HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/2002, 2 - 2002 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE councit May 7,2002
j ACEnOA izEpo t
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal TransportationPlanner+-S
SUBJECT: 2002 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC),
Council should adopt a resolution:
1. Approving revisions to the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan; and
2. Approving the project's Negative Declaration.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve various amendments to the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The purpose of
these changes is to ensure that the Plan: (a) complies with State Streets and Highways Code
requirements — which will enable the City to apply for-State bikeway grants; and (b) reflects new
bikeways included in adopted or pending Specific Plans or Area Plans.
DISCUSSION
A. Background. Last year the Bicycle Advisory Committee initiated an update to the Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The update process is divided into two phases:
1. Phase I includes the addition of information required to comply with Section 891.2 of the
California Streets and Highways Code.
2. Phase II will involve a comprehensive review during FY 2002-03 of all of the bike plan's
policies, programs, and projects and redrafting the document to improve presentation and
content.
The reason for phasing the Bike Plan update is that Phase I needs to be quickly completed and
the plan immediately submitted to the State for certification. With a certified Bike Plan that
complies with the Streets and Highways Code, the City will be eligible to apply for State Bicycle
Transportation Account (BTA) grants —with applications due June I" of 2002. The BAC wants
the City to apply for grants during this funding cycle.
2-1
i
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Page 2
B. Proposed Revisions. Proposed revisions include changes to both the maps and the text of
the Bicycle Transportation Plan. The following presents a synopsis of these changes.
Proposed. Bicycle Transportation Plan May Changes (Figure #1, after Page -S). With the
exception of the last two items, most map amendments reflect changes proposed by draft
Specific Plans currently under consideration or near consideration and adopted area plans:
Table#1: ,Map Modification Plan Reference(1)
Add a Class I Bike Path along Tank Farm Creek south of Tank Farm Road Airport Area SP
Delete the Class I Bike Path that extends across the rid eline of South Hills. Margarita Area SP
Add Class Il Bike Lanes along Santa Fe Road and its proposed extension. Airport Area SP
Add Class I Bike Paths along the extension of Prado Road between Broad Street and its Margarita Area SP
current terminus east of S. HiQra Street,along Circulation Element's alignment.
Add Class I Bike Path along north side of Buckley Road from Broad St.to Vachell Ln. Airport Area SP
Reconfigure the Class I Bike Paths along the Union Pacific Railroad Railroad District Plan
Railroad Safety Trail
Route Plan
Create Bicycle Boulevard along Morro Street between Santa Barbara and Marsh Streets 2001-03 Financial
Plan
Add Class II bike lanes to Prefumo Canyon Road west of Los Osos Valley Road.
Eliminate grade crossing on Orcutt Road at the railroad and realign Class I Bike Path to
connect with Laurel Lane and parallel Bullock Lane south of Orcutt Road.
Note: (1)Specific Plans are in draft form and are under consideration or soon will be under consideration by the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Proposed Text Changes. All proposed changes are incorporated into the revised plan's Appendix
and on page 13 (parking rack design and placement standards). The following are new features
that have been incorporated into the Bike Plan, all of which are required to comply with Section
891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code:
Table#2: New Text Material Text Reference
An estimate of bicycle"commuters" in San Luis Obispo, including Cal Poly Appendix A
Description and map of existing bikeways in San Luis Obispo (as of January Appendix C
2002
Description of proposed bikeways keyed to revised Figure#I (re paragraph above) Appendix D
Existing and proposed bike parking throughout San Luis Obispo Appendix E
Existing and proposed bikeparking at transportation hubs Appendix F
A description of how the bike plan relates to other City Plans Appendix J
A listing of bikeways, implementation priorities,costs and financial targets Appendix K
A synopsis of past bikeway expenditures(1995-2002) Appendix L
The only policy section that has been inodied is the "bicycle parking location standards" shown
on page 13 in"legislative draft"form. These modified provisions:
1. Require that bicycle racks provide two points of vertical support for a bicycle. This standard
is typically accomplished by using the inverted "U" design employed throughout the
downtown.
2-2
t
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Page 3
2. Require that bike racks be attached by surface mounting brackets so that if a rack is
damaged,the concrete base does not have to be demolished to replace the rack.
3. Illuminate bike parking during evening hours, to the extent that the particular land use
supports nighttime activities.
4. Provide sheltered bike parking areas when the shelter can be attractively integrated with the
project's architecture.
The most significant text additions to the Bike Plan involve the inclusion of extensive
"Appendix"materials. Highlights include the following:
5. Appendix A: for the first time the bike plan includes an estimate of the number of bicycle
commuter trips—defined by the State as any trip taken for a purpose other then recreation or
physical fitness. This estimate shows that almost 1/3 of the City's population is potential
bicycle commuters.
6. Appendix C: the Bike Plan now includes a map of existing bikeways.. By comparing this
map to the Bike Plan Map (Figure #1), the reader can get an idea of how much of the
bikeway network is left to be accomplished.
7. Appendix E and F: describes bicycle parking in the City. Much of this information was
developed from survey work done by Bicycle Committee Member Anderson and enlisted
volunteers. While the listing of surveyed sites is not exhaustive, it can be expanded in the
future.
8. Appendix K: from a policy perspective, this appendix is probably the most important. The
provisions provide a method for assigning priorities to the vast array of bicycle projects
identified in the multi-paged listing. Appendix K also provides "planning level" cost
estimates for all projects and established a very general funding strategy for each project
that divides responsibilities between the City, "targeted" grant sources, and land
development.
C. Environmental Considerations. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared that evaluates
the proposed revisions to the Bike Plan (see Attachment 5). Based on this study, the Community
Development Director has recommended that a negative declaration be granted for the 2002 Bike
Plan Update. Both the BAC and the Planning Commission reviewed the Initial Environmental
Study and the director's recommendations and recommend that the City Council grant a negative
declaration for the project.
After their vote on the plan and the negative declaration, Planning Commission members took
the opportunity to highlight issues that they felt should be considered when the Bicycle Advisory
Committee undertakes Phase II of the plan update. Several Commissioners identified a concern
for developing bicycle paths within creek or riparian corridors. While the comments were not
overly specific, staff assumes that Commissioners were responding to concerns raised by some
2-3
� I
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Page 4
Council members and public advocates concerning bikeways within Creek setback areas.
Both the Planning Commission and the City Council will have the opportunity to provide specific
guidance concerning this issue when each reviews the Bob.Jones City-to-Sea Trail Route Plan —
slated for consideration during this summer. However, based on the City's adoption of the Mid
Higuera Enhancement Plan, and staff work on the Airport Area Specific Plan, the.Bob Jones Trail
Route Plan, and plans for the City's Sports Field Complex, the following represents what staff
believes is an evolving policy for locating bikeways parallel to creek corridors:
1. Bike paths should be located outside of creek setbacks,unless there are physical constraints that
cannot be overcome that require some encroachment.
2. The extent of encroachments should be minimized and should not require the removal of
riparian habitat,but should provide compensating reinforcement of existing vegetation.
3. The number of bridges should be minimized and bridges should be clear span.
4. Any encroachments into the creek setback area will be subject to the exception process of the
Creek Setback Regulations as contained in the Municipal Code.
Its important to note (as discussed in the Initial Environmental Study) that any path that parallels a
creek corridor would be subject to the Bike Plan's existing provisions shown in paragraph C-10 on
page 5, and provisions of the City's Creek Setback Ordinance, and provisions included in existing
and pending specific plans and area plans (which account for just about all planned Class I bike
paths paralleling creek corridors). Current provisions in Paragraph C-10 of the Bike Plan stipulate
that bicycle paths:,
5. Be located outside setbacks required to protect creek banks and riparian vegetation. Access
points to the creek should be limited in number and avoid the removal of significant habitat or
impacts on important fishery areas.
6. Provide a landscape buffer of indigenous vegetation between the top of the creek bank and the
path. The buffer should ensure visual access to the creek while controlling the location of
pedest ian/bicycle access.
7. Avoid causing creek bank erosion, siltation of streambeds, or the removal of trees with trunk
diameter of 12 inches or greater.
8. Be closed when flood hazards exist.
9. Lightly-constructed clear span bridges or low flow crossings should avoid the removal of
significant trees, streatnside vegetation, or impact fishery areas and involve minimal grading of
creek banks or changes in the channel.
2-4
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Page 5
Staff believes that this issue will be fully discussed as part of the Council's consideration of the Bob
Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Route Plan and the Airport Area Specific Plan and opportunities for
additional direction provided. Therefore, as part of the second phase of updating the Bike Plan in
FY 2002-03,paragraph C-10 may be amended to reflect the Council's specific guidance.
D. Next Steps. Assuming that the Council supports the Planning Commission, BAC, and CAO
recommendation,the following will occur:
1. The Bicycle Transportation Plan will immediately be submitted to Caltrans for certification.
(Note: the plan has already been reviewed by SLOCOG staff, who have determined that it
meets State Code requirements—see Attachment 6.)
2. City staff will schedule Council consideration of the BAC-recommended bicycle grant
applications for the May 21, 2002 meeting.
3. The BAC and staff will begin Phase II of the Bike Plan update, which will extend
throughout FY 2002-03.
CONCURRENCES
Bicycle Advisory Committee Review. At the Bicycle Advisory Committee's March 21, 2002
meeting, the BAC received testimony from some of the property owners in the Orcutt Expansion
Area, expressing concern with what was shown on the Bike Plan Map (Figure #1). (An excerpt
from the draft meeting minutes is attached as Attachment 3.) Figure #1 shows Class I bicycle
trails parallel to creeks within the Orcutt Area. The property owners were concerned that the
trail locations shown by the bike plan were different that those shown by a"working draft of the
Orcutt Area Specific Plan, a document that has yet to be released for public review or evaluated
by an EIR. Staff indicated that the completion of the specific plan will resolve the specific
locations of bikeways in the Orcutt Area and the Bike Plan was not being changed at this time
pending the completion of the specific planning process.
The BAC voted unanimously to support the 2002 Update of the Bike Plan.
Planning Commission Review. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft bike plan at its April
10, 2002 meeting. An excerpt from the draft meeting minutes is attached as Attachment 4. The
Commission recommends approval of the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and its
negative declaration (7-0 vote). Although invited, property owners from the Orcutt Area did not
attend the Planning Commission meeting and there was little public testimony.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of adopting the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is negligible. The fiscal
impact of fully implementing the Plan is significant and will likely extend over many years Cost
estimates for all bikeway projects (except those within the Margarita and Orcutt Expansion Areas)
2-5
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Page 6
are presented in Appendix K of the Plan. In sum, up to $48 million in bikeway projects are
identified, with about 80% of this amount associated with Class I facilities separated from streets.
City transportation surveys show strong support by community residents for bike paths separated
from streets as an inducement for greater use of bicycles, which is a General Plan Circulation
Element goal..
In general, costs of Class I facilities are significant because most of them are "retrofit" projects
(where overcoming existing obstacles can add cost), they involve structures such as bridges, or are
long stretches of bikeway. The fiscal impact to the City(as well as the speed of implementing the
plan) will be affected by contributions made by State, Federal and private grant programs and by
developers of new projects within the City's urban reserve. Appendix K of the plan (pages K-8
through K-12) evaluated each bikeway segment and establishes "targets" for grant and developer
contributions, including Transportation Impact Fees (TIF) paid by developers. The analysis
indicates that of the total of$48 million(rounding numbers),about$23 million might be costs to the
City (about 47% of total) while the remaining $26 million more or less evenly divided between
grants and developer contributions.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may:
1. Continue action on the Bike Plan update and schedule a subsequent meeting(s) to discuss it
further. Comment: delaying Council action could result in the City not being in a position to apply
for BTA grants for the upcoming grant cycle.
2. Modify the Bike Plan to include new provisions not considered by the Bicycle Advisory
Committee or the Planning Commission. Comment: since the Bike Plan is not a General Plan
Element, no subsequent reporting from the Planning Commission is required. However,
depending on changes made by the Council, the project's environmental determination may
need to be amended and re-advertised.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution Approving the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Attachment 2: Public Review Draft: Bicycle Transportation Plan (March 11, 2002) (Public
copies available at the City Clerk Office and at the Public Works
Department 955 Morro Street)
Attachment 3: Bicycle Advisory Committee Minute Excerpt(March 21,2002)
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt(April 10,2002)
Attachment 5: Initial Environmental Study
Attachment 6: Letter From SLOCOG Certifying Bike Plan as Meeting State Code
Requirements
Public copies of the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan are available at the City Clerk Office
and at the Public Works Department 955 Morro Street
I:\Everyone\CouncilAgendaReports\BikePlan Update(2002)
2-6
AT'T'ACI-�:MENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,AMENDING THE 1993
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,AND RECINDING RESOLUTION.
NO. 8240 (1993 Series)
WHEREAS, the City Council established the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and charged
it with,among other responsibilities,maintaining and updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan;and
WHEREAS, the BAC determined that the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan did not meet
current state guidelines, which inhibits the City's ability to apply for Bicycle Transportation
Account(BTA)grants; and
WHEREAS, the BAC appointed a "Plan Update Subcommittee" that enlisted the help of
community volunteers that collected information necessary to complete the 20002 Bike Plan update;
and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2002, a Public Review Draft of the updated Bicycle Transportation
Plan was published and later placed on the City's web page for public review; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's designee has reviewed the draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan and its Initial Environmental Study and has recommended that a Negative
Declaration be approved; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2002 the BAC reviewed the draft update of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan and its Negative Declaration at a public hearing, and on April 10, 2002 the
Planning Commission also reviewed the Plan materials and each body has recommended that the
City Council approve the Plan and its Negative Declaration;and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan supports the
goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element that call for"._. the per capita reduction
of automobile use in the City and the use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles..."
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
Section 1: The City Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts
associated with implementation of the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Section 2: The Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby amended.
The text of the amended Plan is attached as Exhibit A;
Section 3: Resolution No 8240 (1993 Series) is hereby rescinded.
On motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
2-7
ATTACHMENT I
Page 2—Resolution No.
AYES.
NOES:
ABSENT:
the following resolution was adopted this_day of 2002.
Allen K. Settle, Mayor
ATTEST:
Lee Price,City Clerk
JJo 9 n, ty Attorney
2-8
ATTACHMENT 2
city of san. Luis osispo
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
March 11, 2002
Bicycle Transportation Plan
Public copies available at the Office of the City Clerk
990 Palm Street and
The Public Works Department
995 Morro Street
2-9
ATTACHMENT 3
DRAFT MINUTE EXCERPT
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2002
ROLL CALL:
Present: Jean Anderson (Acting Chair), Bruce Collier, Wes Conner, Chris Overby, and Mark
Grayson
Absent: Mary Lou Johnson(Chairperson)
Staff: Tent'Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
Also present were: Mary Kopecky
1. UPDATING THE 1993 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION.PLAN.
Mr. Sanville discussed the background and the two phases of the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Staff recommended the following action`.
1. Concur with the Community Development Director's finding and adopt a Negative
Declaration for the project; and
2. Adopt the Update to the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Mr. Sanville discussed the possibility of taking the Plan to the Planning Commission by April
10th and to the City Council by May 7th in order to apply for grant program by June 0
Discussion of changes to the grant cycle that would allow for two application periods in this
calendar year; June and December.
