignment Options and Connection Study Preferred Alternative
The Connection Study weighed a number of factors and considered signiflcant public in-
put. City, County and SLOCOG decision makers were consulted to weigh the beneflts and
Page 30 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 9 of 27
disadvantages of each alignment alternative. Because of the policy and environmental impact
tradeoffs involved in the location of the BJT adjacent the creek, the City prepared an Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and had the City Planning Commission formally consider
the matter. The City Planning Commission determined that “…the preferred alignment shown in
the Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connections Study is the best alternative for the connec-
tion because it provides a path along the creek while minimizing the impacts to agricultural
lands.” The Planning Commission also found that the preferred alignment adjacent to San Luis
Obispo Creek complies with the City’ s General Plan goals and policies, satisfles each of the
flndings associated with development in the riparian setback, and that the trail was a public pro-
ject and placing the trail in the setback was a public beneflt. The Planning Commission made
the necessary environmental flndings and adopted mitigation measures as part of Environmen-
tal Review ER 30-13.
The Planning Commission’s resolution and discussion was substantially infiuenced by
the desire to reduce the impact of the BJT project on agricultural lands. It is important to note in
this context that the Connection Study was prepared prior to the completion of the LUCE when
the site was designated for agriculture and open space uses. In late 2014, the LUCE was flnal-
ized and designated the Broadstone development properties for residential development. For
that reason, locating the trail in the setback no longer has the virtue of minimizing impact on ag-
ricultural land since the properties will be developed to non-agricultural uses regardless of the
location of the BJT. However, the Hayashi property is still zoned agriculture and placement of
the BJT in the riparian setback still serves the public purpose of preserving farmland, and reduc-
ing the impact on ongoing farming operations.
The Planning Commission’s flnding is flnal and conclusive regarding the alignment shown
in the Connection Study and the ATP. If alternatives are considered, such as location adjacent to
the Bypass Road, there would need to be an evaluation of whether the modiflcation would result
in fewer or more environmental affects, and whether a modiflcation is necessary to any mitiga-
tion measures identifled. Considering the Planning Commission’s flndings, and the City’s devel-
opment regulations, the following actions should be undertaken:
1. Development of the BJT on the Hayashi in a manner that minimizes the impact on agri-
cultural operations.
2. With the designation of the Broadstone sites in the LUCE that are currently in the City for
residential development in the 2014 LUCE, preservation of those sites for ongoing agri-
culture operations is no longer an impact that would be avoided by placement of the BJT
in the setback. Since there are hydrology, biology or riparian issues that can be avoided
Page 31 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 10 of 27
by locating the BJT partially or completely outside of the setback, then that alignment
should be considered and preferred. Location of the BJT next to the Bypass along the
Broadstone frontage would provide it with 100-year storm fiood prooflng and added all-
weather useability, and the resulting undeveloped 20-foot riparian setback would be
more consistent with City policies and regulations.
3. To address vehicle and bicycle confiict concerns, elevated/raised crossings should be
used for the two Broadstone South entrances.
4. The at-grade road crossing options recommended in the Connection Study should be
used to connect the BJT segments. If the Bypass is implemented the crossing could oc-
cur either at the NB 101 ramps or the traffic signal at LOVR/Bypass intersection, or both.
The grade separated crossing identifled in the ATP is technically, legally and flnancially
infeasible for the reasons identifled in the section below.
5. The flgure below shows the proposed alignment relative to the Broadstone project site
plan.
Page 32 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 11 of 27
Page 33 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 12 of 27
Bob Jones Trail Crossing Alternatives
The Connection Study considered several options for providing crossings at LOVR and
South Higuera. Local community members have expressed a strong preference for grade-sepa-
rate crossings, where feasible, to enhance rider safety and efficiency. In response to this, the
ATP has identifled a generic grade separated crossing at LOVR between the current terminus of
the BJT, and the anticipated continuation of it to South Higuera along San Luis Creek. The Con-
nection Study considered two strategies for implementation of the LOVR grade-separated cross-
ing, with one occurring under the LOVR bridge over SH 101 between the bridge column and the
sloped abutment, and the other under LOVR through the San Luis Creek bridge. The Connection
Study did not recommend either of these facilities, but they are reconsidered here in greater de-
tail, and with fiooding, grading, resource, and flnancial feasibility considerations in mind.
The undercrossing at US 101 is shown in plan view and section view as “Alignment 3” in
Attachment 2. The Connection Study concluded that an undercrossing adjacent to US 101 may
have improved user safety and convenience compared to an at-grade crossing because users
would be separated from vehicular traffic, would not have to wait for traffic light cycle, and be-
cause there would be minimal impacts to biological and cultural resources since this area was
largely disturbed during construction of US 101. However, any added convenience for riders us-
ing the US 101 undercrossing would be limited to riders making an eastbound (away from US
101) to northbound (towards downtown) movement. All other movements would still need to
cross at the US 101 NB ramp signalized intersection. The cost of this undercrossing in 2013 was
estimated to be $1.5 million to $3 million. With the increase in the cost of construction over the
last 12 years (80%), and forecasting future cost increases at 5% per year to potential construc-
tion as early as 2030, the cost of this improvement is estimated to be $3.25 million to $6.50 mil-
lion.
The Connection Study also considered a grade separated crossing for LOVR through the
San Luis Creek bridge. This option would result in signiflcant development in the riparian corri-
dor, and there would be tradeoffs for the added rider convenience and the biological, hydrologi-
cal and grading impacts. The City’s policies regarding development within the riparian corridor
are not ambiguous, with the ATP Design Policies stating that bicycle-pedestrian bridges over
creeks “…shall be minimized, be of a ‘clear span’ design, avoid removal of native trees and
streamside habitat, minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the channel alignment, and
provide a smooth riding surface to minimize noise.” The City has also adopted fiood control
measures in its Drainage Design Manual to limit obstructions in a fioodway. Finally, Caltrans
has developed and adopted Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (HDM) regarding the
development of bikeways in a safe and appropriate manner. CalTrans’ standards relate to
Page 34 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 13 of 27
adequate site distance for riders to anticipate hazards, curve radii for design speeds, grade and
cross-slope, and “fiatness” of flll and cut slopes next to bike paths.
The Connection Study reviewed two options for the LOVR San Luis Creek undercrossing
as illustrated in Connection Study Figure 6-9 (see Attachment 3). Figure 6-9 provides a plan
view of two options accompanied by a photo inset that shows a bike path in a man-made, con-
crete lined drainage channel. The Connection Study’s limited evaluation of these options indi-
cated that this undercrossing would fiood during a 10-year storm (in fact, as shown in elevation
drawing for Alignment 1 and the graphic below, the bike path would be 12 feet underwater in a
10-year storm), and there would be “potential fiood water displacement”. The flgure below
shows an elevation that depicts how the “alternate undercrossing” shown in Connection Study
Figure 6-9 would actually be built from the north bank of San Luis Creek to the creekbed to pro-
vide the connection.