Public Comment
Jean Kinney asked about obtaining a copy of the Plan. Mr. Sanville replied that copies would be
available, for a cost, within one to three days. They can be purchased at the Planning Counter
and Public Works.
Patty Taylor, a resident of Orcutt Road, asked about the Orcutt Specific Plan. She discussed a
letter generated by 9 of the 14 owners of property on Orcutt Road, which expressed their wishes
against development of bike lanes. Discussion concerning the process and progress of bike path
alignment and the Orcutt Specific Plan.
Nick Muick, a resident of Orcutt Road, also expressed concern from 9 of the 13 property owners,
with the Orcutt Specific Plan, and their desire to not be a part of any plan. Discussion of
Environmental Review Plan and initial studies.
No fiuther Public Comment.
2-10
ATTACHMENT 3
CONUMTTE_COMMENTS:
Wes Conner asked what scale the plans were drawn on. Mr.. Sanville replied that the plans were
down using the GIS, which overlaid city streets on aerial photo land maps, and that it was not
completely clear at the scale presented in the report.
Mark Grayson asked about whether the path along the sidewalk on Madonna Road in Laguna
Lake Park was a designated bike path. Mr. Sanville replied that the path was mostly for
walkers/joggers. Discussion about Laguna Lake Park and walk/bike paths.
Mark Grayson asked about commuter facilities for cyclists. Discussion about commuter
facilities. Not a priority to date, but could be agendized at a future date with the committee
identifying key features to be included in phase 2 of the bike plan.
Jean Anderson expressed concern over the maps in the plan. Discussion about maps.
Chris Overby suggested adding to appendix F concerning bike locker facility at the AMTRAK
Passenger Rail Terminal. Discussion about.specific issues with regards to the maintenance and
monitoring of the lockers. Could be included by committee as a suggestion in the future.
Motion by Bruce Collier to adopt revisions to the 1993 bicycle plan and concur with staff
recommendations. Second by Wes Conner. Motion carried.
2-11
f
DRAFT EXCERPT ATTACHMENT 4
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 10, 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, April 10, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. James Caruso, Orval Osborne, Allan Cooper, Alice Loh, Jim
Aiken, Michael Boswell, and Chairperson Stephen Peterson.
Absent: None.
Staff: Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, Deputy Director Michael
Draze, Deputy Director Ronald Whisenand, Natural Resources Manager
Neil Havlick, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Assistant
City Attorney Gil Trujillo, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTE:
The Minutes of February 13, 2002 were accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Assistant City Clerk Mary Kopecky swore in returning Commissioners Michael Boswell,
Alice Loh, and Orval Osborne, to serve on the Planning Commission for another four
years.
Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street #210, suggested that when the Commission reviews
plans that involve parking, traffic, or ways to get around, they should remember those
on bicycles, people in wheelchairs, people who walk, or people who use a cane to walk.
Sifu Kelvin B. Harrison, SLO, mentioned he would like some assistance in finding an
affordable place to live.
There were no further comments made from the public.
1. Citywide. ER 28-02; Consideration of the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan update
(Portion of the General Plan Circulation Element Update), and environmental review;
City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
2-12
Draft Planning Commission-Minutes V rACHMENT 4
April 10,2002
Page 2
Principal Transportation Planner Terry Sanville presented the staff report and asked the
Planning Commission to recommend that the City Council approve the revisions to the
Bicycle Transportation Plan, as forwarded by the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC),
and to approve the project's Negative Declaration. He explained that the update of the
1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan was initiated by the Bicycle Committee and divided
into two phases; the first phase was to update the document to include information
required by State codes, and the second phase was a broader and in-depth review of
the physical planning elements of the bicycle plan, the policy elements, and the program
elements. He thought that the second phase would come back before the Planning
Commission in the next fiscal year. With this more comprehensive update, additional
environmental review will be provided.
Commr. Cooper asked if the Class 1 bike paths that run along the riparian corridors are
okay.
Planner Sanville explained the bike plan identifies a select number of creek corridor and
includes a number of performance measures on how to develop a bikeway adjoining
riparian corridors. It does not exempt it from meeting the City's creek setback ordinance
or the exception process, which is built into this project.
Commr. Cooper asked how the City justified having a Class 1 bike path paralleling a
Class 2 bike path.
Planner Sanville explained that an area such as the Prado Road extension, which is
part of the Margarita Area Specific Plan Development, is viewed as an opportunity to
develop a facility that exceeds the standards currently employed in developed portions
of the city.
Commr. Cooper asked why Class 3 bikes routes would be needed.
Planner Sanville explained that a Class 3 bikeway would substitute for a Class 2 or
Class 1 where there is a strong need to provide connectivity between Class 2 routes.
Commr. Boswell questioned if the ARC would be developing more specific
implementation measures for bicycle parking.
Planner Sanville explained the he has requested that the update of the ARC guidelines
(currently underway) include some graphic representation on how to appropriately
locate bicycle parking.
Commr. Caruso asked who would be most served by this Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Planner Sanville explained the current profile suggests students are the highest
participants in bicycling, but are not the only group. He commented that when the
system is expanded, there would be a broader base for bicycling.
Commr. Caruso noted Appendix K of the plan is to extend the railroad path to Tank
Farm Road. 2_13
Draft Planning Commission-
m 1AC HMENT 4
April 10,2002
Page 3
Planner Sanville explained it would go over Tank Farm Road to connect with the path
system that is currently developed as part of subdivisions in the Islay area.
Chairperson Peterson asked why the Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan is not being
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Planner Sanville explained they are in new policy territory concerning which projects or
planning activities should come to the Planning Commission. This plan, which was
developed in 1993, went to the Bicycle Committee and then to the City Council where it
was adopted. Generally the Planning Commission does not review individual capital
projects.
Vice-Chair Loh commented on the bicycle paths within the Orcutt area. She referred to
a map and requested an explanation of the different bike path classes.
Planner Sanville explained the Orcutt area shows paths along three reaches of creeks,
which is currently reflected on the 1993 bike plan. He noted there has not been a
change to the bike plan system in this area.
Vice-Chair Loh suggested this is the time to reevaluate how many bike paths are
needed in this little subdivision area.
Planner Sanville explained that when looking at the configurations of the paths within
these types of subdivisions, the primary users of these facilities are the people who live
there. If the bikeways are designed correctly as part of the subdivision, the paths would
meet the requirements of the Creek Setback Ordinance.
Commr. Cooper suggested another graphic that indicates the new segments that are
getting citywide first priority, and another graphic that shows citywide second and third
priority.
Vice-Chair Loh noted a minor editorial problem.
There were no further comments made from the Commissioners.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jean Anderson, 544 Pacific Street #210, expressed she would like clarification on the
bikeways and the way they are described, noting that there are State descriptions and
State designations. She commented on the bicycle parking guidelines and explained
they are something she really stresses. She stated the Bicycle Coalition is trying to set
up classes to teach people how to ride properly on the street.
Commr. Boswell thanked Ms. Anderson, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, and all the
volunteers for doing all this work.
Commr. Aiken asked what the Committee's position is relative to bicycle paths within
the creek setback areas. 2_14
i
Draft Planning Commission(Minutes :- §ACHMENT 4
April 10,2002
Page 4
Ms. Anderson explained this is something she hasn't had a chance to study, but would
like to learn what the problems are that some of the Council members are concerned
with.
Commr. Aiken asked what type of bicycle parking features does she look for that make
for better bicycle parking.
Ms. Anderson explained that some cities have done much research in this area, and
she has shared this information with Mr. Sanville.
Commr. Osborne commented on the creek setback and expressed the issue is not litter
dropped by bicycle riders. The issue is whether or not they should pave an 8 to 10-foot
wide strip in a scarce, biological valuable area.
Chairperson Peterson asked if the Bicycle Committee has ever been called on to review
development plans and look at the bicycle parking before it is approved.
Ms. Anderson replied no. She noted that the Bicycle Committee meets only four times
a year.
Planner Sanville indicated that reviewing development projects is not part of charge of
the Bicycle Advisory Committee. He expressed the hope that the bicycle standards are
designed to be understandable so that the design community can employ them
effectively and have in-house staff that can review plans and make sure the standards
are being complied with.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
Vice-Chair Loh moved to recommend approval of the proiect's negative declaration and
to approve revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan and to advise the Bicycle
Advisory Committee that they look closely at the creekside bikeways. Seconded by
Commr. Cooper.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Aiken, Boswell, and Peterson.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 7-0.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The Commissioners made individual comments that were directed toward the second
phase of updating the bicycle plan.
Commr. Boswell felt a poor reason for putting paths in riparian areas is because it is the
least valuable land. He felt there should be some discussion with college stle�lelt5on
Draft Planning Commission, Minutes kn.� AMENT4
April 10,2002
Page 5
the education program. He suggested having guidelines within the Bike Transportation
Plan for mitigation measures, mitigated negative declarations, and EIR's, and would like
to see some guidance in the plan on how to incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures in these processes. He suggested additional attention in the new plan to bike
facility condition monitoring and maintenance.
Commr. Aiken suggested they further study the possibility of integrating bike paths and
pedestrian ways in relatively close proximity to creek areas.
Commr. Cooper suggested encouraging the priorities to include that staff and the City
give serious consideration to the environmental impacts and the resource implications
of bridges within the creek setbacks.
Commr. Caruso commented on the riparian habitat and suggested the City conduct
some scientific research and biologists to find out what is going on out there.
Vice-Chair Loh felt the bikeway along the riparian area should be compacted and some
areas left for children to play in.
Chairperson Peterson felt the reason bikeways were placed along creeks is because it
was the only place where a right-of-way could be found from one place to another that
wasn't broken up. He felt they should not put bikeways along a creek in the
undeveloped areas of the city. He suggested they consider the linkage between the
Class 1 railroad bike trail and the downtown, and also consider de-linking the bicycle
parking standards from the auto parking standards.
2-16
ATTACHIVIENT 5
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORINT
For ER 28-02
1.Project Title: 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner
Telephone(805) 781-7178
4. Project Location:
Community Wide
5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: The 1994 General Plan Circulation Element calls for the preparation
and maintenance of a Bicycle Transportation Plan(reference Policy 3.9,Page 14).
7.Zoning: Not Applicable.
8.Description of the Project:
A. Objectives
The City of San Luis Obispo adopted its Bicycle Transportation Plan (Bike Plan) on October 27, 1993.
The purpose of this project is to update the Bike Plan to achieve the following objectives:
o Enable its certification by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In order to be
certified, the City's Bike Plan must contain specific information required by Section 891.2 of the
California Streets and Highways Code. This information is included in the Appendix of the
amended Bike Plan. By having a "certified" Bike Plan, the City is eligible to apply for State grants
under the Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA)program.
2-17
ATTACHMENT �
Update the bikeway maps and attendant project listings to incorporate bikeways shown in adopted
specific plans and area plans (e.g. Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan, Railroad District Plan, Railroad
Safety Trail Route Plan) and draft plans that will soon undergo public review (e.g. Airport and
Margarita Area specific plans).
Quickly amend the Bike Plan to achieve grant eligibility while pursuing a more comprehensive
policy and design review as a second phase of work to be undertaken in the upcoming fiscal year.
Proposed Bikeway Map Changes
The following is a synopsis of the modifications to Figure #1: Bicycle Transportation Map that is
included in the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan. With the exception of the last two items, most
modifications reflect changes proposed by draft Specific Plans currently under consideration or near
consideration:.
Table#1: Map Modification Plan Reference(l)
Add a Class I Bike Path along Tank Farm Creek south of Tank Farm Road Airport Area SP
Delete the Class I Bike Path that extends across the rid eline of South Hills. Margarita Area SP
Add Class II Bike Lanes along Santa Fe Road and its proposed extension. Airport Area SP
Add Class I Bike Paths along the extension of Prado Road between Broad Street and its Margarita Area SP
current terminus east of S. Hi era Street,along revised Circulation Element aligrunent.
Add Class I Bike Path along north side of Buckley Road from Broad St.to Vachell Ln. Airport Area SP
Reconfigure the Class I Bike Paths along the Union Pacific Railroad Railroad District Plan
Railroad Safety Trail Route Plan
Create Bicycle Boulevard along Morro between Santa Barbara and Marsh Streets 2001-03 Financial Plan
Add Class 11 bike lanes to Pref nno Canyon Road west of Los Osos Valley Road
Eliminate grade crossing on Orcutt Road at the railroad and realign Class I Bike Path to
connect with Laurel Lane and parallel Bullock Lane south of Orcutt Road.
Notes:
Specific Plans are in draft form and are under consideration or soon will be under consideration by the City of San
Luis Obispo.
B Proposed Text Changes
All proposed changes to the text of the 1993 Bike Plan are incorporated into the revised plan's
Appendix. The following are added features that have been incorporated into the Bike Plan Appendix,
all of which are required to comply with Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code:
2-18
ATTACHMENT - 5
Table#2: New Text Material Text Reference
Refinements to Bicycle Rack Location Standards Paragraph C-2,Pae 13
An estimate of bicycle"commuters"in San Luis Obispo, including Cal Poly Appendix A
Description and map of existing bikeways in San Luis Obispo as of January 2002 Appendix C
Description of proposed bikeways keyed to revised Figure#1 (re paragraph A above) Appendix D
Existing and proposed bike parking oughout San Luis Obispo Appendix E
Existing and proposed bike parking at transportation hubs A endix F
A description of how the bike plan relates to other City Plans Appendix.J
A listing of bikeways,implementation priorities,costs and financial targets Appendix K
A synopsis of past bikewayexpenditures 1995-2002) Appendix L
Of all the new information required by State Law, Appendix K is the most significant in that it identifies
specific bikeway segments, establishes an overall priority for each segment based the purpose of the
facility (trip-serving vs. recreational vs. safety related), provides a preliminary cost estimate, and
identifies potential financing "targets" for various funding sources (grants, City funding, developer
contributions). As with the existing Bike Plan, the revised plan continues to show bikeways that serve
the transportation needs of bicyclists as having priority for implementation over facilities that are
primarily geared to serving recreational needs.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Not Applicable.
10.Project Entitlements Requested: None
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
The revised Bike Plan must be submitted to:
ca The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments to determine its consistency with the adopted
Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) and
Q The California Department of Transportation, Bicycle Unit, in Sacramento to determine its
consistency with State Code requirements and to certify the plan.
2-19
ATTACHMENT '-5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be.subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game.for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
2-20
ATTAGMWENI .:5
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, X
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that,are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing,further is required.
Signature Date
Michael Draze .For: John,Mandeville,
Printed Name: Deputy Director of Community Development Director of Community Development
2-21
ATTAr9fvalt?!cp,,jo S
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. 'Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is.significant. If there are one
or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determinationis made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier.Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review..
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
Adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
2-22
ATTACHMENT .5
Issues, Discussion and Support.__ ,nformation Sources Sources Pot. Ay PotentiallyLess Than No
Significant Significant Sficant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a.substantialadverse effect on a scenic vista? , , X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not X
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area?
Comment: The only scenic location where Class I bikeways are proposed is across the South Hills complex. In this area,the
path will follow existing service roads and well-worn pedestrian connections and should not require new grading which
significantly alter topography.