Illustration of LOVR Underpass from Connection Study (Looking South)
The Connection Study’s conclusion that an undercrossing through the San Luis creekbed
would result in “improved user safety” and a “more direct and faster connection for trail users”
probably isn’t true once additional details are considered. In addition to not meeting the City’s
general prohibition of development in the riparian corridor, and limiting development in the set-
back, the undercrossing does not and could not meet basic CalTrans, AASTO, ADA and ATP re-
quirements for sustained grades, the steepness of cut and flll slopes, for minimum trail curve
radii, and for minimum site distance. These undercrossings would range in length from 950 lin-
eal feet to 1,150 lineal feet from trail connection point to trail connection point, compared to ap-
proximately 850’ lineal feet for the at-grade crossing and Class I separated bikeways on LOVR.
The cost of each of these undercrossing through the San Luis Creek culvert was estimated to be
$1.5 million to $3.0 million in 2013. With cost increases from 2013 projected to 2030 the
100-Year Flood Elevation
10-Year Flood Elevation
Page 35 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 14 of 27
comparative cost would be $3.25 million to $6.50 million. If a more realistic ‘clear span’ bridge
design was considered which confiicted less with the riparian corridor regulations and fioodway
regulations, the cost is more likely to be in the range of $8 million to $10 million. Still, this facility
would not be useable during relatively frequent fiood events and allowance would have to made
for an alternate at-grade route.
Two other undercrossing options were considered for the sake of comparison, one involv-
ing a creek crossing on the upstream side of the LOVR bridge, and the other on the downstream
side of the LOVR bridge. These are illustrated in Attachment 2 and are described below.
San Luis Creek Undercrossing Alternative No. 1
This LOVR crossing option is a modiflcation of the undercrossing option shown in Figure
6-9 of the Connection Study and is illustrated as Alignment 1 in Attachment 2. This undercross-
ing would connect to the existing BJT approximately 150 feet east of the current trail terminus at
LOVR , and would then drop almost flfteen feet in elevation along a 170-foot path along the north
bank slope of San Luis Creek that would be created by a 10’-13’ cut in the north bank slope, and
5’ of flll adjacent to the creekbed. The path would turn west through the northernmost arched
culvert and extend along the upper portion of the north bank of San Luis Creek, and span San
Luis Creek with a 200’ to 250’ long bridge. Signiflcant issues include having the trail unusable
during the rainy season, signiflcant grading and tree clearance, redeflnition of the north bank of
San Luis Creek, cut of about 2,000 CY in the north bank of San Luis Creek, removal of riparian
vegetation, public safety concerns regarding isolated areas away from public view, and inade-
quate sight/stopping distance. The cost of this facility is estimated to be $5 million to $7.5 mil-
lion.
San Luis Creek Undercrossing Alternative No. 2
This undercrossing option is shown as Alignment 2 in Attachment 2. It would intercept
the BJT at approximately the same point as Alignment 1, and then cross the San Luis Creek
channel with a 370’ long bridge the south bank of San Luis Creek. The path would ramp down
vertically 15 feet along the south bank, through the easternmost culvert arch, then ramp up ap-
proximately 10 feet where it would join the BJT in the riparian setback. Graded banks of the San
Luis Creek would be approximately 24,000 square feet, including a 5’ to 10’ cut out of the south
bank yielding approximately 5,000 CY of cut. Like Alignment 1, signiflcant issues include having
the trail unusable during the rainy season (and the need to have an at-grade backup facility), sig-
niflcant grading and tree clearance over half an acre of creek bank, redeflnition of the south bank
of San Luis Creek, cut of about 5,000 CY in the south bank of San Luis Creek, removal of over
half an acre of mature trees and riparian vegetation, public safety concerns regarding isolated
Page 36 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 15 of 27
areas away from public view, and inadequate sight/stopping distance. The cost of this facility is
estimated to be $5 million to $7.5 million.
Grade separated crossings are desired because they reduce the confiicts between vehi-
cles and bicycles and provide for an uninterrupted route. The Connection Study recommended
that the City pursue at-grade crossings at LOVR and South Higuera using existing and/or planned
traffic signals, with protected Class I shared use paths. The analysis above supports continuing
with that strategy, with the speciflc flndings that the undercrossings are not flnancially feasible,
are substantially inconsistent with the City’s conservation, open space, creek setback and
drainage regulations, and are substantially inconsistent the City’s FEMA and Drainage Design
Manual regulations. Some of the facts supporting these flndings are below:
1. Financial Feasibility. The SH 101 undercrossing is of limited use to all riders, except for
one speciflc directional movement. Its cost would be $3.25 million to $6.5 million com-
pared to the $1 million budgeted for an undercrossing in the City’s Transportation Impact
Fund (TIF). The City General Fund obligation would be any amount over the $400,000 al-
located to the TIF, so the City General Fund obligation for this would be approximately $3
million to $6 million. The undercrossing options for the San Luis Creek bridge culvert
would likely cost $5 million to $10 million compared to the $ 1 million in the TIF program.
The City General Fund obligation for the San Luis Creek option would be in the range of
$4.6 million to $9.6 million for a part-time facility that does not meet basic design and
safety requirements.
2. Legal Feasibility. Currently there is no legislative authority to develop permanent above
ground accessory structures in the riparian corridor, except for fiood control features. It
is doubtful that the project could be approved by FEMA, the Regional Board, the Army
Corp of Engineers, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. While there are several ex-
amples in the community where ditches and minor water conveyances have been modi-
fled or piped, those facilities don’t compare to San Luis Creek’s function as the commu-
nity’s most signiflcant fioodway, open space corridor and Steelhead flshery.
3. Environmental Feasibility. All of the undercrossing options involve substantial grading
and improvements in a highly sensitive area. Reasonable alternatives to the undercross-
ing exist to completely avoid the signiflcant environmental consequences of the under-
crossings, namely the development of shorter and more direct protected at-grade routes
using existing or planned controlled intersections. Rider safety and convenience along
the Bypass can also be addressed through the use of elevated/raised crossings at the two
entrances to Broadstone South.
Page 37 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 16 of 27
Attachment 1
City Development Regulations
7.7.9. Creek Setbacks.
As further described in the Zoning Regulations, the City will maintain creek setbacks to include:
an appropriate separation from the physical top of bank, the appropriate fioodway as identifled
in the Flood Management Policy, native riparian plants or wildlife habitat and space for paths
called for by any City adopted plan (Figure 4). In addition, creek setbacks should be consistent
with the following:
A. The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: build-
ings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or
work areas.
B. Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of
fioodways and natural features identifled in part A above, whether or not the setback line has
been established.
C. Features which normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach
where there is no practical alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent
with the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this Element. Re-
moval of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide
for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent proper-
ties.
Page 38 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 17 of 27
City Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.70.030)
17.70.030 – Creek Setbacks
A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to:
1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities
for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement;
2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous ripar-
ian habitat corridor can be established;
3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor;
4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and fiooding; and
5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans.
B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all creeks as de-
flned in the General Plan Open Space Element and shown on that element’s creek map, and only
to those creeks.
C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks shall be measured from the existing top of
bank (or the future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration refiected in a plan approved by
the City), or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther
from the creek fiow line (Figure 3-2: Creek Setbacks). Top of bank determination shall be con-
sistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife where State or Federal jurisdictional ar-
eas apply. The Director or Natural Resources Manager may determine the predominant pattern
of riparian vegetation, where the edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length along the
creek, in a way unrelated to topography (e.g., the Director will not base the setback line on indi-
vidual trees or branches extending out from the channel or on small gaps in vegetation extending
toward the channel). Where riparian vegetation extends over a public street, no creek setback is
required on property which is on the side of the street away from the creek.
D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of riparian vegetation shall be shown on all
project plans subject to City approval. The location of these features is subject to conflrmation
by the Director, based on observation of actual conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of
persons with expertise in hydrology, biology, or geology.
E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback dimensions are established in recognition of
different lot sizes and locations of existing structures for areas within the City in comparison
with areas that may be annexed, and in response to different sizes of the creek channels and
tributary drainage areas.
Page 39 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 18 of 27
1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks within the City limits as of July 1, 1996, the
setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in subsections E.3, E.4, and G of this Section.
Where the City limit follows a creek, the setback on the side within the 1996 City limits shall be
20 feet, and the setback on the annexed side shall be as provided in subsection E.2 of this Sec-
tion.
2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creek in an area annexed to the City after July
1, 1996, the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a speciflc plan or development plan
approved by the Council provides a larger or smaller setback, consistent with the purpose of
these Zoning Regulations and with General Plan policies:
a. 50-Foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek
(all of main branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San Luis Obispo Creek (main
branch) to the confiuence with Acacia Creek; and Stenner Creek.
b. 35-Foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo Creek; Froom
Creek; Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork tributary, from the confiuence with
Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad
Street (Highway 227); and the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which fiows generally
parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad Street (Highway 227), from Broad Street to Fuller
Road.
c. 20-Foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks except those listed in subsections E.2.a and
E.2.b of this Section shall be 20 feet. (Informational map is available in the Community Devel-
opment Department.)
3. Additional Upper Story Setbacks. Where the zone allows more than two stories, an additional
10-foot step back (upper story building setback) shall be provided beginning at the third story
level. The upper story step back shall be provided along all building elevations with creek-facing
frontage.
4. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially signiflcant environmental impacts in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, or to implement adopted City plans, when approving a
discretionary application the City may require setbacks larger than required by subsections E.1
and E.2 of this Section, or further limitations on the items which may be placed within setbacks.
Also, other City regulations may restrict or prevent development in a fioodway or fioodplain.
5. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly approved a creek setback smaller than required
by this Section prior to adoption of these regulations, that smaller setback shall remain in effect
so long as the approval is in effect.
Page 40 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 19 of 27
F. Improvements Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall not be placed or constructed
within a creek setback, except as provided in subsection G of this Section:
1. Structures larger than 120 square feet
2. Paving
3. Parking lots
4. Fire pits, barbeques, and other open fiames
5. Mechanical equipment
6. In nonresidential zones, areas used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials
G. Exceptions to Creek Setbacks.
1. Replacement Structures. Where a structure lawfully existed on or before October 3, 1996
within a creek setback required by this Section, the provisions of this Section shall apply. This
part is not intended to allow replacement of paving that existed on or before October 3, 1996
with new paving or a building, unless a discretionary approval is obtained in compliance with
subsection G.4 of this Section.
a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure may occupy the same footprint,
within the creek setback, as the previous structure, without obtaining a discretionary excep-
tion. See also Section 17.70.170.D.1.b (Reduced Front or Street Side Setback for New Struc-
ture Providing Additional Creek Setback).
b. Additional fioor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (e.g., by
adding stories).
c. The part of a structure that is nonconforming due solely to the creek setback encroach-
ment may be remodeled without regard to the limits of Section 17.92.020 (Limits on Recon-
struction – Exceptions) of these Zoning Regulations.
2. Accessory Structures and Uses. The following items may be located within the required creek
setback without obtaining a discretionary exception unless otherwise noted, provided, that they
do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native
riparian vegetation; will not reduce any fiooding capacity in compliance with the City’s fiood
damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one-half of the total required
creek setback area; and are consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning
Regulations.
Page 41 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 20 of 27
a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with buildings they enclose not more than
one-half of the setback area on any development site.
b. For a single-unit dwelling: uncovered parking spaces.
c. Patios and pervious walkways. However, impervious pedestrian walkways and bicycle
paths shall require a Director’s Hearing as provided in subsection G.4. of this Section.
d. Decks, stairs, and landings that are no more than 30 inches in height, as measured from
adjacent existing grade.
e. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and storage sheds, play houses, and similar
uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet. No more than one
such building is allowed per parcel.
f. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and gazebos, provided they are constructed us-
ing an open lattice design and light-weight materials.
g. Picnic tables and benches.
h. Natural fiood control and stormwater improvements, including vegetated buffers, bioswales,
and rain gardens.
3. Architectural Features. The following architectural features may extend into the setback up to
thirty inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, chimneys, solar collectors, shading lou-
vers, water heaters and related enclosures, and bay or other projecting windows that do not in-
clude usable fioor space.
4. Director’s Hearing for Exceptions.
a. Intent. The Director, through a Director’s Hearing, may act to approve an exception to the
creek setback requirements of this Section only where the applicant can provide clear and
substantiated evidence that there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that
no other feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of other Zoning Regulations
or General Plan policies while allowing reasonable use of sites subject to creek setbacks.
b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than required by this Section may be approved by
City action on a plan for public facilities approved by the Council or on a speciflc plan, devel-
opment plan under planned development zoning, or land division, use permit, or architectural
review. Where one of these types of applications is not otherwise required for the proposed
feature, an exception request shall be in the form of a Director’s Hearing.
Page 42 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 21 of 27
c. Findings. Each Director’s Hearing or other discretionary application to grant an exception to
a required creek setback shall be subject to each of the following flndings, in addition to any
other required flndings associated with the project application under which the request is
considered:
(1) The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to
scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habi-
tation, rest, and movement; and
(2) The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing fiood control measures
that are needed to achieve adopted City fiood policies; and
(3) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and
(4) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the prop-
erty of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(5) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(6) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area of the project or downstream; and
(7) Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project; and
(8) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
“Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less develop-
ment than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already devel-
oped site, “reasonable development” may mean no additional development considering site
constraints and the existing development’s scale, design, or density.
d. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualifled, independent person shall be required
for each creek setback exception request to provide the basis for making the required flndings
above, unless waived by the Director upon determining that no purpose would be served by
such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception.