In general, lighting of Class II and III bikeways is provided by existing streetlights. Lighting for Class I paths will be
provided where they intersect streets and at"trail heads"where the impact of lighting should be less than significant.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,-or-Farmland of X
Statewide Importance(Farland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Comment: Class I bikeways are proposed at the edge of open areas currently used for agricultural production. Their
installation should not significantly reduce farmland or complicate agricultural activities. Most of these paths are located in
areas planned for long-term urban use.
3. AIR QUAILM. Would theproject'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Comment: refinements to the desi2 of the City's bicycle network should have a positive effect on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a X
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo ER 2"2 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA2.-mj?pXsT 2001
ATTAC MENT 5
Issues, Discussion and Support.. _,information Sources Sources Po. ly PotentiallyLess Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identifiedin local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
0 Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Comment:The most sensitive path addition is the inclusion of a Class I bike path along what is called"Tank Farm Creek"—a
shallow depression that extends between Tank Farm Road and Buckley Road. Mitigation provisions included in Section III
B. of the bike plan (which are unchanged)would apply to this proposed new bike path and would result in impacts that are
less than significant. In addition, adherence to provisions of the City's municipal code that establishes creek setback
requirements will further reinforce the bike plan's mitigation requirements.
Provisions included in the draft Airport Area Specific Plan that address the design of drainage and flood management
facilities(Section 7)also provide guidance that supports existing provisions of the Bike Plan and the Municipal Code's creek
setback regulations. The "modified natural channel" concept shown in Figure 7-1 within the Airport Area Specific Plan
would guide the flood control improvements along Tank Farm Creek and the location of the proposed multi-use path.
The City Council has identified various reaches of San Luis Obispo Creek where "parallel storm flow channels" should be
established. Likewise, the Airport Area Specific Plan stipulates that a parallel channel should be created along the east fork
of San Luis Obispo Creek between Santa Fe and Buckley Roads. Where parallel channels are proposed, Class I bike paths
would be located along the top of the bank of the parallel channel,away from the flow line and riparian corridor of the parent
creek channel. This level of separation will exceed City creek setback requirements because the parallel channel provides a
broader buffer area from the parent creek channel and enables a wider riparian corridor.
Finally, as part of the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Rouie Plan and its Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration(Rincon, April 2001),a variety of site and project-specific mitigation measures have been incorporated
into its design. These measures would apply to San Luis Obispo Creek from Madonna Road to Los Osos Valley Road and
Prefumo Creek from Madonna Road to Calle Joaquin.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or tongue geol tic feature?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo ER 2"2 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA'1 Ii ,13T 2001
ATTACHMENT 5
Issues, Discussion and Support,. „ information Sources Sources Po, ply Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outgide of X
formal cemeteries?
Comments: installing Class 11 bike lanes along streets will have no effect on subsurface resources. Installing Class I bike
paths where they are adjoining waterways may affect cultural resources. As part of the required environmental clearance for
the construction of Class I facilities, provisions of the City's Archaeological Guidelines will direct project-specific
evaluations and the design of mitigation strategies,including avoidance where necessary.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Comment:facilities that support non-motorized transportation have a positive effect on non-renewable energy resources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
I1. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading,subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Comments: the proposed amendments to the Bike Plan reduce the number of bikeways within hillside areas that are subject
to landslides.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:. _
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant bazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or Handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
�ii Ciry of Sew Luis OBtspo ER 28-02 10 Irttrwu STuoY ErmttortMErrra�tJ tsT 2001
ATTACHMENT 5
Issues, Discussion and Support. ,, information Sources Sources Po. Ay Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result, it would create;a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working,in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of,or physicallyinterfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments: Class I bike paths range from eight to twelve feet wide with two-foot clear shoulders on each side (total clear
dimension of 12 to 16 feet). These dimensions are sufficiently wide to accommodate most emergency vehicles. Since Class
I bikeways generally provide additional access to areas,their development may have a positive effect on emergency access.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would,
be a net deficit in aquifer volumeor a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
Comment: Proposed new Class I bikeways would be paved with asphalt, which will incrementally increase impervious
surface. However, unlike roadways traveled by motor vehicles, the quality of runoff water should not be significantly
contaminated with oils or greases that might impact ground water or adjoining habitat areas. The location and design of all
Class I bike paths adjoining creek areas has been integrated with adopted flood management strategies for those creek areas,
as established by independent Council action or by adoption of specific plans for various sub-areas of San Luis Obispo.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo ER 28-02 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT4HUIST 2001
i- - ATTACHMENT 5
Issues, Discussion and Support.. , Information Sources 'sources Po. .Ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoidm_g or _mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
Comment: Proposed amendments to Class II and III bikeway system and the proposed"Bicycle Boulevard on Morro Street
are all located within existing or proposed public street rights-of-way and do not limit the use or development of adjoining
land,consistent with the General Plan and zoning(reference Table#I for amendments).
Proposed amendments to the Class I bike path system are separated from streets and are planned to extend parallel to creeks,
along the Union Pacific Railroad,and in some cases parallel to major roads,but separated from the street. Their location will
not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of established residential or commercial districts (reference Table #lfor
amendments).
1L NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Comment: During construction, the operation of equipment will generate noise. Adherence to provisions of the municipal
code that address construction noise should mitigate this concern to less than significant levels. In addition, the proposed
new Class I facilities(that would involve installation of pavement)are located in areas designated for service commercial or
light industrial uses,or maintained as open space—land uses not considered to be sensitive noise receptors.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Comment: The proposed amendments to the bikeway network will facilitate non-vehicular access to and from existing
developed areas within the City's urban reserve, and to new commercial and residential districts envisioned by the General
Plan and supporting Specific Plans. No affordable housing will be displaced, nor will the proposed new bikeways enable
growth,independent of what is enabled by the General Plan and its supportive Specific Plans.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physicafly altered government facilities the construction of which could cause
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ER 28-02 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTANWLIST 2001
ATTACHMENT
Issues, Discussion and Support,._„ Information Sources Sources PO. _Ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X_
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Otherpublic facilities? X
Comment: Class II and III facilities are within established or planned roadways and maintained as part of the street
maintenance budget. Class I bike paths will incrementally increase the demand for maintenance services as well as patrol by
City's rangers,when the paths are fully separated and not visible from roadways.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Comment: implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan will have a positive effect on recreational opportunities within
San Luis Obispo.
15. TRANSPORTATIONnRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial is relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? _ X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,
noise,or a change in air trafficpatterns?
Comments: The proposed bikeways should have an overall positive impact on transportation and circulation by incrementally
reducing the dependence on private vehicles,consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan Circulation Element.
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities.,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ER 28-02 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMF-NTA JST 2001
ATTACH
ME � F
Issues, Discussion and Support.. ,, information Sources Sources Po, dly Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER 28-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources;or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which serves or may serve the project.that it has adequate.
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's-existing commitment?_
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? -
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Comment: no effects.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community;reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Given the mitigation provisions currently included in the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the guidance provided by the
City's Creek Setback Ordinance, and area-specific provisions contained within adopted and pending Specific Plans, habitat
impacts associated with the proposed amendments to the bike plan should be less than significant.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects-of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection withtheeffects of the past projects;
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future ro'ects)
Completion of the bikeway network will have a positive effect on community transportation, providing non-vehicular travel
options for community residents and visitors. The cumulative impact of implementing the Bike Plan is positive.
c) Does the project have environmental effect's whichwill cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
-indirectly?-
Implementation of the bicycle plan amendments, in particular the Class I bikeways, will have a positive effect on human
beings in that it will enable access and travel that is separated from vehicular travel.
�i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ER 28-02 14 INITIAL STUDY ENviRONMENTAJ1Si29JsT 2001
ATTACHMENT S
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR; or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration: Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses andstate where theyare available for review.
b Impacts Adequately equately addressed: Identify which effects from .the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation-measures based on the earlier,analysis.
C) Mitigation measures: For effects that,are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from_the earlier document and-,the extent.to which they address site-
specific
ite-s ecific conditions.ofthe project.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element, Policy 3.9, page 14.
2. San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan, Public Review Draft, WRT Planning and Design, January
2002.
3. Draft Initial Environmental Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail,
Rincon Associates, April 2001
4.
5. -
Attachments:
REQUIRED_MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
1. Mitigation
• Monitoring Program:
2. Mitigation
• Monitoring Program:
3. Mitigation
• Monitoring Program:
2-30
San Luis Ouisp O :Council Vg GOA 'flits
je
Regional:Transportation Planning Agency A.Ag o
Metropolitan Planning Organization C=%W Beach
Census Data Affiliate PM t 'cs
Pismo Beach
Rottala tii c ur-t2n«alive bite«o< Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways San uS Obispo
son
Luis Obispo County
March 29, 2002 ATTACHMENT 6
Davis Priebe
Caltrans Bicycle Facilities Unit—MS 1
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274
Dear Mr. Priebe:
The San Luis Obispo Council of Government (SLOCOG) has reviewed the City of San
Luis Obispo Bicycle Plan and hereby certifies its compliance with California Street and
Highways Code (Section 891.2). SLOCOG is the state-designated Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for San Luis Obispo County. RTPA's are
charged with certifying bike plans within its region for section 891.2 compliance, a
prerequisite for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) funding.
The Appendix of the Bicycle Transportation Plan specifically identifies how the plan
addresses each of the required elements in Section 891.2 (a-k). SLOCOG has reviewed
and confirms that the plan adequately addresses each of these articles.
If you have any questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me at (805) 788-
2.104
Sincerely,
�s
Peter Brown
Transportation Planner III
Cc: Mike Draze, Community Development Deputy Director, City of San Luis Obispo
Cc: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner, City of San Luis Obispo
1 150 Osos Street,Ste. 202, San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Tel. (805) 781-4219 Fax. (805)781-5703
E-mail. slocog@slonet.org♦ lntemet. http://www.slonet.oro-ipslocog
Lee Price Council Meeting May_7: #2, P ide Plan Great, but additions needed! _,_Page 1
From: Eugene Jud <ejud@calpoly.edu>
To: Christine Mulholland <cmulholland@slocity.org>,Allan Settle<asettle@slocity.org>,
John Ewan <jewan@slocity.org>, Jan Marx<jm4rx@slocity.org>, Ken Schwartz<kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: 5/5/02 1:33AM
Subject: Council Meeting May 7:#2, Bicycle Plan: Great, but additions needed,
Dear Council Members R Q F-I L Ez—�
We recommend adoption of the above plan.We see it as a short t'
MEETING AGENDA
e r m measure only, in order to get state money. Please allow the
following remarks: DATE '5_471"'a— ITEM #
1. Constraints of the Plan
The Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)worked hard and produced valuable
input especially on the inventory side. The staff report correctly
mentions on p.2.2 that the plan is mostly based on "draft Specific Plans
currently under consideration". The Committee had to accept these (road) ETC1.1?,
plans as a given and was not allowed to develop their own visions of
specific plans or newer overall city planning concepts. This was also IS 5�a,-11-() _ =;P=_ CHIEF
due to lack of time. Talks with members of the Committee and of the DIR
Planning Commission clearly underlined this. D 0% a tjaiG Z PCLICE CHF
G D=p7 r9EA�S u R C DIR
2.What the Plan does n o t say /b -. I17il- DIR
It must be mentioned for the records, that this bicycle plan, among C� ---- DIR
others, does not support the Airport Area and Margarita Speck Plans
per se, it is only the consequence of officially proposed plans which
may never be implemented in the current form (e.g. Prado Road). It does
not necessarily support the"Downtown Concept Plan"either, because
intensive studies have shown,that a much more bicycle friendly downtown
is possible (e.g. Senior Project Mike Sallaberry 1998).To our
knowledge,the current Marsh Street Garage Expansion does not even
contain one single bicycle parking space.
3. Next steps
This bicycle plan, in the second phase, must be immediately adapted to
newer developments and the BAC is encouraged to contribute to newer city
planning concepts and to work on a draft"Pedestrian Transportation
Plan" (Program 4.7 of the Circulation Element). Separating bicycle and
pedestrian plans is illogical as these facilities often are physically
together, e.g. in bicycle/pedestrian boulevards.Also, the current
procedure to first plan roads and then add bicycle lanes or paths to
their side is outdated and leaves the cyclist immersed by noise and car
exhaust.
4.Additions in the southern part of town possible
This area between South Street, Buckley Road, Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR)and OrcuttRoad is our last chance for modern, sustainable.City
Planning. Currently comments can be made about the DEIR for the Airport
and Margarita Area Plans.
35 Cal Poly students (Graduates from City and Regional Planning, civil
and other engineers, as well as landscape architects)have started work
on a concept called "Model City SLO-South"with two professors.They
basically started out with an empty plan,which came from the SLO
Community Development Department,who kindly supported our idea for this
brainstorming. First sketches indicate, that it is possible to build a
bicycle/pedestrian boulevard which never crosses-a major street at grade
Lee Price-Council Meeting
_May 7:#2, B—,^Ie Plan: Great, but additions needed! Page 2
from the Orcutt Area way over to destinations west of LOVR and to the
Laguna Lake Park -quite an intriguing concept of"sustainable
mobility", which could reduce vehicular traffic by 30 percent. Several
bicycle boulevards would be far away from arterial roads,which is
highly desirable.
Buckley Road would become Highway 227. No road with truck traffic would
be between the sports fields and the Indian Burial Site. Traffic would
be safer and less people would be subjected to air and noise pollution
(See memo Jud to"Citizens Concerned for Prado Road"of June 2001 with
sketches).
By the way: Bicycle boulevards are planned or existing in Vancouver,
Eugene and Portland OR, Berkeley,los Osos and Palo Alto CA. The
existing bicycle/pedestrian boulevard in Palo Alto was established in
1982 and is now more than 3 miles long.
5. Students ask for your input
You are invited for a first critique of this work on
T May 14 at 6 10 pm at Cal Poly, Bldg. 13, Room 117
and for the final critique on
T June 4 at 6 10 pm at the City/County Library, downtown.
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww,wwwrw«wwww►www«««««««««««««««««««««««
Thank you for your consideration.
Eugene JUD, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers
Cal Poly: 756 1729
Jud Consultants
665 Leff Street
POB 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-1145
Phone and Fax: 545-5919
hftp://www.judcons.com
CC: Andrew Carter<ANCARTER@aol.com>,Ann and Ron Alers
<ann@son icsensors.com>, Babak Nafici<edcbn@west.net>, Brett Cross<brettcross@hotmail.com>,
Chris Overby <sloverby@pacbell.net>, Cindy Holcomb <cholcomb@charter.net>, Cynthia Boche
<cynthia@baileymed.com>, ecoslo <ecoslo@slonet.org>, Gregg Albright<Gregg_albright@dot.ca.gov>,
Ira Winn <iawinn@pacbell.net>, James Caruso<jcaruso@co.slo.ca.us>, Jean Anderson
<slohpver@charter.net>, Larry Allen <lallen_apcd@co.slo.ca.us>, Margot McDonald
<mmcdonal@calpoly.edu>, Mike Boswell <mboswell@calpoly.edu>, Mila Vujovich
<milavu@hotmail.com>, Nathan Smith <nathan.smith@dot.ca.gov>, Orval Osbome <oosborne@fix.net>,
Oxal Slayer<oslayer@rideshare.org>, Pablo Paster<ppaster@calpoly.edu>, Patty Taylor
<taylor805@aol.com>, Philip Novotny<Philiption@aol.com>, ppinard <ppinard@co.slo.ca.us>, Richard
Lee<rwlee@calpoly.edu>, Richard Marshall <rmarshall@co.slo.ca.us>, Richard Murphy
<rmurphy@slocog.org>, Richard Schmidt<rschmidt@calpoly.edu>, Ron deCarli <rdecadi@slocog.org>,
Steve Crandall <cranlaw@aol.com>, Steve Peterson <petersonsg@aol.com>, Steve McMasters
<smcmasters@co.slo.ca.us>,Terry Sanville <TSANVILL@CI.San-Luis-Obispo.CA.US>,.Tim Bochum
<TBochum@CI.San-Luis-Obispo.CA.US>, Jim Lopes <jlopes@co.slo.ca.us>, Glen Matteson
<GMATTESO@CI.San-Luis-Obispo.CA.US>, Matt Burris <mrburris@aol.com>, Pablo Paster
1 Ii 11
p 1
i
iY, �'� � ,.�w ha.•., c�`".�!��'" i � JL- sem` � i ��` y.
M ' r
r
•�._�� � s,� -. _`��\�'., rte. t`—..,�
Awn Al�
..'tea �.,✓ �jd"�,.r.
l
' I • i � i � ' i � i Ii
•
i
Bicycle Transportation Plan Adopted October 27, 1993
Last Amended May 7. 2002
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Allen K Settle
Vice Mayor Jan Howell Marx
John Ewan
Christine Mulholland
Ken Schwartz
BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairperson Mary Lou Johnson
Vice-Chairperson Jean Anderson
Mark Grayson
Bruce Collier
Wes Conner
Chris Overby
(one vacancy)
ADMINISTRATION
Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer
Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Michael McCluskey, Director
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner(Program Manager)
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION::...:.............:...:.:...........:::.::...:...............:.:........:.:.:...:...:.:...:...:.:..1
U. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...........3
III. BICYCLE PATHS,LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS...........................4
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................4
B. Definitions......................................................................................................4
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Paths (Class I) ........................................5
D. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Lanes(Class II) ...... ..............................7
E. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Routes(Class III) ..:...................:............10
F. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Boulevards ........................:.:.........:...,...10 -
G.
0 -G. Policies and Standards for Maintenance of Paths, Lanes and Routes............I I
IV. BICYCLE PARKING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES........................................12
A. Introduction.................:..................:..........::...................:...................:.:.:...:...12
B. Definitions....................................................................................:.................12
C. Policies and Standards...................................................................................13
D. Programs........................................................................................................13
V. BICYCLE PROMOTION AND EDUCATION...................................:.:.:.:.....:...16
A. Introduction.......:...............:.......................:.:.....:..........:........................:........16
B. Promotional Programs ...................................................................................16
C. Educational Programs....................................................................................16
VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................. 16
VII. APPENDECIES
APPENDIX A: SLO Bicycle Commuters
APPENDIX B: Existing and Proposed Land Use Development Patterns
APPENDIX C: Description of Existing Bikeways (January 2002)
APPENDIX D: Description of Proposed Bikeways
APPENDIX E: Existing&Proposed End-of--Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities
APPENDIX F: Existing&Proposed Bike Parking at Transportation.Hubs
APPENDIX G: Existing& Proposed Changing& Storage Facilities
APPENDIX H: Bicycle Safety& Education Programs
APPENDIX I: Citizen&Community Involvement in Plan Development
APPENDIX J: Relationship of This Plan to Other Adopted Plans
APPENDIX K: Setting Priorities& Financial Planning for Bikeways
APPENDIX L: Past Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities(1995 to 2002)
APPENDIX M: City Council Resolution Amending the 1993 Bicycle
Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure #1: Bicycle Transportation Map
Figure#2: Existing Bicycle Facilities (January 2002)
Figure #3: Bicycle Paths and Lanes: New Segments
Figure #4: Class II Bike Lane Standards
Figure #5: Signed Class III Bike Routes
Figure#6: Bicycle Parking Space Standards
Figure#7: Bicycle Parking for Existing Land Uses
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Plan
In 1982, the City adopted a Circulation Element as part of its General Plan. The Circulation
Element includes the following goal:
Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as
walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
(The proposed 1993 update of the Circulation Element also includes this same goal.) This modal
shift is recommended to avoid traffic congestion caused by single-occupant vehicles, avoid the
cost of expensive street widening projects, conserve non-renewable energy resources and reduce
air and noise pollution impacts associated with motor vehicles. Bicycling can help achieve all
of these objectives.
The use of bicycles as an alternative to motor vehicles is, in part, dependent on the provision
of safe routes and secure parking. A primary purpose of this plan is to identify facilities that.
provide for safe and convenient bicycling. To encourage bicycling and to increase bicycle safety
awareness, this plan also identifies promotional and educational programs that the City should
sponsor.
This Bicycle Transportation Plan carries out the goals and objectives broadly stated in the
Circulation Element by recommending projects and programs that will encourage and enhance
bicycling in San Luis Obispo.
History and Public Participation
The City adopted a Bicycle Facilities Plan in 1985. In 1991, the City Council established a
Bicycle Committee to update the 1985 Bicycle Facilities Plan and hired a Bicycle Coordinator
to manage this update and perforin other related bicycle activities.
Between June, 1992 and March, 1993, the Bicycle Committee held 17 meetings to study options
for installing bicycle lanes and paths, setting bicycle parking standards, and establishing
promotional and educational programs. City residents were kept apprised of the Committee's
progress through news articles, television and radio coverage, special events and City mailings.
The Committee received considerable input from the community at its study sessions.
In June, 1993, the Bicycle Committee held five public hearings to review a draft Bicycle
Transportation Plan. The public was notified of these meeting through direct mailings and
advertisements in the Telegram Tribune newspaper. In July, 1993, the C mmittee forwarded
recommendations to the City Council. On October 27, 1993, the Council considered the
Committee's recommendations at a public hearing and adopted this plan.
1
o
Relationship to Other Adopted Plans and Programs
This plan is consistent with the proposed San Luis Obispo's General Plan Circulation Element
(1993). While the Circulation Element establishes broad objectives for improving bicycling, this
plan identifies specific activities for meeting these objectives.
This plan is supported by provisions of the Downtown Concept Plan (1993) which states that
the City should "provide more facilities that encourage and enhance the use of bicycles"
(Downtown Concept Plan, transportation policy "e").
This plan supports the policies and standards of the General Plan Open Space Element (1993)
by including standards for the sensitive development of Class I bicycle paths along creeks, on
hillsides, and across open space areas at the edge of the City.
This plan supports the goals, objectives and programs called for by the Clean Air Plan (1991)
adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Air Pollution Control Board. Since
50% of air pollution in California is caused by motor vehicles, achieving this plan's goals will
help to achieve the Clean Air Plan's goals.
This plan is consistent with and complementary to the bicycle element of the Regional
Transportation Plan (1990). Bicycle paths and lanes in the City have been linked to important
routes that extend throughout the County.
The bicycle facilities in this plan are consistent with the standards presented in the California
Highway Design Manual, fourth edition, published by the California Department of
Transportation.
This plan includes all information needed to comply with provisions of the California Bikeways
Act (Sections 2370 through 2392 of the Streets and Highway Code) which requires agencies to
adopt a General Bikeway Plan (GBP) to be eligible for state funding of bicycle facilities.
Organizations and Individuals Consulted
0 San Luis Obispo County
0 San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
• San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (RTPA)
0 San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare Program
0 California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5
• Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo
• San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
• Downtown Business Improvement Association (BIA)
• Sierra Club
• Local bicycle clubs and interested individuals
2
4
a
II. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVE'S
GOALS
• Increase the percentage of trips taken by bicycle within the City.
• Establish and maintain an integrated system of facilities that provide safe and convenient
travel for bicyclists.
• Promote bicycling as a method of reducing motor vehicle use, thereby preserving clean
air, reducing traffic congestion, and conserving energy.
OBJECTIVES
To achieve the goals stated above the City will:
• Complete a network of Class 11 bicycle lanes and Class III routes within San-Luis Obispo
by 1995 and extend the system to serve new growth areas, connect with County bicycle
routes, and improve linkages to Cal Poly State University.
0 Construct a network of Class I bicycle paths within the City's urban reserve to connect
with paths in surrounding county areas.
• Fund the construction of bicycle facilities, bicycle parking, promotional and educational
programs.
• Sponsor promotional and educational programs in cooperation with other government
agencies, community civic and business groups, school districts, Cuesta College and Cal
Poly State University.
• Work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to acknowledge and promote
bicycle use as part of the APCD's Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901).
• Amend City land use regulations to establish standards for the design and installation of
bicycle facilities.
• Provide technical assistance to property owners and developers and institutions such as
Cal Poly in the design and location of facilities that encourage and accommodate
bicycling.
3
r
y fi'
�w
i
.a. � � 't. .a•w.h
F S
�a �
Y'6'�.��.�[�,yS�
�1t11�..' ?t`_'G3¢`.M-'S''R,w��ar���-'•rvJP
9
Y }
3 . v >a'?_'�'.a�' '�r�SyF� '�"gtv`�.r+C,•'�'�'^t.'f"'Y"•�, X ?,>'' '
4
t$
SECTION III
BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS
III. BICYCLE PATHS, LANES, ROUTES AND BOULEVARDS
A. Introduction
Bicycles use the same transportation corridors as private motor vehicles,buses, and pedestrians.
Consequently, the design of the street system needs to provide for safe passage for all four
modes of transportation. The lack of bicycle paths and lanes is a major deterrent to bicycling
in San Luis Obispo.
A 1990 survey of San Luis Obispo residents indicates that the most significant action that the City can take to
increase bicycling is to provide bicycle lanes and bicycle paths.
Recommendations for new bike lane segments included within this plan were made following
extensive public testimony and review by the Bicycle Committee. At twelve public meetings,
the Committee addressed the issue of removal of on-street parking to accommodate bicycle
lanes. Numerous options were studied. This plan represents a balance between the needs of
cyclists and motorists in allocating roadway space for bicycle lanes.
This section presents policies and standards that describe how the City will provide for and
maintain bicycle paths, lanes and routes.
B. Definitions (Reference Figure # 1)
Bicycle Paths (Class n are reserved for bicycles and separated from roadways.
Bicycle Lanes (Class 11) are located within the roadway and are reserved for bicyclists. Class
II-A bicycle lanes are located on the outside of parking bays. Class lI-B bicycle lanes are
located at the edge of the roadway (adjacent to the curb where present).
Bicycle Routes are generally lightly travelled streets that provide alternative routes for
recreational, and in some cases, commuter cyclists. Where these routes are signed,.they are
considered Class III facilities.
Bicycle Boulevards are streets that.have been closed to through motor vehicle traffic and where
stop controls on side streets give preference to bicycle traffic and other forms of alternative
transportation.
Highway Design Manual, fourth edition (July 1990) is published by the California Department
of Transportation. Chapter 1000 of the Manual presents design standards for bicycle facilities.
Low-Flow Crossings are locations where bicycle paths cross creeks. Part of the creek bed is
paved and connected to paths that ascend and descend the creek banks.
4
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Paths (Class n
1. Bicycle paths should be established at locations shown on Figure #1.: The Bicycle
Transportation Map. With further study, the Public Works Director may modify the
location of these paths to reduce environmental impacts or to better serve the needs of
bicyclists.
2. All bicycle paths should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California
Highway Design Manual and those in this plan.
3. The City should secure adequate rights-of-way in developing and redeveloping areas as
part of any development or annexation activity.
4. Areas adjacent to riparian corridors should be used for bicycle paths where they will not
cause significant environmental impacts.
5. Bicycle paths should provide smooth, hard surfaces at least 8 feet wide. Exceptions to
this standard may be made in hillside area where grading would cause visual impacts
or along creeks where space is limited.
6. The planning of bicycle paths should be coordinated with the implementation of the
Urban Trails Plan called for by the Circulation Element. Where dual facilities are
proposed, the need for separation between cyclists and pedestrians will be evaluated.
7. Bicycle paths should be installed where interruptions by street intersections or driveways
are minimal. A standard of 1,000 feet of uninterrupted length is desirable. However,
each potential location will be evaluated on its merits.
8. All access points to bicycle paths should be clearly signed and marked and have
convenient connections from.public streets..
9. Bicycle paths on agricultural properties should:
• Be fenced and signed to discourage trespassing onto adjoining areas.
• Use existing service roads whenever possible.
• Avoid dividing agricultural areas in ways that significantly impact their operations.
The City will work with property owners to identify locations where bike paths can
best fit in wiih agricultural operations.
10. Bicycle paths along creeks should:
• Be located outside setbacks required to protect creek banks and riparian vegetation.
Access points to the creek should be limited in number and avoid the removal of
significant habitat or impacts on important fishery areas.
5
C-
Oty0
o y z CD
C G) MOOOD)
@
r
CD
CD M (n U) Ca
0
—1 CL
0
cc
o
S HtGU
ES
now
fill
•
LjULJ
d
PA-I
0
rm
m
rm
no
(A R z
m
z —7N
s cq
m m
m
#
� v
0 000
�, ❑D�a o 0 ,O
��o ,0o0a
°Q ❑ ❑❑oo
- O
ro� -16
o -75 rr
PAN
a) V- 0
CDCL
0
0 � � � � o z
C 0 < CD
CO) CL
U) n
C y z O
H N CA
CLCD N
f
i
• Provide a landscape buffer of indigenous vegetation between the top of the creek
bank and the path. The buffer should ensure visual access to the creek while
controlling the location of pedestrian/bicycle access.
• Avoid causing creek bank erosion, siltation of stream beds, or the removal of trees
with trunk diameter of 12 inches or greater.
• Be closed when flood hazards exist.
11. Where bicycle paths cross creeks, lightly-constructed clear span bridges or low-flow
crossings should be installed where they:
• Avoid the removal of significant trees, streamside vegetation, or impact important
fishery areas.
• Minimize grading of creek banks or changes to the creek channel.
12. Bicycle paths around Laguna Lake should:
• Be located beyond any wetland habitat..
• Be constructed at grade, not impede the flow of flood waters, and be closed when
flooded.
• Due to the sensitivity of the area's bird population, be preceded by a census of bird
life in adjoining wetland areas. Bird populations and related available research
efforts should be periodically monitored to determine any residual impacts of the
path's use.
13. The installation of bicycle paths in sensitive resource areas (as defined by the Open Space
Element) should:
• Be preceded by a survey of wildlife resources along the trail alignment.
• Whenever possible, avoid direct or indirect damage to sensitive wildlife resource
area and limit impacts to those associated with constructing the path.
14. Bicycle paths in areas where archaeological resources may be present should:
• Be preceded by a surface survey and records search conducted by a qualified
archaeologist to determine the presence of significant archaeological resources.
• Minimize subsurface disturbances.