Page 43 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 22 of 27
Community Design Guidelines (Section 7.1)
A. Creek setback development guidelines. Each proposed structure shall comply with the
following guidelines.
1. A building setback line along the waterway shall be measured from the existing top of bank or
from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the
creek fiow line. Applicants should review the City Creek Setback Standards (Municipal Code
Section 17.16.025(now MC Section 17.70.030)), for additional information and exceptions for
creek setback measurements and requirements.
2. A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where biological and habitat value
will not be compromised; however, no other structure, road, parking access, parking space,
paved area, or swimming pool should be constructed within a creek or creekside setback area.
The surfacing of a path or trail may most appropriately be permeable; the type of surface will be
based on the need to protect riparian resources and minimize runoff to the creek channel.
3. No grading or fllling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian plant species, or removal of
native vegetation shall occur within a creek or creekside setback area.
4. Where drainage improvements are required within a creek or creek setback area, they shall be
placed in the least visible locations and naturalized through the use of river rock, earthtone con-
crete, and landscaping with native plant materials.
Page 44 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 23 of 27
Active Transportation Plan (Appendix C)
Adjoining Creeks
8.6 Shared-use paths shall be located outside of creek setbacks, except where otherwise allowed
or as provided for in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element.
8.7 Where setback encroachments cannot be avoided, their extent shall be minimized, and exist-
ing riparian vegetation shall be reinforced with native plants to create landscaped buffers be-
tween the path and the riparian canopy. Pathway encroachments into the creek setback shall
be subject to the exception process of the Creek Setback Regulations contained in the Munic-
ipal Code.
8.8 The number of bicycle-pedestrian bridges over creeks shall be minimized. Bridges shall:
a. Be of a “clear span” design.
b. To the greatest extent possible, be located to avoid removal of native trees and streamside
habitat or impacts to important aquatic habitat areas.
c. Minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the channel alignment.
d. Include a smooth riding surface to minimize
On Agricultural Land
8.9 Shared-use paths that cross or border agricultural land shall:
a. Use existing service roads where shared use is compatible with agricultural and bicycling op-
erations.
b. Be fenced and signed to discourage trespassing onto adjoining areas.
c. Avoid dividing properties in a way that unduly complicates agricultural operations.
On Flood Control Channels
8.11 Where an existing creek channel is widened to establish a new top of bank, multi-use
paths shall be located outside of creek setbacks except where otherwise allowed or
as provided for in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element.
8.12 Where parallel fiood control channels are constructed, shared-use paths may be lo-
cated within the riparian canopy established by the new fiood control channel, paral-
lel to the channel side that is farthest from the parent creek.
Page 45 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 24 of 27
Attachment 2
LOVR Undercrossing Alternatives
Page 46 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 25 of 27
Page 47 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 26 of 27
Attachment 3
Reference Connection Study Figures
Page 48 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 27 of 27
Page 49 of 81
Page 50 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 16 of 27
Attachment 1
City Development Regulations
7.7.9. Creek Setbacks.
As further described in the Zoning Regulations, the City will maintain creek setbacks to include:
an appropriate separation from the physical top of bank, the appropriate fioodway as identifled
in the Flood Management Policy, native riparian plants or wildlife habitat and space for paths
called for by any City adopted plan (Figure 4). In addition, creek setbacks should be consistent
with the following:
A. The following items should be no closer to the wetland or creek than the setback line: build-
ings, streets, driveways, parking lots, above-ground utilities, and outdoor commercial storage or
work areas.
B. Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and protection of
fioodways and natural features identifled in part A above, whether or not the setback line has
been established.
C. Features which normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach
where there is no practical alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent
with the Conservation and Open Space Element.
D. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this Element. Re-
moval of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide
for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent proper-
ties.
Page 51 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 17 of 27
City Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.70.030)
17.70.030 – Creek Setbacks
A. Purpose. Creek setbacks are intended to:
1. Protect scenic resources, water quality, and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities
for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement;
2. Further the restoration of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous ripar-
ian habitat corridor can be established;
3. Allow for natural changes that may occur within the creek corridor;
4. Help avoid damage to development from erosion and fiooding; and
5. Enable implementation of adopted City plans.
B. Waterways Subject to Setbacks. Creek setback requirements shall apply to all creeks as de-
flned in the General Plan Open Space Element and shown on that element’s creek map, and only
to those creeks.
C. Measurement of Creek Setbacks. Creek setbacks shall be measured from the existing top of
bank (or the future top of bank resulting from a creek alteration refiected in a plan approved by
the City), or from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther
from the creek fiow line (Figure 3-2: Creek Setbacks). Top of bank determination shall be con-
sistent with California Department of Fish and Wildlife where State or Federal jurisdictional ar-
eas apply. The Director or Natural Resources Manager may determine the predominant pattern
of riparian vegetation, where the edge of the vegetation varies greatly in a short length along the
creek, in a way unrelated to topography (e.g., the Director will not base the setback line on indi-
vidual trees or branches extending out from the channel or on small gaps in vegetation extending
toward the channel). Where riparian vegetation extends over a public street, no creek setback is
required on property which is on the side of the street away from the creek.
D. Plan Information. The location of top of bank and of riparian vegetation shall be shown on all
project plans subject to City approval. The location of these features is subject to conflrmation
by the Director, based on observation of actual conditions and, as needed, the conclusions of
persons with expertise in hydrology, biology, or geology.
E. Creek Setback Dimensions. Different setback dimensions are established in recognition of
different lot sizes and locations of existing structures for areas within the City in comparison
with areas that may be annexed, and in response to different sizes of the creek channels and
tributary drainage areas.
Page 52 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 18 of 27
1. Creeks within the 1996 City Limits. Along all creeks within the City limits as of July 1, 1996, the
setback shall be 20 feet, except as provided in subsections E.3, E.4, and G of this Section.
Where the City limit follows a creek, the setback on the side within the 1996 City limits shall be
20 feet, and the setback on the annexed side shall be as provided in subsection E.2 of this Sec-
tion.
2. Creeks in Areas Annexed After 1996. Along any creek in an area annexed to the City after July
1, 1996, the following setbacks shall be provided, unless a speciflc plan or development plan
approved by the Council provides a larger or smaller setback, consistent with the purpose of
these Zoning Regulations and with General Plan policies:
a. 50-Foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 50 feet: San Luis Obispo Creek
(all of main branch); San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork, from San Luis Obispo Creek (main
branch) to the confiuence with Acacia Creek; and Stenner Creek.
b. 35-Foot Setbacks. The setback along the following shall be 35 feet: Prefumo Creek; Froom
Creek; Brizziolari Creek; San Luis Obispo Creek East Fork tributary, from the confiuence with
Acacia Creek to Broad Street (Highway 227); Acacia Creek and its tributaries west of Broad
Street (Highway 227); and the segment of the tributary of Acacia Creek which fiows generally
parallel to and on the easterly side of Broad Street (Highway 227), from Broad Street to Fuller
Road.
c. 20-Foot Setbacks. The setback along all creeks except those listed in subsections E.2.a and
E.2.b of this Section shall be 20 feet. (Informational map is available in the Community Devel-
opment Department.)
3. Additional Upper Story Setbacks. Where the zone allows more than two stories, an additional
10-foot step back (upper story building setback) shall be provided beginning at the third story
level. The upper story step back shall be provided along all building elevations with creek-facing
frontage.
4. Larger Setbacks. To mitigate potentially signiflcant environmental impacts in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act, or to implement adopted City plans, when approving a
discretionary application the City may require setbacks larger than required by subsections E.1
and E.2 of this Section, or further limitations on the items which may be placed within setbacks.
Also, other City regulations may restrict or prevent development in a fioodway or fioodplain.
5. Prior Approvals. Where the City has explicitly approved a creek setback smaller than required
by this Section prior to adoption of these regulations, that smaller setback shall remain in effect
so long as the approval is in effect.
Page 53 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 19 of 27
F. Improvements Prohibited within Setbacks. The following shall not be placed or constructed
within a creek setback, except as provided in subsection G of this Section:
1. Structures larger than 120 square feet
2. Paving
3. Parking lots
4. Fire pits, barbeques, and other open fiames
5. Mechanical equipment
6. In nonresidential zones, areas used for storing or working on vehicles, equipment, or materials
G. Exceptions to Creek Setbacks.
1. Replacement Structures. Where a structure lawfully existed on or before October 3, 1996
within a creek setback required by this Section, the provisions of this Section shall apply. This
part is not intended to allow replacement of paving that existed on or before October 3, 1996
with new paving or a building, unless a discretionary approval is obtained in compliance with
subsection G.4 of this Section.
a. Any structure built in replacement of such a structure may occupy the same footprint,
within the creek setback, as the previous structure, without obtaining a discretionary excep-
tion. See also Section 17.70.170.D.1.b (Reduced Front or Street Side Setback for New Struc-
ture Providing Additional Creek Setback).
b. Additional fioor area shall not be added to the encroaching part of the structure (e.g., by
adding stories).
c. The part of a structure that is nonconforming due solely to the creek setback encroach-
ment may be remodeled without regard to the limits of Section 17.92.020 (Limits on Recon-
struction – Exceptions) of these Zoning Regulations.
2. Accessory Structures and Uses. The following items may be located within the required creek
setback without obtaining a discretionary exception unless otherwise noted, provided, that they
do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native
riparian vegetation; will not reduce any fiooding capacity in compliance with the City’s fiood
damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one-half of the total required
creek setback area; and are consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning
Regulations.
Page 54 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 20 of 27
a. Walls or fences, provided that in combination with buildings they enclose not more than
one-half of the setback area on any development site.
b. For a single-unit dwelling: uncovered parking spaces.
c. Patios and pervious walkways. However, impervious pedestrian walkways and bicycle
paths shall require a Director’s Hearing as provided in subsection G.4. of this Section.
d. Decks, stairs, and landings that are no more than 30 inches in height, as measured from
adjacent existing grade.
e. One-story, detached buildings used as tool and storage sheds, play houses, and similar
uses, provided the projected roof area does not exceed 120 square feet. No more than one
such building is allowed per parcel.
f. Garden structures such as trellises, arbors, and gazebos, provided they are constructed us-
ing an open lattice design and light-weight materials.
g. Picnic tables and benches.
h. Natural fiood control and stormwater improvements, including vegetated buffers, bioswales,
and rain gardens.
3. Architectural Features. The following architectural features may extend into the setback up to
thirty inches: cornices, canopies, eaves, buttresses, chimneys, solar collectors, shading lou-
vers, water heaters and related enclosures, and bay or other projecting windows that do not in-
clude usable fioor space.
4. Director’s Hearing for Exceptions.
a. Intent. The Director, through a Director’s Hearing, may act to approve an exception to the
creek setback requirements of this Section only where the applicant can provide clear and
substantiated evidence that there is no practical way to comply with the provisions and that
no other feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of other Zoning Regulations
or General Plan policies while allowing reasonable use of sites subject to creek setbacks.
b. Application Type. A creek setback smaller than required by this Section may be approved by
City action on a plan for public facilities approved by the Council or on a speciflc plan, devel-
opment plan under planned development zoning, or land division, use permit, or architectural
review. Where one of these types of applications is not otherwise required for the proposed
feature, an exception request shall be in the form of a Director’s Hearing.
Page 55 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 21 of 27
c. Findings. Each Director’s Hearing or other discretionary application to grant an exception to
a required creek setback shall be subject to each of the following flndings, in addition to any
other required flndings associated with the project application under which the request is
considered:
(1) The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to
scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habi-
tation, rest, and movement; and
(2) The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing fiood control measures
that are needed to achieve adopted City fiood policies; and
(3) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and
(4) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the prop-
erty of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(5) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(6) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area of the project or downstream; and
(7) Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project; and
(8) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
“Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less develop-
ment than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already devel-
oped site, “reasonable development” may mean no additional development considering site
constraints and the existing development’s scale, design, or density.
d. Biological Survey. A biological survey by a qualifled, independent person shall be required
for each creek setback exception request to provide the basis for making the required flndings
above, unless waived by the Director upon determining that no purpose would be served by
such a survey because no biological resources could be affected by the exception.
Page 56 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 22 of 27
Community Design Guidelines (Section 7.1)
A. Creek setback development guidelines. Each proposed structure shall comply with the
following guidelines.
1. A building setback line along the waterway shall be measured from the existing top of bank or
from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the
creek fiow line. Applicants should review the City Creek Setback Standards (Municipal Code
Section 17.16.025(now MC Section 17.70.030)), for additional information and exceptions for
creek setback measurements and requirements.
2. A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where biological and habitat value
will not be compromised; however, no other structure, road, parking access, parking space,
paved area, or swimming pool should be constructed within a creek or creekside setback area.
The surfacing of a path or trail may most appropriately be permeable; the type of surface will be
based on the need to protect riparian resources and minimize runoff to the creek channel.
3. No grading or fllling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian plant species, or removal of
native vegetation shall occur within a creek or creekside setback area.
4. Where drainage improvements are required within a creek or creek setback area, they shall be
placed in the least visible locations and naturalized through the use of river rock, earthtone con-
crete, and landscaping with native plant materials.
Page 57 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 23 of 27
Active Transportation Plan (Appendix C)
Adjoining Creeks
8.6 Shared-use paths shall be located outside of creek setbacks, except where otherwise allowed
or as provided for in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element.