• Comply with other mitigation strategies, including relocation of the paths, as
required by Archaeological Survey Guidelines adopted by the City of San Luis
Obispo.
6
C �
15. The Railroad Bicycle Path should extend north of Highway 101 to the Taft Street
intersection and be terminated. The Taft Street intersection should include stop controls
to allow bicyclists safe access to on-street lanes from the Railroad Bike Path. When a
bicycle crossing system is designed for Foothill Boulevard (eg. underpass or special
signal system at California and Foothill), the Railroad Bicycle Path may be extended
north of Taft Street to connect with the Cal Poly Campus and beyond..
D. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Lanes (Class W
'The planning for future bicycle facilities should place a priority on linking major activity centers and on
the completion of an intra-city bicycle network with regional and county bicycle network connections. In
particular, bike routes within downtown and routes connecting downtown and Cal Poly need to be
considered." Source: Phase I Circulation Study, DKS Associates, December 1988.
'Even at the possible sacrifice of on-street parking on one or both sides of some street segments (e.g.
Monterey), the connections to downtown, Cal Poly and along busy arterials should be improved. Once
one discovers how fast and convenient bike trips are in San Luis Obispo, it is probable that many more
commute trips will occur without such dependence on private automobiles. Even a one-or two-day-a-week
shift for diversity and exercise would have a major impact on downtown traffic and parking `problems'.
It is so economical for individual local trips in comparison to a car that the importance of improved route
safety (or perceived hazards) is one of the few logical explanations why bike use is not already higher."
Source: Transportation Management Agency Feasibility Study, January, 1992.
1. Bicycle lanes should be established along streets shown on Figure #1: The Bicycle
Transportation Map. The Public Works Director may approve alternative designs where
they will.improve bicycle safety and convenience.
2. In the long term, all City arterial streets should safely accommodate bicyclists through
the installation of bicycle lanes.
3. All bicycle lanes should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California
Highway Design Manual and those in this plan.
4. Bicycle lanes should be installed at the times specified by Policy 3.7 of the General Plan
Circulation Element.
5. The flow of traffic, impacts on surrounding land use, and changes to the level of service
on surrounding streets are factors that should be considered when establishing Bicycle
lanes.
6. Efforts should be made to reduce or eliminate the visual impact of "bike lane - no
parking" signs.
7. The City should coordinate with the County, Caltrans, and Cal Poly University to
provide a connected network of consistently demarcated bicycle lanes.
8. The standards shown in Figure #3 should direct the installation of bicycle lane
improvements shown on Figure #2.
7
9. Bicycle lanes on the outside of parking should be striped on both sides. The line closest
to parked vehicles should provide a reference for motorists to park efficiently next to the
curb.
FIGURE #3
BICYCLE LANE AND INTERSECTION E PROVEM ENTS
Strew From To Description
Foothill** at Santa Rosa Install tight turn pockets,through bicycle slots,and
facilities that:enable safe pedestrian crossing of
Route:.l.
Highland(WB)** at Santa Rosa Install through blcycle slot.
Higuera (NB)+* at South Widen tuin-pocicec and, through bicycle slot.
Santa Rose(NB)**.at Highlatu! Install thrgno btcycle s1oL.
Santa Rosa(SB). Palm .Monterey ;Eliminate asphalthwerete:seam in`bike lane.
South(EB) at:Broad Install through bicycle'dot.
S.:Higuem at.Los 0sos Valley Road Install through bicycle slot:. ..;
:S: Hies: at Margarita liminate<atiplta[ticoncrete seam m b&e lane.
S. Higuera . ' Granada Frontage Road Romove sidewalk, nstall'Chrss II iitke lane/gutter,
and build new atdeivalk in.back of trees.
%GMEN.TS'TO BE CONSIDERED'FOR'FURTHER STUDY
StreetFrom To: Dption
Broad Marsh High Evaluate b&eway options
Bullock Orcutt city l'tniits Evaluate for Bike lane installation
California Marsh San Luis Evaluate . :for° bridge widening/]ane
installation
Chorro Foothill Lincoln Shown as Bicycle Route: evaluate other bikeway
options.
Foothill at California Evaluate . intersection design for
improvement
Higuera** South Madonna Evaluate intersection design for
improvement
Los Osos Valley Auto Park Calle Joaquin
Monterey Hwy 101 Santa Rosa Evaluate for bike lane installation
Osos Leff Marsh Evaluate bikeway options
Pacific Higuera Santa Rosa BIA, Chamber of Commerce and Sierra Club to
evaluate Bicycle:Boulevard options with City staff
support.
Consider bicycle trails in open space areas at the periphery of the City and coordinate their development with
City and County open space and recreation planning efforts.
** At these locations, coordination with Caltrans will be required to develop specific design solutions.
8
Figure # 4: Class 11 Bicycle Lane Standards (a)
Type of Lane Mnimmn ADT 95% Vehicle Speeds Grades (c) Bicycle Speed
Width (b)
Class II-A 4 feet <10,000 <35 mph <4% <20 mph
5 feet Z10,000 >35 mph >4% <20 mph
6 feet >10,000 2!35 mph >4% >2.0 mph
°Class 11-B 5'feet(d) <10,000 <35 mph <4% <TA mph
6 feat >i0,o00 >35 mph >4% >20 mph
Notes:
(a) Tlie width of a Tricycle lane is measured from-the<outside of the parking bay stripe to the'can ter-of the
bilce'1ane.stripe for Class BA lanes,and from the faceof cu6:to'the center of the bice latte striping.
for Class II11 lanes.
The reginred width of a bicycle path is contingent upon all ofthe criteria(ADT;vehicle ,
and Tiicycte speeds)being met...Where one'of the criterion is ex the wider btcyole lanes sbopld.
benstalled.
(c) Gm&is calculated on slopes.1hat are 500^feet 6r7onger
(d). Where:space is.iraited,a 4 foot=Class II=B'<bicycle'lanes is allowed where the roadway paving extends
to the face of the curb and provides a sear less muface fbt vyclists or where a widegutter(4 foot wide
or more}is constructed.
10. At intersections:
• With right-hand turn pockets for vehicles, through-moving lanes for bicycles
should be provided to the left of the turn pocket. (See Figure 1003.2C in the
Highway Design Manual.)
• Where right-hand turn lanes are not present, all bicycle lane delineations should
be dashed prior to the intersection to remind through-moving bicyclists to merge
with through-moving traffic.
11. Consistent with Section 1004 of the Highway Design Manual, signs and pavement
markings should be installed as follows:
• Signs and bike lane pavement markings should be installed at the beginning of
each block.
• Where blocks are longer than 500 feet, an additional sign and pavement marking
should be placed at mid-bock.
9
1 �
• Whenever possible, bike lane signs should be installed on existing sign poles,
traffic signal poles, street light standards or other utility poles.
• Along newly-established Class II-B bike lanes, the Public Works Director may
require additional signage or pavement markings to help enforce the prohibition
of parking. Extra signs should be removed after the bicycle lane is operational
for a 12-month period.
• Painting the curb red or placing a single sign at the mid-point may be utilized
where segments of Class H-B bicycle lanes are less than 250 feet.
• Signs should be provided along designated bike lanes and routes that direct
bicyclists to major destinations such as Cal Poly and the downtown.
E. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Routes
1. Figure #1; The Bicycle Transportation Map identifies all bicycle routes within San Luis
Obispo. Figure #5 identifies those bicycle routes designated as Class III facilities.
2, All bicycle routes should meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California
Highway Design Manual and those in this plan.
3. Traffic levels and 85% vehicle speeds along streets designated as Class III bicycle routes
should not exceed 10,000 ADT and 35 mph respectively. If these standards are
exceeded, designated facilities should be considered for-upgrading to Class II bike lanes
or Bicycle Boulevards after further study of alternatives.
4. The City should require Class III facilities in developing and redeveloping areas where
they link major activity centers and serve the needs of commuting bicyclists.
5. Convenient and safe shortcuts for bicyclists should be identified as bicycle routes
wherever possible.
6. The standards for bicycle routes will be as prescribed in the Highway Design Manual.
F. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Boulevards
1. The flow of traffic, impacts on surrounding land use, and changes to the level of service
on surrounding streets are factors that should be considered when establishing Bicycle
Boulevards.
2. The design of bicycle boulevards will be undertaken on a case-by-case basis.
10
G. Policies and Standards for Path, Lane and Route Maintenance
1. Bikeways demarcation (striping and stenciling) should be remarked on a regular basis.
2. Rubberized crossing systems should be installed at railroad grade crossings.
Figure #5c Class III Bicycle Routes
Street From To Comments
Broad Foothill Murray Signage to encourage use of Bicycle.Boulevard.
Peach Chorro Nipomo Signage on Chorro for downtown bypass route:: .
Nipoa►o. Peach High
Brimolara Culvert Nipomo Sign when under freeway culvert constructed-...
Margarita South Higuera City.Limits Sign when paths on South Street Hill<installed_
Bridge/Beebe South Higuera South Street
San Luis`: California Highway:101 ' :Sign when underYreeway culvert conswcted.
MiU '; California `Chorro
JeaniferlElla . Iohnson Railroad Sign when Bridge over.railroad constructed
Dana Nipomo End Sign when creek path established
South Higuera WeWadSrgnwhea creek.path established
3. Loop detectors at signalized intersections should be sensitive enough to detect bicycles.
City staff should routinely inspect detectors in San Luis Obispo for proper bicycle
actuation. As an alternative to loop detectors, signal actuation buttons convenient for
bicyclist use may be installed.
4. Potential hazards and needed improvements, such as the following, should be corrected
as identified:
• Sweeping and litter removal.
• Improvements to grates, manholes, longitudinal and transverse cracks or joints,
or other obstacles in the portion of the roadway typically used by bicycles.
• Vegetation removal.
• Sight distance improvements at intersections/spot removal of on-street parking or
fixed obstacles.
5. Standards for maintaining bicycle paths, lanes and routes will be consistent with the
Highway Design Manual and otherwise will be left to the discretion of the Public Works
Director.
6. When streets are repaved or their surface materials changed, Class II bike lanes will be
defined by striping, pavement markings and signage(consistent with the Highway Design
Manual and this plan). Surface materials with contrasting color and/or texture may be
considered.
11
.v�r..a�♦". d kS RNI' � ^�..� AL�:• a°t, � n.CwR
a
IY.R •. I,�/�pYM1�.� i n
y
L h •f t� f ��{ i
A YA
I\J) r
r `
4 �Y,
f
d.
pt 6i
i�
710
,1I PARKING
1 ' 1
SUPPORT
, 1 I
r _
IV. BICYCLE PARIING AND SUPPORT FACILTTIES
A. Introduction
"Bikeways will be most successful in reducing travel in communities with complimentary policies such as
bike parking, shower and lockers at job sites..." Source: Energy Planning Guide, California Energy
Commission,January, 1993.
Convenient and secure parking encourages people to ride bicycles. This plan presents design
standards and requirements for the installation of bicycle parking for multi-family housing and
commercial land uses in San Luis Obispo. Requirements vary depending on whether the
destination is for shopping, working, living, or visiting.
Showers installed at work sites will serve as an added incentive for those with a one way
commute distance of over 5 miles. Consistent with policies of the Circulation Element, this plan
recommends standards for installing showers at employment sites.
The following policies and standards were developed in cooperation with the County Air
Pollution Control District and are supportive of the District's Commute Alternatives Rule(Rule
901).
B. Definitions
Short-Term Bicycle Parking is used by visitors to multi-family housing and by patrons of
commercial and institutional uses. Bicycle racks are used to satisfy this need.
Long-Term Bicycle Parking.is used by employees of commercial and institutional uses and by
residents. Fully enclosed lockers are used to satisfy this need. Lockable looms reserved for
bicycle storage and secured parking areas managed by attendants are other acceptable forms.
Showers are bathing stalls accompanied by clothing lockers and changing areas reserved for each
gender at the work site.
Multi-Tenant Work Sites are .known by a common.name, are governed by common set of
covenants; conditions and restrictions (CC&R's), were approved as an entity by the City, are
covered by a single tentative or final subdivision map, or are located on a single, or adjacent
assessor's parcels.
12
C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle parking and Showers
1. Short- and long-term bicycle parking should be provided whenever a new structure is
erected or enlarged or whenever a new use is established requiring more spaces
according to the schedule shown on Figure #6. For existing commercial and institutional
uses, including multi-tenant work sites, bicycle parking should be installed as shown in
Figure#7.
2. Bicycle racks should:
• Stand a minimum of 30 inches from ground level and support bikes in a stable
position by providing at least two vertical contact points for the bicycle's frame.
They should be coated with, FubbeFized plastip, uvr• , a sim-41—ar. Enatew.,l
avoid damage to bieyele#ames or constructed.of a durable material that prevents
rust or corrosion.
• Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame) to be
locked to the rack using common locking devices such as a standard-sized 'TT
lock.
• Be installed with mounting brackets on a concrete er- asphal surface with access
provided by aisles at least five feet wide.
• Be leeated installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main
entrance of the destination as possible, at least as convenient as the most
convenient automobile parking space available to the general public.
• Be visible from the interior of the destination.
• Be placed where vehicles will not damage them.
• Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured.
•
• Be illuminated at night to the extent that the destination supports nighttime
activity.
• Be sheltered, when shelter can be attractively integrated with the project's
architecture..
3. Area employers .should provide showers for commuter bicyclists consistent with
provisions of the Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901 adopted by the County Air
pollution Control Board.
D. PROGRAMS
1. City zoning regulations will be amended or other ordinances adopted to incorporate
provisions that implement the parking and shower standards prescribed by this plan.
2. The downtown parking in-lieu fee program will be amended to address bicycle parking
standards prescribed by this plan.
3. The Architectural Review Guidelines will be amended to reference this plan's design
guidelines.
13
4. The City will pursue Federal and State grant programs that can provide funding for
bicycle parking.
5. The Public Works Department will periodically review the need for additional downtown
bicycle parking facilities, seeking input from the BIA and affected businesses.
6. The Public Works Department will maintain a library of vendor information on bicycle
racks and lockers and will assist developers with the selection and location of bicycle
parking facilities.
FIGURE A: BICYCLE PARSING:SPACE"UIREME
Land Use Jt bike:spam as 11Sijjjh n t Minn un %
Category a % of regtured Short Term Long term
auto spaces(a) Bicycle.Spaces Bicyde Spaces
Medium ;-Medium 5% 100%, (b)
Miigh;&High
Density
Residential'
Central.Retail(c)
General Retail 1595. 5096, .. ;... . .40% d.
Neighborhood Retail
Offices:. 15% 1095 -:80%
Tourist Commercial ..5% 1096 8096
Services& :15% 1.0% SG%
Manufacturing
Schools(Junior High 1 space per 3 students
to College)
Park-and-Ride lots 10% — 100%
Notes:
(a) Requirements apply to uses that:require 10 or more vehicle parking spaces.
(b) In addition to short-term parking, bicycle lockers or interior space within each dwelling or accessory
structure(eg. garages)should be reserved for the storage of at least two bicycles.
(c) In the downtown (CC Zone), businesses pay the City an.in-lieu fee for the installation of short range
bicycle parking. Where on-site space is not available,businesses pay an in-lieu fee for long-term bicycle
parking to be installed in public areas such as surface parking lots, parking garages, or areas within
street rights-of-way.