8.7 Where setback encroachments cannot be avoided, their extent shall be minimized, and exist-
ing riparian vegetation shall be reinforced with native plants to create landscaped buffers be-
tween the path and the riparian canopy. Pathway encroachments into the creek setback shall
be subject to the exception process of the Creek Setback Regulations contained in the Munic-
ipal Code.
8.8 The number of bicycle-pedestrian bridges over creeks shall be minimized. Bridges shall:
a. Be of a “clear span” design.
b. To the greatest extent possible, be located to avoid removal of native trees and streamside
habitat or impacts to important aquatic habitat areas.
c. Minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the channel alignment.
d. Include a smooth riding surface to minimize
On Agricultural Land
8.9 Shared-use paths that cross or border agricultural land shall:
a. Use existing service roads where shared use is compatible with agricultural and bicycling op-
erations.
b. Be fenced and signed to discourage trespassing onto adjoining areas.
c. Avoid dividing properties in a way that unduly complicates agricultural operations.
On Flood Control Channels
8.11 Where an existing creek channel is widened to establish a new top of bank, multi-use
paths shall be located outside of creek setbacks except where otherwise allowed or
as provided for in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element.
8.12 Where parallel fiood control channels are constructed, shared-use paths may be lo-
cated within the riparian canopy established by the new fiood control channel, paral-
lel to the channel side that is farthest from the parent creek.
Page 58 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 24 of 27
Attachment 2
LOVR Undercrossing Alternatives
Page 59 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 25 of 27
Page 60 of 81
D
D
S
S
109.94
FS
S
S
110.75
FSS
WFW
S
S
D
D
D
107.30
FS
106.71
FS
S
S
S
PSS
PSS
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
NORTHBOUND RAMPS
210'±
BRIDGE
EXISTING
BJT
PRELIMINARY
FG 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
PRELIMINARY EG 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
4.5% PATH
GRADE
4.5% PATH
GRADE
170'± LONG
RETAINING WALL
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF GRADING
2:1 SLOPE Typ.
GRADING REQUIRES
REMOVAL OF
VEGETATION FROM
CREEK CHANNEL
INSUFFICIENT SIGHT
DISTANCE DUE TO PATH
ALIGNMENT AVOIDING
PRIMARY CREEK CHANNEL
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 1
DESCRIPTION:
THE PATH INTERSECTS THE EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL, RAMPS DOWN APPROXIMATELY 15' VERTICALLY,
CROSSES UNDER LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD THROUGH THE WESTERNMOST ARCH, RAMPS BACK UP
APPROXIMATELY 10' VERTICALLY ALONG THE SHOULDER OF THE NORTHBOUND US 101 OFF-RAMP,
CROSSES OVER SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WITH A 180'± BRIDGE, AND JOINS THE EXISTING PATH ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD.
PROS:
·PROVIDES GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
CONS:
·TRAIL UNUSABLE DURING RAINY SEASON DUE TO TRAIL LOCATION WITHIN CREEK
·REQUIRES GRADING WITHIN RIPARIAN AREA (NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FEASIBLE)
·PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS CROSSING UNDER LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD DUE TO ISOLATED AREA
·COSTLY BRIDGE CROSSING
A
A
WALLACE GROUP
JOB No. : 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR
DRAWN BY: MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Page 61 of 81
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
2:1
2:1
10' MIN
Approx 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
Approx 10 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 1
SECTION A-A
NOTE:
CALTRANS HDM CHAPTER 1000 RECOMMENDS 3:1 OR FLATTER FILL SLOPES
AND 6:1 OR FLATTER CUT SLOPES.
TO LIMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GRADING VOLUMES, 2:1 SLOPES USED.
--
JOB No .: 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR-PR(
DRAWN BY : MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
WALLACE GROUP SCALE : 1" = 20'
Page 62 of 81
D
D
S
S
109.94
FS
110.75
FSS
S
S
D
D
D
107.30
FS
106.71
FS
S
S
SPSS
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
NORTHBOUND RAMPS
370'±
BRIDGE
EXISTING
BJT
PRELIMINARY
FG 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
PRELIMINARY EG 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
4.5% PATH
GRADE 4.5% PATH
GRADE
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
2:1 SLOPE Typ.
BRIDGE FROM RIPARIAN EDGE
TO RIPARIAN EDGE, REQUIRES
GRADING AND SUPPORTS
WITHIN SECONDARY CHANNEL
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 2
DESCRIPTION:
THE PATH INTERSECTS THE EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL, CROSSES SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WITH A 370'±
BRIDGE, RAMPS DOWN APPROXIMATELY 15' VERTICALLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, CROSSES UNDER LOS
OSOS VALLEY ROAD THROUGH THE EASTERNMOST ARCH, RAMPS BACK UP APPROXIMATELY 10'
VERTICALLY ALONG THE EAST BANK OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK, AND JOINS THE EXISTING PATH ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD.
PROS:
·PROVIDES GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
CONS:
·TRAIL UNUSABLE DURING RAINY SEASON DUE TO TRAIL LOCATION WITHIN CREEK
·REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT GRADING WITHIN RIPARIAN AREA (NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FEASIBLE)
·PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS DUE TO ISOLATED AREA
·COSTLY BRIDGE CROSSING
·SUBSTANDARD SITE DISTANCE AND CL RADII
B
B
WALLACE GROUP
JOB No. : 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR
DRAWN BY: MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Page 63 of 81
10' MIN
Approx 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
Approx 10 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OFFSET
80
90
100
110
120
130
80
90
100
110
120
130
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
2:
1
2:1
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 2
SECTION B-B
NOTE:
CALTRANS HDM CHAPTER 1000 RECOMMENDS 3:1 OR FLATTER FILL SLOPES
AND 6:1 OR FLATTER CUT SLOPES.
TO LIMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GRADING VOLUMES, 2:1 SLOPES USED.
---
----
--------
JOB No .: 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR-PR(
DRAWN BY : MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
WALLACE GROUP SCALE : 1" = 20'
Page 64 of 81
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
NORTHBOUND RAMPS
200'± LONG RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
BJT
PRELIMINARY
FG 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
4.5% SUSTAINED
GRADE
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
2:1 SLOPE Typ.
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 3
DESCRIPTION:
THE PATH INTERSECTS THE EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL, PASSES UNDER THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
OVERCROSSING ADJACENT TO US 101, THEN CLIMBS APPROXIMATELY 20' VERTICALLY WITHIN THE US 101
NORTHBOUND ON-RAMP AND TIES INTO THE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD.
PROS:
·PROVIDES GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
CONS:
·PATH RUNS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HIGH SPEED VEHICLE TRAFFIC
·REQUIRES LARGE RETAINING WALL TO RETAIN ABUTMENT SLOPE
·REQUIRES CONCRETE BARRIER TO PROTECT BIKE TRAFFIC FROM VEHICLES
·REQUIRES CROSSING THE NORTHBOUND RAMPS AT STREET LEVEL
·SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN ELEVATION REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
·PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS CROSSING UNDER LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD DUE TO ISOLATED AREA
·AT-GRADE CROSSING STILL NECESSARY FOR ALL BUT SB TO EB BIKE TRAFFIC
D D
C
C
Page 65 of 81
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OFFSET
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OFFSET
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
2:1 2:1
TRAVEL
LANES
BRIDGE COLUMN
GUARDRAIL
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 3
SECTION C-C
SECTION D-D
NOTE:
CALTRANS HDM CHAPTER 1000 RECOMMENDS 3:1 OR FLATTER FILL SLOPES
AND 6:1 OR FLATTER CUT SLOPES.