14
Figure F7: BICYCLE PARKING FOR
EXISTING CONOMCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES
Number of Employees Parldog By:
100 or more 1995
50 to 99 1997
20 to 49 1,999
15
i
.. i
.,
y
• i Y -
(Tio PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATe PROGRAMS
V. PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
A. Introduction
Promotional and educational activities are an important part of San Luis Obispo's bicycle
program.. Promotional activities can demonstrate the fun, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and
environmental and health benefits of bicycling. Educational programs can foster cycling safety
and compliance with the vehicle code. These programs can be a shared responsibility with
various government agencies, local school districts and colleges, and with civic, neighborhood
and business organizations.
The following programs should be sponsored by the City. Potential participants and/or co-
sponsors of these programs are identified in Appendix B.
B. Promotional Programs
The City should:
1. Produce and distribute maps, brochures, flyers and other literature that promotes
bicycling and informs people on bicycling opportunities within the City and County.
Material should enable citizens to provide input on needed bicycle-related improvements.
2. Work closely with:
• The media and advertising consultants to produce Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) and promotional spots on radio, television, and in local newspapers.
• The County Air Pollution Control District to establish bicycle programs that
support the District's Commute Alternatives Rule.
• The County Rideshare Office to develop a "bike-buddy" database that encourages
novice cyclists to ride along with experienced riders.
• The County Sheriffs Department to expand programs for refurbishing donated
or unclaimed bicycles for use by low- or moderate income people.
• Businesses and neighborhood associations, bicycle clubs, and civic groups in
sponsoring recurring promotional activities.
3. Better integrate bicycling with transit by:
• Evaluating the effectiveness of the present method of loading bicycles inside City
buses and making changes if necessary.
16
• Working with Amtrak to encourage bicyclists to take the train for both commuting
and recreation.
4. Encourage the licensing and identification of bicycles by:
• Working with local bike shops to administer a licensing program for new bicycle
purchases and for repairs.
• Working with the City Police Department to offer free bicycle identification
programs at schools and promotional events.
3. Promote bicycle tourism by:
• Working with the Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau to develop
literature, videos and other materials for distribution.
• Supporting the establishment of an American Youth Hostel if it can be shown to
enhance bicycle tourism.
6. Encourage its employees to bicycle by:
• Integrating bicycling to work efforts with Wellness program incentives.
• Providing bicycles for inspectors, police patrols and other field workers.
• Allowing employees who bicycle to work to "cash out" their parking permit, or
• Providing bicycles to employees who agree to bicycle commute to work.
• Annually recognizing employees who commute by bicycle.
7. Adopt a bike-friendly City theme and establish the goal of becoming one of"Bicycling"
magazine's top-ten cycling cities in the U.S.
8. Expand existing reporting procedures that enable citizens to easily report potential road
hazards and needed improvements to the Public Works Department.
C. Educational Programs
The City should:
1. Work closely with:
• The San Luis Coastal Unified School District and PTAs to: (1) develop a "safe
route to school" program; (2) distribute information, answer questions and
develop long-term bicycle safety programs; and (3) modify driver training
programs to address cycling and motorist responsibilities.
17
• Cuesta College and Cal Poly University to establish: (1) on-going bicycle
education activities, targeted at incoming students; and (2) a volunteer internship
program to aid in the implementation of this plan and provide research support.
• Local bike shops to disseminate educational information when a bicycle is
purchased or repaired.
• The Court system to require safety seminars for bicyclists cited for violating the
vehicle code and for motorists cited for infractions or accidents involving
bicyclists.
2. Survey successful bicycle programs in other communities for ideas and information on
ways to improve conditions in San Luis Obispo.
3. Sponsor events which offer bicycle safety education information.
4. Subscribe to publications from national bicycle groups to keep abreast of developments
in bicycle planning, education and promotion on a regional, state and national level.
5. Emphasize increased vehicle code enforcement of bicycling in the following areas:
• Riding without lights at night.
• Riding on downtown sidewalks.
• Riding against traffic.
• Failing to stop at traffic signals.
6. Increase theft prevention efforts that emphasize the recording of serial and other bicycle
identification numbers and the utilization of secure locks.
18
t
yr. i ,111.. ��Z �' ♦ ����'-�� f �.rY�/��' ; -
L 1■/` tie` ";.
VI. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
A. Program Priorities
The following priorities describe the emphasis that will be placed on implementing the various
parts of this plan. However, work_ may proceed in more then one priority area as opportunities
present themselves.
1. Fust Priority: install facilities that promote bicycle commuting. These facilities include
Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle route improvements, bicycle boulevards, the
Railroad Bicycle Path and short- and long-term bicycle parking.
2. Second Priority: sponsor promotional and educational activities that encourage safe
bicycle riding.
3. Third Priority: install Class I bicycle paths that serve both commuter and recreational
cyclists. These facilities include the Laguna Lake Bike Path and the West Freeway
Bicycle Path.
4. Fourth.Priority:install Class I facilities that serve a recreational purpose. These include
paths along creeks and on South Street Hill.
B. Program Funding
The following principles will guide the funding of bicycle facilities in San Luis Obispo:
1. New development will be responsible for installing short- and long-term bicycle parking
and bike lanes and paths along segments of the system that are impacted by the project.
2. The City will aggressively apply for State and Federal grants that support operating and
capital bicycle activities.
3. The City will earmark a portion of Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds
(or State Highway Account (SHA) funds) for bicycle lanes and paths.
4. Once installed, Class 11 bicycle lanes will be maintained as part of the City's ongoing
pavement management program.
5. As part of the City's financial planning cycle, the Public Works Department will identify
Class I bike path projects for City Council consideration. The Department will evaluate
all strategies for implementing targeted proposals including grant funding sources,
public/private partnerships, and the creation of a non-profit foundations to solicit private
sector participation.
6. The City will reserve a minimum of 2% of it's Transportation Development Act (TDA)
funds for bicycle promotional and educational purposes.
19
C. Plan Amendments
1. Any person may file an application for amendment to the Bicycle Transportation Plan
with the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department. Applications will be acted on semi-
annually by the City Council.
20
k
f " I
-� r i `�'� + � Lit•.. � ''�....r
`+�1s+e Ilam' �a" d •��1 " .��
a 4Y�
3 / i
APPENDIX A: SLO Bicycle Commuters& Impact of Bike Plan Implementation
To prepare an estimate of the number of bicycle commuters' within San Luis Obispo's urban
reserve, information was taken from:
Q The 2000 Federal Decennial Census; and
Q The 2001 Transportation Survey—a random sample of the transportation behaviors of 3,500
households in San Luis Obispo.
The transportation survey provided an estimate of the number of adults that ride bicycles at least
once a week and the percentage of their trips that were commute trips. The survey's estimate(a
percentage of all respondents)was then applied to the number of adult City residents,as reported by
the 2000 Federal Census. The result is anestimate of adult bicycle commuters within the City
limits in 2001.
California Polytechnic State University adjoins the City Limits and has an on-campus resident
population of 2,800 students. The transportation survey provides an estimate of the percentage of
Cal Poly students that are bicycle commuters. This percentage was applied to the total on-campus
student population to estimate the number of university student bicycle commuters. Adding the
results described above provides an estimate of the 2001 adult bicycle commuters within the City's
urban reserve—San Luis Obispo's planning area(see item"i"below).
The 2001 transportation survey also provides an estimate of the number of"non-bike riders"that
would ride a bike for commute purposes if certain inducements(e.g. additional bikeways and
parking)were provided. These types of inducements are central components of this Bicycle
Transportation Plan. Therefore,from the survey,we can estimate how many additional adults
bicycle commuters might result from full implementation of the bicycle plan. Adding this number
to the number of existing bicycle commuters provides an estimate of total potential bicycle
commuters in San Luis Obispo using base year population(see item"p"below).
Item Result Information Source
a. Percentage of adult riders in SLO 27.2% 2001 Transportation Survey
b. Total number of adults in SLO 38,011 2000 Federal Census
c. Adult bike riders in SLO a x b 10,339 —
d. Percentage,of bike riders that commute 63.0% 2001 Transportation Surve
e. Adult commute bicyclists in SLO c x d 6,514 --
£ University students living on Cal Poly Campus 2,800 Cal Poly University
Percentage of on-campus students that bicycle commute 23% 2001 Transportation Survey
h. Cal Poly resident bike commuters(f x ) 644 —
i. Existing adult bike commuters in SLO's urban reserve a+h 7,158 PJ. ercentage of adults that do not ride bikes 72.8% 2001 Transportation Survey
k. Non-bike riding adults in SLO b x' 27,772 —
1. Percentage of non-riders res and to My inducements 91.7% 2001 Transportation Survey
in. %of non-riders that respond to bike plan inducements 54.4% 2001 Transportation Survey
n. Number of potential riders(k x I x m 13,854 --
o. Percentage of potential-riders that are commuters(d x n) 8,728 -
p. Total potential commute bike commuters,2001 population i+0 15,886 —
Estimated San Luis Obispo Urban Area Population 2001 48,000
A"bicycle commuter"means a person making a trip by bicycle primarily for transportation purposes, including,
but not limited to,travel to work,school,shopping,or other destination that is a center of activity,and does not
include a trip by bicycle primarily for physical exercise or recreation without such a destination(reference Section
890.2 of the California Streets and Highway Code).
A-1
CI
APPENDIX B: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Settlement Patterns
History and Existing Development Pattern
The community of San Luis Obispo began in 1772 with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo
de Tolosa. During its fust century, a retail and financial district and government center formed
around the Old Mission. Today this area employs more that 6,000 people. Following a
traditional expansion pattern, offices and residential neighborhoods now surround the
"Downtown Core,"extend outward and are served by arterial streets, some of which are also
State highways. With this outward expansion over the second century came new shopping and
employment centers located near the town's periphery.
At the close of the 19'hCentury,the Southern Pacific Railroad (now the Union Pacific Railroad)
pushed through the eastern side of San Luis Obispo, forming a circulation barrier for community
residents but providing a vital link to interstate destinations. In 1901,the California Polytechnic
School was founded at the north edge of the City, adjoining the railroad. Today Cal Poly State
University employs more than 2,600 faculty and staff that support 17,000 students. In the mid
1950s, Highway 101, a four-lane freeway, was constructed along the town's western edge,
dividing some older neighborhoods and again limiting cross-town access.
Today, San Luis Obispo occupies about ten square miles, has a total daytime workforce of
34,000, and a resident population of 45,000 living in 19,000 dwellings. Residential
neighborhoods have developed following a more-or-less traditional pattern and often include,
schools, churches, retail shopping centers, and neighborhood and community parks. San Luis
Obispo is the County seat and includes offices for City, County, State and Federal agencies
located in the Downtown Core, on South Higuera Street near Prado Road, and at several other
scattered locations. Major employment centers include Cal Poly,the Downtown Core,and light
industrial and office development along Broad and South Higuera.Streets.
Proposed Settlement Pattern
To the north and east, outward growth of San Luis Obispo is limited by topography (e.g. the
Santa Lucia Foothills and Bishop Peak) and by State-owned land (Cal.Poly University). To the
west,productive agricultural lands and a flood plain surrounding Laguna Lake border Los Osos
Valley Road and Foothill Boulevard. These areas are part of a"green belt"proposed for
preservation as open space.
Most urban growth is slated for areas along the southem edge of the City. The extent of future
growth is shown on the accompanying map and includes two new residential neighborhoods (the
Margarita and Orcutt Areas), significant expansions of retail commercial uses along Madonna
Road and Los Osos Valley Road, and substantial industrial development north of the County
Airport in the Airport Area. Specific Plans have been prepared for these "expansion areas"that
incorporate a network of Class I and II bikeways connected to the existing system.
Full development of land, as envisioned by San Luis Obispo's General Plan,will result in the
City occupying about 12 square miles, with a total daytime workforce of 45,700' people, and a
resident population of 58,000 people living in 24,000 dwellings.
' Estimate assumes that the proportional relationship between San Luis Obispo's labor force and resident population
does not change in the future with full development within the General Plan urban reserve.
B-1
�I
4■■��1� exp, ,��
t
Otf's:
I 1111
LC
ru
Pr- 10
•�
i
• • - • u " 111
• • - • • 1 • ' • • • • 1 • • • '•
06
�� • •• • • •- OC1111M
_ _ O
VA • • O • •• . 1• ••
so 0 • • • • - - _
APPENDIX C: Description of Existing Bikeways (January 2002)
Class I Bike Paths Separated From Streets. In 1995 the City began to construct a bike path
along the 4.5-mile stretch of the Union Pacific Railroad that bisects San Luis Obispo. Class I
bike paths have been constructed along 1.5 miles of this corridor—about 1/3 of its total length.
Part of this system includes paths at the south end of town that parallel the east side of the
railroad and were constructed as part of housing subdivisions. In this area, an under-track
crossing that links neighborhoods separated by the railroad is being designed, using a refurbished
arched stone culvert originally installed by the Southern Pacific Railroad.
Along with the development of this "Railroad Bicycle Path,"the City erected a 51-meter-long
pedestrian and bicycle bridge over the railroad at Jennifer Street, linking eastern neighborhoods
to San Luis Obispo's Downtown Core.
Class II Bike Lanes Along Streets. The accompanying map shows the location of existing
Class I and II Bike Lanes in San Luis Obispo. There are over 25 miles of bike lanes located
along major streets. It is the City's long-term goal to establish and maintain Class II bike lanes
along all "Arterial" streets and highways (except U.S. 101)since these corridors provide the
most direct access to important destinations and are frequently used by commuting bicyclists.
San Luis Obispo's bike lanes are designed to comply with standards presented in Chapter 1000
of the Highway Design Manual published by Caltrans. However, the City's standards are
somewhat more generous, requiring new bike lanes along heavily trafficked streets to be 1.8
meters (six feet). Since the vast majority of existing City streets were not originally designed to
accommodate bikeways and land within the community is almost fully developed, achieving a
full 1.8-meter width may not always be possible.
San Luis Obispo's bike lanes are located at the edge of the roadway adjoining raised concrete
curbs or along the outside of parking bays where parallel vehicle parking is provided. In this
latter situation, the City stripes both sides of the bike lane to provide greater guidance to
motorists for efficiently parking their vehicles outside the bike lane.
Some arterial streets within the City's Urban Reserve are under the jurisdiction of San Luis
Obispo County or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Portions of Orcutt
and Tank Farm Roads are examples of County roads,while portions of Broad and Santa Rosa
Streets(Route 227 and Route 1 respectively) are State highways under Caltrans control. The
County has installed bike lanes or paved shoulders along their streets so that reasonable
connectivity with the City's bikeway network can be maintained. However, some of the bike
lanes are of minimal width(1.2 m)and may warrant improvement given the number and speed
of passing motorists. Caltrans has included bike lanes or paved shoulders along State Routes I
and 227.
Class III Bike Routes. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies a number of streets in
residential and commercial districts that that are used by cyclists to connect to the Class II bike
lane network. These streets have been identified by the Plan as "Bike Routes." The City's
policy is to install bike route signs along streets that provide important links to the Class II bike
lane network.
C-1
i
r�o
,
' 1
�dy
�O
U 1S \
N 1\
mn
1.. UUIJ O
�. 000
Fin
4-`
r i
Y ,
\
T
O
CD
Z a) o o o o m
y
N `C N N y
C n N N N cn N
N CD —
CO
__ 7�
Of j
C
CD CD —+
cc
con
z
N C7
APPENDIX D: Description of Proposed Bikeways
The tables on the following pages and Figures #1 and#2 identify bikeways proposed by this
plan. Proposed new bikeways include 25 kilometers of Class I facilities separated from streets
and 9:5 kilometers of Class II bike lanes along segments of existing and proposed-streets within
the City's urban reserve.
Where bikeways are included within"Specific Planning Areas" or where the City Council has
adopted"Route Plans" for a particular bikeway,these adopted ancillary plans shall guide the
bikeway's more precise placement while this plan presents its location in conceptual form.
Class I Bikeways include paths along the Union Pacific Railroad and parallel to major creek
corridors within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve. Paths along these corridors have been divided
into segments or"phases" that can be individually implemented over time and collectively create
continuous uninterrupted access for bicyclists and pedestrians. The following tables provide a
synopsis of the detailed listings on the following pages. The cost of these facilities is substantial,
because of the number of structures (bridges and under crossings) that are required to overcome
obstacles. These projects also include connections to the local Class II bikeway network.
Figure # : Pr_oposed New Major Class I Bikeways
Corridor Location Length Win) Total S Cost
Railroad Bicycle Path Cal Poito South City limits 9.0 22,026,000
Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail Marsh St.to Octagonal Barn 5.4 7,584,000
Prefumo Creek Bikeway Madonna Road to Calle Joaquin 1.8 2,491,000
Acacia Creek Open Space Trail Broad St.to Buckley Road 3.5 2,753,000
Tank Farm Creek Trail Prado Road to Buckley Road 2.2 1,750,000
Buckley Road Bikeway Broad St.to South Hi uera St. 5.0 3,004,000
GRAND TOTALS 24.7 klm 39,608,000
Additional Class I facilities are proposed within the Margarita expansion area, shown on Figure
#4. Specific Plans have been or are being prepared for these new residential neighborhoods that
will establish the paths' precise alignments. Therefore this plan only shows a conceptual
representation of Class I connections. Within the Margarita and Orcutt Areas, Class I and II
bikeways will be installed as a condition of new residential subdivisions. If the City chooses to
accelerate their implementation, additional City costs will be incurred.
Class II and Miscellaneous Projects are those that provide additional connectivity within the
community. Some of these projects will be within proposed expansion areas and include new
linkages through: the Orcutt Area between Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads; the Margarita Area
between South Higuera Street and Broad Street; along Buckley Road between Vachell Lane and
Broad Street, and through the Dalidio Property between Madonna Road and U.S. 101.
Numerous other small projects are necessary to overcome barriers created by major highways
and arterial streets, creeks,the Union Pacific Railroad, and in some cases topography. Each
project can be implemented individually and have a positive effect on bicycle and pedestrian
circulation. More than a few of these miscellaneous projects utilize a non-standard design. The
following table summarizes these types of projects taken from the attached listings.
D-1
Figure # : Proposed Miscellaneous Bikeways
Ty pe of Project Number of Projects Estimated Total_$Cost
Creek crossings(bridges or underpass) 4 543,000
New Class II connections 5 300,000
Small segments.,of Class I facilities 6 3,730,000
Bicycle slots at intersections 6 _ _ 901,000
Miscellaneous street widening 2 1,320,000
Storm drain safity improvements _ . ._ _ 1 25,000
GRAND TOTALS ___ _ 24 6,819,000
Bicycle Boulevards. The City is developing Morro Street south of the downtown as a "Bicycle
Boulevard." This plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a street "...that has been closed to through
motor vehicle traffic and where stop controls on side streets give preference to bicycle traffic...
The Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard will extend from Marsh Street to Santa Barbara Street and
include the closure of the street at its south end and installation of a traffic signal at the Morro-
Upham-Santa Barbara intersection.
D-2
I
APPENDIX E. Existing and Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities
Evolution of Current Standards
Until 1993, San Luis Obispo did not have bicycle parking standards. With the adoption of the
Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993), bicycle parking became a"condition of approval"
for new development, except for very small-scale projects. This bike plan's standards stipulate
that both short- and long-term bicycle parking be provided and specify the amount of bicycle
parking to be provided—keyed to the number of required motor vehicle spaces required for a
particular land use. This bike plan also includes location and design standards for bike racks. As
part of the 2002 update, the design and location standards were refined to include new provisions
that address night lighting, shelter, and level of support for bicycles that don't have kickstands,
among other refinements.
In November 1994, San Luis Obispo adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The
Circulation Element contains broad policies and programs that address bicycling in San Luis
Obispo, including the provision of parking by new development. Relevant Circulation Element
provisions include:
Q New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage,parking facilities and
showers, consistent with City plans and standards(reference Policy 3.4, page 14).
The City will modify its zoning regulations to establish standards for the installation of
lockers, secured bicycle parking, and showers (reference Program 3.12, page 15).
Finally, in 1999 the City amended its zoning regulations to include Table 6.5. This table is
identical to the one shown as Figure#6 on page 14 of this plan. The zoning regulations also
stipulate that development projects that provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than
required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle
spaces,up to a 10%reduction. All bicycle parking that exceeds the required number of spaces
shall be apportioned between short-term and long-tern bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6:5.
In sum, guidance for bicycle parking is currently provided in the following ways:
Feature Source
Broad Policy Direction General Plan Circulation Element 1994),pages 14& 15
Number and Type of Bike Parking Spaces Zoning,Reations,Table 6.5 of Section 17.16.060
Location and General Design of Bike Bicycle Transportation Plan,page 13,paragraph C.2 of this
Racks document
Installing Bicycle Racks @ Existing Bicycle Transportation Plan,page 15 of this document.
Commercial&Institutional Uses
Additional Guidance for Bike Rack Installations
The following additional provisions support those shown on page 13 of this plan and should
assist those designing bicycle parking in deciding where racks should be located.
e Visibility. Cyclists should easily.spot short-term parking when they arrive from the
street. A highly visible location discourages theft and vandalism. Avoid locations"off on
the side," "around the corner,"or in unsupervised parking structures or garages.
E-1
Avoid conflict with pedestrians. Locate racks so that parked bicycles don't block a
pedestrian path. Select a bike rack that is of sufficient height to be visible, with no
protruding bars that could trip or injure cyclists or pedestrians.
Q Avoid conflict with motor vehicles: Separate bicycle parking and auto parking and road
areas with space and a physical barrier. This prevents motor vehicles from damaging
parked bicycles and keeps some thieves at a distance. (Many professional bike thieves
use vans or similar vehicles to hide their activities and make a get-away with their booty
easier. The closer bicycle parking is to automobile parking_, alleys,roads, etc.,the better
the opportunity for a.bike thief.
Q Access. The parking area should be convenient to building entrances and street access,
but away from normal pedestrian and auto traffic (see below). Avoid locations that
require bicycles to travel over stairs. Access for those on tricycles should be near a ramp
used by people in wheelchairs.
Q Security. Surveillance is essential to reduce theft and vandalism. For security, locate
parking within view of passers=by, retail activity, or office windows.
o Lighting. Bicycle parking areas should be well lit for theft protection, personal security
and accident prevention.
o Weather protection. Whenever possible protect bicycle parking areas from weather.
Alternative treatments include using an existing overhang or covered walkway,
constructing a canopy or roof—either freestanding or attached to a building.
Inventorying Existing Conditions and Needed Improvements
Citizen volunteers and members of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee surveyed many of
the retail shopping areas, employment centers, and,major public facilities throughout San Luis
Obispo that are identified in Appendix B (City Development Patterns). While this initial
inventory was not exhaustive and will require future refinements, it did point out areas where
bicycle parking should be improved, either by installing bike racks for the first time,replacing
racks that are poorly designed, or improving bike rack placement. The table beginning on page
E-4 identifies the locations of bicycle parking outside of Downtown San Luis Obispo, identifies
the type of bike rack, and points out correctable deficiencies, using the following notation.
Key Evaluation
Area has bicycle parking, although some racks may be older styles.
E) Some bicycle parking, but locations not convenient;poorly placed for full use.
X No visible bicycle parking accommodations.
Area should be revisited to encourage owners to install bicycle parking.
_ _ Bike Rack Type
WV BR series"wave" style with single to 6 loops.
WP1, VP2 Viper 1000 or 2000 style inverted "U" racks
BA Parking slots on both sides
BAX Parking slots on one side only
WM Single-face rack
DR Singe-or double-face rack
E-2
The downtown commercial core and government center contains the highest concentration of
bicycle racks installed by the City. The accompanying map and spread spreadsheet identify the
general location and number of bicycle. Racks.
The City of San Luis Obispo has an annual program of inspecting downtown bike racks and
replacing or repairing those that are in poor condition. Also, on request by business owners,the
City installs bike racks close to downtown land uses that will likely attract bicyclists, at locations
that don't conflict with pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
E-3
i
N �
"
_h
u T
yO Q
L KL.
G
y -
Y O"p CC
° O
CCC
O u
06 g c
° a r
zu � N � zuB � � m' z
z
�4 m XO
"
m U
O
T =
r'OF
°
u 0 ° �e .E u 3'��a 0 m
v a"i
E E E 129, � E E E
"
u y O = Y
> U U U C
� > o
Z :5 .5 .5 O (FJ 3 & ._ " .5 .5..5 18 " 0 3 -. oc
k€ 4 14 4 41X € € 4 € € € 400 € € 4m mmmXm # x 4 mxXX4xm 4 4 IXmXm xx
T T T T T T O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0
U u u U U U u U U U U
m
N
cm
J2
v aci c .= v O .0
V5 _ g
� $ v � � � � � g� w 2 viii v' �, `� 3 r$ � •a �•B g•U " � >_` m � •E c � �. �
cc
c
m " = zpC zPC zPC 00 0
m
r`Q 60 y T T T 9 m 9 tE i 'd O O O �i rh �i rUf �i 92
m " " " , N v " U� Y •�
o " o o p c e e e Q e e e e s e e e a e n w o E 3 "'U u' [7 U '� 2 i' 1 4. A
d v a mmmm mmmmmmmm mm �i � u u uu u uor� m m ia. �. .� -
V h n N ac o o V o 0 oQ o � o z o �O o �n N ^ N. Nv vii vhi o n b � oo vOi.� n vei b Y' n m .rn n m z a b b
r n iii'331, r e� y r L1 �n O. ao R vi vi z a G
W Z
Y
a
.q U
8 y
F Y
yyc E
Y
V � N
O m m
Ygg
y u E C
° 4CL
Y S E Y a
Y
¢ Y � u L E
•c E c .T o Y E `.
E
Y % S a N
u 9 9t c Y 1 E'i a.
T o e
G C _ C O C O o •C Y C r�i % � %
L W •Y L � �' '� _ o °' S e Y Y Y 9 oa a.5 '0 6�° g C �'C
CL
� � tom € € aLAs o � §� m0mmmu € € 0vmmmm �
1014 4xx44 mxmmmxxxxxmmmmmx
'ET II
u u u u
O G V Y 9 Y Y OC2 C2 C2 C2 2 V d U U s U Ui Y i O Y Y Lf v O
Y
O i °
m) L
L' u = � � u — d Z' .� T W C gWg C W �+ ¢ .� 9gg 'J � O R. 6 r� Y '3 'O 's' � � .O •W ' t 3 O e CL/J S Y
m v 2 � �' ti, � c E •O � m m � m °
v= o '¢ > _ s a m7:'m v s P mu h u > uaxFm I a9
PP C Ca OL LC CC CC CC CC CCC CC CC L CC G LG C CC GC CC CC GC CC CC CC C c G C C G C C G G C C
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
n
N
r
h
N
. � .
\
E
i
\ (
§ ! ° § 0 Z- III
§
xGexcx# x
f
; a
/
! `
■ § � $ , ;
222522 2
6 ! » 17 « §
;
MEMO
�.
• •., /• IBJ:
.•� /�, ♦ � its.
0
� r
I -
z
_0
Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 " p p 0�O O p p 0 � 0 `0 O " O - O .L: �. O � 0 0 0 �
gyp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'ip O 'rp 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 ' O O O '(-UO 'm O f0 •111. O w O O O 'gyp
UUC70 0 0 CD 0 (D (9LL0LLaaC (D (D0- a. 0LLC7aCDLL0LL0. LLLLaLLa (7C) LL
U
a+ �+ a. �� a•
U U U U U U a U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U
N N M M N M M Co N M co N N N N W 0 N N N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
W
U
Q
a
m
�I
z
Zv oavvvvvvvv •o .0 -ovvv -ovvvv -0vv •ov -0vv -0v -0vvv
- - - - - - - - - - -
0
- - _ - - - -O O O O O o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o 0 07575 ,5
� mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
'm0 'm0 V
2 m m 2 2 2m m
LU v v m an d v v
0 o O o
N v
Y o o C omm vv -0 vvc vd vmc rm mm mm m
m m m d m m ar ai
Y > m m m m m � m3: cd orrvr ' r It
m o O � m 0cccc cccccccccm rm
c c c c
F- m
V1 ' N
J J a T A a 0- a A T A a a T A T
s Z
C U —E O E m YC CY E E E m E Cm Cm Cm Cm mO Cm Cm Cm Cm Cm Cm pm `Cm Cm yCN E m0 m0 m0 mmmmmO
LL - Omm - - - - , a 0 0 0 0 02a2a0aaa00- 2MMM22.2g022200000000
i�
.m
00
L v v
ca a.