TO LIMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GRADING VOLUMES, 2:1 SLOPES USED.
-J -
-------
JOB No .: 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR-PR(
DRAWN BY : MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
WALLACE GROUP SCALE : 1" = 20'
Page 66 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 26 of 27
Attachment 3
Reference Connection Study Figures
Page 67 of 81
__________________________________
Bob Jones Trail Design Policy Conformity and Feasibility Analysis
By: Peck Planning and Development, LLC
Page 27 of 27
Page 68 of 81
6 | Alternatives Analysis
6-26 | November 2013
Figure 6-9: Conceptual LOVR Pedestrian and Bicycle Undercrossing Alignment
6.2.2 LOVR/S. Higuera Street Intersection
The LOVR/S. Higuera Street intersection is a signalized intersection in the City’s jurisdiction.
Existing traffic patterns show that most motorists traveling east on LOVR turn left onto northbound
S. Higuera Street. The reverse pattern is also observed. A pathway crossing at the south leg of this
intersection would create less obstruction to motorists and remove pathway users from the more
significant traffic movements.
A bicycle signal could improve safety and circulation through the intersection. A bicycle signal is an
electrically powered traffic control device that is used in combination with a traffic signal. The green
and red bike lights alongside pedestrian and traffic lights indicate that bikes are expected at the
intersection and when they should cross.
6.2.3 S. Higuera Street
Both off street pathway alignments would need a crossing of S. Higuera Street within the County
right-of-way near the Octagon Barn. South Higuera Street is a two-lane roadway at this location.
Table 6-2 presents a summary of the pros and cons associated with the crossing options.
Page 69 of 81
7 | Preferred Alignment
7-4 | November 2013
Figure 7-2: Preferred Pathway Cross Sections
Section 1: Along LOVR over San Luis Obispo Creek (facing east)
Section 2: Along San Luis Obispo Creek (facing south)
Section 3: Along S. Higuera Street (facing south)
Page 70 of 81
Page 71 of 81
Page 72 of 81
D
D
S
S
109.94
FS
S
S
110.75
FSS
WFW
S
S
D
D
D
107.30
FS
106.71
FS
S
S
S
PSS
PSS
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
NORTHBOUND RAMPS
210'±
BRIDGE
EXISTING
BJT
PRELIMINARY
FG 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
PRELIMINARY EG 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
4.5% PATH
GRADE
4.5% PATH
GRADE
170'± LONG
RETAINING WALL
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF GRADING
2:1 SLOPE Typ.
GRADING REQUIRES
REMOVAL OF
VEGETATION FROM
CREEK CHANNEL
INSUFFICIENT SIGHT
DISTANCE DUE TO PATH
ALIGNMENT AVOIDING
PRIMARY CREEK CHANNEL
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 1
DESCRIPTION:
THE PATH INTERSECTS THE EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL, RAMPS DOWN APPROXIMATELY 15' VERTICALLY,
CROSSES UNDER LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD THROUGH THE WESTERNMOST ARCH, RAMPS BACK UP
APPROXIMATELY 10' VERTICALLY ALONG THE SHOULDER OF THE NORTHBOUND US 101 OFF-RAMP,
CROSSES OVER SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WITH A 180'± BRIDGE, AND JOINS THE EXISTING PATH ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD.
PROS:
·PROVIDES GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
CONS:
·TRAIL UNUSABLE DURING RAINY SEASON DUE TO TRAIL LOCATION WITHIN CREEK
·REQUIRES GRADING WITHIN RIPARIAN AREA (NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FEASIBLE)
·PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS CROSSING UNDER LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD DUE TO ISOLATED AREA
·COSTLY BRIDGE CROSSING
A
A
WALLACE GROUP
JOB No. : 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR
DRAWN BY: MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Page 73 of 81
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
2:1
2:1
10' MIN
Approx 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
Approx 10 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 1
SECTION A-A
NOTE:
CALTRANS HDM CHAPTER 1000 RECOMMENDS 3:1 OR FLATTER FILL SLOPES
AND 6:1 OR FLATTER CUT SLOPES.
TO LIMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GRADING VOLUMES, 2:1 SLOPES USED.
--
JOB No .: 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR-PR(
DRAWN BY : MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
WALLACE GROUP SCALE : 1" = 20'
Page 74 of 81
D
D
S
S
109.94
FS
110.75
FSS
S
S
D
D
D
107.30
FS
106.71
FS
S
S
SPSS
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
NORTHBOUND RAMPS
370'±
BRIDGE
EXISTING
BJT
PRELIMINARY
FG 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
PRELIMINARY EG 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LIMITS
4.5% PATH
GRADE 4.5% PATH
GRADE
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
2:1 SLOPE Typ.
BRIDGE FROM RIPARIAN EDGE
TO RIPARIAN EDGE, REQUIRES
GRADING AND SUPPORTS
WITHIN SECONDARY CHANNEL
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 2
DESCRIPTION:
THE PATH INTERSECTS THE EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL, CROSSES SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK WITH A 370'±
BRIDGE, RAMPS DOWN APPROXIMATELY 15' VERTICALLY IN THE FLOODPLAIN, CROSSES UNDER LOS
OSOS VALLEY ROAD THROUGH THE EASTERNMOST ARCH, RAMPS BACK UP APPROXIMATELY 10'
VERTICALLY ALONG THE EAST BANK OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK, AND JOINS THE EXISTING PATH ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD.
PROS:
·PROVIDES GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
CONS:
·TRAIL UNUSABLE DURING RAINY SEASON DUE TO TRAIL LOCATION WITHIN CREEK
·REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT GRADING WITHIN RIPARIAN AREA (NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY FEASIBLE)
·PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS DUE TO ISOLATED AREA
·COSTLY BRIDGE CROSSING
·SUBSTANDARD SITE DISTANCE AND CL RADII
B
B
WALLACE GROUP
JOB No. : 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR
DRAWN BY: MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
SCALE: 1" = 100'
Page 75 of 81
10' MIN
Approx 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
Approx 10 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OFFSET
80
90
100
110
120
130
80
90
100
110
120
130
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
2:
1
2:1
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 2
SECTION B-B
NOTE:
CALTRANS HDM CHAPTER 1000 RECOMMENDS 3:1 OR FLATTER FILL SLOPES
AND 6:1 OR FLATTER CUT SLOPES.
TO LIMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GRADING VOLUMES, 2:1 SLOPES USED.
---
----
--------
JOB No .: 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR-PR(
DRAWN BY : MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
WALLACE GROUP SCALE : 1" = 20'
Page 76 of 81
LO
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
NORTHBOUND RAMPS
200'± LONG RETAINING WALL
EXISTING
BJT
PRELIMINARY
FG 100 YEAR
FLOODPLAIN
LIMITS
4.5% SUSTAINED
GRADE
APPROXIMATE
LIMITS OF GRADING
2:1 SLOPE Typ.
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 3
DESCRIPTION:
THE PATH INTERSECTS THE EXISTING BOB JONES TRAIL, PASSES UNDER THE LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
OVERCROSSING ADJACENT TO US 101, THEN CLIMBS APPROXIMATELY 20' VERTICALLY WITHIN THE US 101
NORTHBOUND ON-RAMP AND TIES INTO THE SIDEWALK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD.
PROS:
·PROVIDES GRADE SEPARATED CROSSING OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
CONS:
·PATH RUNS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HIGH SPEED VEHICLE TRAFFIC
·REQUIRES LARGE RETAINING WALL TO RETAIN ABUTMENT SLOPE
·REQUIRES CONCRETE BARRIER TO PROTECT BIKE TRAFFIC FROM VEHICLES
·REQUIRES CROSSING THE NORTHBOUND RAMPS AT STREET LEVEL
·SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN ELEVATION REQUIRED TO CONFORM WITH LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
·PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS CROSSING UNDER LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD DUE TO ISOLATED AREA
·AT-GRADE CROSSING STILL NECESSARY FOR ALL BUT SB TO EB BIKE TRAFFIC
D D
C
C
Page 77 of 81
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OFFSET
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
OFFSET
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
0 10 20 30 40 50 600-10-20-30-40-50-60EG
2:1 2:1
TRAVEL
LANES
BRIDGE COLUMN
GUARDRAIL
PROPOSED RETAINING WALL
T 805 544-4011
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
612 CLARION COURT
www.wallacegroup.us
F 805 544-4294
®
LOVR BYPASS
BOB JONES TRAIL
UNDERCROSSING CONCEPTS
ALIGNMENT 3
SECTION C-C
SECTION D-D
NOTE:
CALTRANS HDM CHAPTER 1000 RECOMMENDS 3:1 OR FLATTER FILL SLOPES
AND 6:1 OR FLATTER CUT SLOPES.
TO LIMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND GRADING VOLUMES, 2:1 SLOPES USED.
-J -
-------
JOB No .: 1763-0001
DRAWING : 1763-0001-EXBT-UNDR-PR(
DRAWN BY : MJH
DATE : 06/20/25
WALLACE GROUP SCALE : 1" = 20'
Page 78 of 81
City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Co mmission
Active Transportation Committee
AGENDA REPORT ITEM 4B
DATE: July 17, 2025
FROM: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: 2025 Household Transportation Survey
Recommendation:
Receive update and provide comment to guide development of the next Household
Transportation Survey
Background
In spring of 2024 the City conducted a Household Transportation Survey to collect data to inform
the performance measure metrics of the Active Transportation Plan (ATP), which was presented
to the ATC for input on October 17, 2024, and published as a 2024 addendum to the Active
Transportation Plan Report Card. The Household Transportation Survey is a critical piece of data
collecting for the ATP report card with a mission to gain information on travel habits in the city
from a set of randomly selected residents to ensure that results are as accurate as possible. The
most critical information from the survey is information on transportation mode share as it informs
performance measures 1 and 2, namely:
• Performance Measure #1: Increase the share of citywide commute trips made by bicycling
to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030.
• Performance Measure #2: Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and General Plan
Mode Share Objectives, decrease the share of total citywide trips made by single occupant
auto to 50% or less by 2030.
In an effort to obtain objective results, postcards were sent to a set of randomly selected addresses
within the City of San Luis Obispo. Recipients were invited to complete the survey online with a
link and QR code provided. Despite sending out 6,831 postcards (after scrubbing for invalid
addresses), the survey only yielded 516 responses despite sending out more than 50% more
postcards than the previous survey in 2019. Among those respondents, the survey yielded the
smallest number of responses from the 18-24 age group at 5.2% even though the American
Communities Survey (ACS) from 2022 cites that this demographic makes up 39.1% of the
population. Meanwhile, the survey was well represented among the 25-64 age demographic and
individuals over 65 years old. See Figures 1 and 2 showing the survey demographic break down
vs the ACS.
Page 79 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4B, July 17, 2025 Page 2
2024 Household
Transportation Survey
Age Percentage
0-17 XX
18-24 5.2%
25-64 60.6%
65+ 34.1%
Figure 1: 2024 Household Transportation Survey Respondents by Age Group (note:
minors were not surveyed)
Census ACS 5-Year 2022
Age Percentage
0-17 10.7%
18-24 39.1%
25-64 36.8%
65+ 13.5%
Figure 2: City of San Luis Obispo Demographics by Age According to 2022 American
Communities Survey (ACS)
Discussion
City staff is preparing to conduct the Household Transportation Survey again during the fall of
2025. The data will inform the 2025 ATP Report Card. Normally, the survey and report card are
only published every other year. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting normal
transportation commute patterns in the years 2020-2022, some data collecting efforts were paused.
Therefore, 2024 was a catch-up year to fill in for missed time. Conducting the survey again in the
fall of 2025 will get us back on track to the normal two-year cycle.
Page 80 of 81
Active Transportation Committee Agenda Item 4B, July 17, 2025 Page 3
In preparing for the 2025 survey, staff is looking for ways to increase participation among the 18–
24-year-old age group so that the survey better represents the age demographics of the city. Staff
has begun working with a consultant and talking to statistical experts to gather input on this effort.
While this effort has just begun, staff has already gathered the following ideas to increase
participation:
1) Conduct the survey shortly after the beginning of the Cal Poly University school year,
when students have established commute patterns but commuters are not yet widely
influenced by adverse weather. October is currently the targeted month for these reasons.
2) Work more closely with Cal Poly to increase participation among the 18-24 age group with
the possibility to gather respondents through email, intercept surveys on campus, and other
methods.
Regardless of any new methods, care will be taken to ensure that all respondents are residents of
the city and that methods taken are randomized as far as the likely transportation modes taken. For
instance, this includes conducting intercept surveys in common areas such as the University Union
and not at a vehicular parking garage, transit stop or bike rack area where most respondents are
likely to be of a certain mode. Lastly, survey methods will need to take into account the limited
resources the City has for data collection efforts.
City Staff welcomes input from the ATC on the approach to improving demographic
representation in the 2025 Household Transportation Survey.
Next Steps
Staff aims to conduct the 2025 Household Transportation Survey this fall with hopes to complete
the next ATP Report Card by the end of the year. Once complete, staff will present the results to
the ATC.
Page 81 of 81