^ m Z
m
�b 0 CD 3 T T A A.m T 2 m � a) >� >, m m
^' �„„ N N N N N O � y y m m 4) 0
W HIE E J J E E E E C C C C a �` O a% C C C m C t? O o 0 0 0 O o m m
e. wawamLu -M �.�aaamm0000cTU � d � MOMOOo. mmmmmmmmrn
000000022
p ` Y N LO ICJ 0 m C W I- W O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
/7 F- w t00) mN I00 - MM 10 QaJ W N m N00Nt0 foto W Whin (O W (p �p �p Cp00
m m000 m Q1O W W W 00 W 000 W Of� fpe- 0000. 00000
•bf
a �
m o oma U
(nJJ . (n m m m m m m m
3 (a m rnrnm a A mm t v m
Q m Y Y m 0 m a ~ C m 0 s d M
0 C'v m m m y
za) " ;� mm mm — a) ca mm U-
e 0 m o d d E m m m rn c — rn o = m Q m m Y Y
¢. m m d L L m W m .0 ` C y OC -0 C o u) Em 'O O 00 N v ..+ .-. 'E t! N i0
= 22 I-- O m - O �` CL p) m C L C C C Com
UEa .2:-0 > > Q �eogvymtrnvmmQmorEccmic10ic0 0ict°i `� oo
0 LL
m 7 ._ J ._ ._ O 0 0U .c ,C moo ._ p C L oa o o m m m m m m m m m o 0
JaaUcnUU .- UUU � Xm � mmm � Q2F- U � 0mF- aY » » »33
D � NMQ to W P W M0 NM V 00 f,- W 010 a- NMR LO 0 r� M 000 " M V Ino
'•' N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M
1
as
II II II �. II II II II II II II
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0h O O O •- O
O O 'Cp 'tp O O O O 'Cp O O O O m .m .m m. .� .m O O O .� O CO O O O O m 0 .m o .m. O .m O
LL LL (D a a CD LL c7 0 a a U. LL LL LL LL LL a s c9 LL.a LL 0 a a a LL (.D LL 0 LL 0 LL 0
W W ID V •:
U U U a a U a U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U a. U a U
N N N CO to M IT N N N N N N Cr) M M M M M N N N'N N N N N N N N N N N tO N IT N
'O
M II 'O -O II O -0 m m II II II II II V II II II -D 'O 'D II II m II II mII
mmmmm0mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmUm
O O
II II 0) 4
O O y m
IIIIII a) o IIIIIIIIIIII IIII 'CIIIIII -0 -0 II m II II IIV > II,9II
w tD tD 0 d Y m to m 0 N Q) N N N CD O II m O m
r L L > m N m d m N > > > > > > d N d N N N N N N m m 1N 0) a)N +� N N
> > > m > > > > > > m m,m m m m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > o > o >
C C C O 0 3 C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C55 C U) C
C C C C C C
d N N N N N
U U U U U
0 0 o c c c c c c o 0
m m m 0) CD rn 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m m m m m m CO m rn m m o
m 0) C C L C = .0 = L L L c c c c c c 0) 0 0) a`) O` d N N- N w 0 m N C 0) c E
3 7 7 Y Y ` Y " 12 y' N y 3 3 .3 3 3 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 > > > O 7 O 7 Y m Y O
O) 01 fa to m la W m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 .2) 0 .�L L 0) O) Of O) O) Of @ m d
= = = aa � a � � � � � � 00000 ❑ x � xsC,) Ux2x22x = = a = a 'z
� Q
U)
m m m 0 m m m m m m 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m
O) m 0) N O L y 7 7 W LO f" W L4 (" y. E2 m m m m = t O 7 m m 7 m 7 7 7 7 O 7
�I SSSO2 m mU m .0.0 ca m m m to m m m mmmimmimmEDImmEnEn
U') o14tIq 2 2 8 2 2 2 x 2 x m m 2 2 2 = = 2 x S S x 2 2
O O O N O M M v 0 M M 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C) m t0 Cr) N CO CO O CO CO"00 O M O � CO r
OOOO � CO CO CO 00 GO CO COOCO GOCO GO CO GOD GO (a CO GVDOO rl � t�O n O CO tO in in t00 t00 (D
m m m m
C v >.
O d m a) — C
U x E E CL m
M m
CL
II 3 p U U U Q m 0) a a s a U U 0 3 U O to 0 E Y
LL tL� x E `FE rn m ,u n � � Z Z Z Z Z Z � t- o V n tE � U .` Z o m E
m m > m0O `o tits 0 � 00o6otSoDolS Q m rn m t_ �e EOm toL U � �
C Q J m N tt5 O D U ' 'M Cd H N fA N N to m 7 m O L m (� C m 5 1. a~ .0 C y Y
m V) C 'C o a° a° m a N W L O C N C C m C (� V O ~ E a C fA m C O m J U
d dC fn fn O O m m m m m m L +�.. V L L OJ > y m m m 7 L m N m m
OiLO21 » > UcnL- LL -» mmmMEmMm >u EUcn ¢ =52U » XUv52wCL
t� CO 0) O N M v LO CO n m M O N Cr) IT tO m 1 00 M M tV CO v M CO r'- O O O s- N M
M M M v a v v v IT v v v IT tO LO tO to tO to LO to to 6O 0 CD CO CO 0 CO CO 0 O t0 nr� r, ti
L L L O L L. L L V. L L Q O p p O O L
LL LL LL 0 LL LL LL IL LL LL L1 Ll 0 a.. Ll (7 CD LL
2 W 2 0)
m m m m
tL a a U a U U U U U U U U
Coco CO N IT N IT N N N N N N N N N m N
r
i
O 'O
[- ..Or
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmUm
L L L L
N N N 47
x aux 2 x
Q7 O m m N
p N N m -0 N N N 41 O O N N N d
y >L> i'52 = 2
t r r r r r e r t m r
O 3 O > O > > > m >O > >
co o F C co
C F C C C C C C C
J J cn
m
O
m rn c m m m tY
A � m m m m m O O 2 .0.0.m
m o .- m
CL 0- mmmM: m: (n
m
N 7+
C O m
m m m m m
mm m m m mm m _rn _rnmm `o
m � � = xxStn2 ,n � m
ON LO N ` m0 ON Bch t- 0 V Cl) N
LSCOO 0 t, r, r, � mr NCO PPhN m .
x n r.- rn m v � � �
O m
x >,
LT C M 0
C m E
.= C
m N OodNaOm NN CN0 m 0 0 wN O G �'
a 6 y 3 m Y y aw m = = $ _
m > = o rn� � Qfn 0 -' O cn otnL1
.0 a) O O Q L L a O L E O m C O L
i- Cn � c9 � lE P_ mmF- Q2F=- WQmF-
V LO01�- 0a) " M t �
L,- � r- r, P, r, w wwILo OoaOaoI� aoODOmOrnrn
APPENDIX F: Existing& Proposed Bicycle Parking at Transportation Hubs
The map on page G-2 identifies the location of existing bicycle parking at bus,rail,and airport hubs
in and surrounding San Luis Obispo. The following table identifies each location and inventories
the number and type of parking.facilities. Any proposed additional facilities are also noted by type
and capacity.
Figure#: Existing& Proposed Bicycle Par Transportation Hubs
Existing Pro osed
Location Type Facility Capacity Type Facie Total Capacity
Amtrak Passen eg r Rail 5 angle tube lock 10 tricycles Replace existing with 4 8 tricycles
Terminal: 1011 Railroad racks inverted"u"bike racks
Avenue
Greyhound Bus Station: 146 None NA Install 2 Inverted"U" 4 bicycles
South Street bike racks
CCAT Bus Transfer Center: I "wave"bike rack 6 bicycles Add 1"wave"bike rack 12 bicycles
1050 Monterey Street
Downtown Transit Center. 1 slotted wheel 3 bicycles Replace with 6 inverted 12 bicycles
990 Palm Street bike rack "U"bike racks
SLO County Airport: 835 None NA Install 2 Inverted"U" 4 bicycles
Airport Drive bike racks
San Luis Obispo Transit(SLO Transit) operates a six-route, nineteen-bus local system within
San Luis Obispo's urban reserve, serving major employment centers and all residential
neighborhoods. Each SLO Transit bus includes a front-mounted bicycle rack that can cant'two(2)
bicycles. As growth occurs,the SLO Transit system will be expanded into new areas along the
southern edge of the community. The Airport Area Specific Plan identifies a proposed transit
routing strategy. All buses serving new growth areas will be equipped with on-board bicycle racks.
The City is improving its Downtown Transit Center located at 990 Palm Street. The improvements
will include the replacement of the older slotted wheel bike rack with new inverted"U"racks,
placed parallel to each other for maximum support.
The Central Coast Area Transit System(CCAT)operates an eight-route regional transit system
that serves all urban quadrants of San Luis Obispo County, with its major hub in the Downtown
Core of San Luis Obispo. Each CCAT bus has front-and rear-mounted bicycle racks that have a
capacity for four(4)bicycles per bus. CCAT's transit center is located adjacent to the Downtown
Transit Center. It includes a"wave"bicycle rack for CCAT patrons.
Since San Luis Obispo is an employment destination with a substantial influx of workers each
morning,it does not provide park-and-ride lots since they are normally located at the origin of
commute trips. San Luis Obispo is served by AMTRAK passenger rail service: the Coast Starlight
and the Coast Surfliner. Bicycles can be accommodated on the Starlight when they are properly
packed in boxes provided by AMTRAK. They must be checked as baggage and there is a box and
handling fee. For the Coast Surfliner,bicycles can be directly loaded onto the passenger cars;three
storage spaces are provided per car.
F-1
i
APPENDIX G. Existing and Proposed Changing and Storage Facilities
The Streets and Highway Code requires that this bike plan describe and map existing and
proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not
be limited to, locker,restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
Few facilities exist in San Luis Obispo that are specifically designed to provide long-term
bicycle parking, changing rooms with storage for cloths and equipment, and showers at the same
location. Exceptions include a few larger employers such as Caltrans, some County agencies,
and RRM Design,which provide them for employees who commute to work by bicycle or public
transit combined with bicycling.
Other employers(for example, downtown City offices)provide bicycle lockers for their
employees (that provide some storage),restrooms that enable changing, with showers located in
separate nearby buildings. However,the provision of showers is most likely the missing
component. In-town employee work commute trips are generally less than four miles in length
and 20 minutes in duration. Therefore, showers may not be necessary. ,In contrast, inbound
work commute trips from surrounding communities generally are in excess of twelve miles.
Showers may be warranted for these commuters and for bicyclists touring the central coast;
however they comprise a small segment of the bicycling public.
The City maintains parks and public plazas scattered throughout San Luis Obispo that include
public restrooms, accessible during daylight hours. The map on the following pages identifies
the locations of these facilities. While restrooms in parks and plazas provide opportunities for
changing, they do not provide for long-term storage of cloths or equipment and may be remote
from long-term bicycle parking.
City construction codes currently require that non-residential uses provide restrooms when there
are on-site employees: These restrooms can be used for changing. However, construction codes
do not specifically require changing rooms and storage lockers. The City's Community
Development Department uses its discretion to require changing rooms, lockers, and showers for
moderate- to larger-scale commercial projects as air quality and traffic reduction mitigation
measures. An example is the newly developing office project at 100 Cross Street. However, at
this time there are no specific standards established by either the City or the County Air Pollution
Control district.
Given the characteristics of the City's bicycling population, the following programs are
recommended:
1. The City should work with the County Air Quality Control District to establish specific
standards for providing changing rooms, storage for clothing and equipment, and showers
that apply to non-residential development projects. These standards should target
moderate- to large-scale employers and be consistently implemented as part of the City's
land development process.
2. The City should evaluate the need for providing a facility that addresses the storage,
parking, and hygiene needs of touring bicyclists.
G-1
N
v
O
• O
o _
D .
o O
....- 0°000 c
6 : ❑❑� O
z
as ,
` 0 0o O C.:• a �.1 �. c
oo ° Ec
O�
o O., LJL
Lj
0
ic
WO
cr
y O
0onnnno cr CD � 3 s
� C7 N N N NBIB -n
O cD Os ^ o Cpm
C C rt p l—j N � �-
N O
n. A c N
a o
V
z v \J) \J)
0
cr
m =
cn
APPENDIX H: Bicycle Safety and Education Programs
Existing Programs. The Police Department is the principal agency responsible for the City of
San Luis Obispo's bicycle safety and education programs. Primary activities include the
following:
Q Annual Bicycle Safety Rodeo: since 1998 the Police Department has sponsored an annual
safety rodeo in September or October. The purpose of the rodeo is to teach safe riding
practices and vehicle code compliance to elementary and secondary school children. The
rodeo is typically held in a large parking lot and includes a skills course, demonstrations of
safe riding practices,and the distribution of literature. Participants come from throughout
San Luis Obispo County,the event is broadly advertised, and attracted 165 children in
October 2001.
Safety Assemblies: In 2001,the City Police Department received an Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) grant that supports the cost of presentations at each elementary school throughout San
Luis Obispo. Students are provided basic information about safe riding techniques and
vehicle code requirements.
The San Luis Obispo County Rideshare Coordinator also sponsors bicycle safety and education
programs during "Bike Week,"typically scheduled in May each year. The Rideshare
Coordinator has developed an abbreviated form of a bicycle rodeo that is set up in a public plaza
or street area, sometimes as an ancillary activity to bicycle sporting events. The.Coordinator also
provides some outreach education to elementary schools outside the City of San Luis Obispo but
within the County.
Proposed Programs. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Advisory Committee proposes to
sponsor two bicycle rodeos at elementary schools in San Luis Obispo during the spring of each
year. These programs would be put on by the City's Police Department with support from the
Recreation Department and elementary school personnel and would present an abbreviated
version of the PD's annual bicycle rodeo. The City will publish a bicycle safety program
brochure that will be distributed at these assemblies as well as at the annual rodeo.
Effect on Accidents Involving Bicyclists. Since current bicycle safety activities are relatively
new,the City does not have sufficient data to determine if there is a relationship between bicycle
safety programs and the incidents of accidents involving bicyclists.
Also, the City's programs are geared toward resident elementary" school children. Therefore, it is
necessary to screen the overall incidence of bicycle collisions by the age of those involved to
determine if there is a regressive relationship between child education programs and bike
accidents. This information isnot readily available from the SWITRS system and the City's own
database, established in 1999, has insufficient historical data to determine a relationship between
safety programs and collision data.
Current programs do not educate the City's adult bicycle riding public, which includes Cal Poly
University students that ride bicycles the most.
H-1
APPENDIX I. Citizen and Community Involvement in Plan Development
Background '
In 1991 the San Luis Obispo City Council created a Bicycle Advisory Committee and asked
it to prepare a bicycle transportation plan that met State law requirements in place at that time.
This work was completed and a Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted on October 27, 1993.
Since 1993, State codes that establishes the content of bicycle plans has changed. Therefore,
updating the City's 1993 plan focused on developing and including new information as required
by Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This "update"process involved
City staff, members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and its subcommittee, and
citizen volunteers. Their work is described below.
Citizen Involvement With Fieldwork
A subcommittee of the SLO Bicycle Advisory Committee was appointed to help update the
San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. Because work on the 1993 plan was performed
about a decade ago,the subcommittee required more recent information and counts. During the
months of January and February 2002, some.15 cyclists responded to a request (posted to
Internet announcement/discussion lists for the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club and the SLO
County Bicycle Coalition) for volunteers to ride different sections of the city to survey and
inventory bicycle parking facilities and overall concerns for cyclists.
Selecting items to be surveyed was based on a recent work program developed by Evanston
Illinois and sent to the subcommittee by Randy Warren, a former San Luis Obispo resident.and
cyclist now living in Illinois. The cyclists who volunteered generated.other concerns and
questions. One of the cyclists, a Caltrans planner who commutes into work from another
community, suggested that the group stress objectivity. The group recognized that a simple form
is not always easy to fill out and that it can be difficult not to be subjective. Volunteers were
encouraged to look at conditions from the point of view of an elementary school student, not
only because some of the data collected will be used.to generate information for a"Safe Routes
to School"program, but because most of the information will be valuable for planning safe
commute routes for adults.
Survey/Inventory
During a meeting of most of the volunteers at Meadow Park, a large map of the city was
divided into 13 areas and spreadsheet forms were distributed to each of the participants. The
Chamber of Commerce provided, free of charge, copies of their 1999 map of San Luis Obispo
and each map was marked with all 13 areas outlined with a green highlighter pen and distributed
to volunteers(with help from the staff at the Parks & Recreation Department. These maps were
used because they show clearly all parks and open space areas, schools, hospitals, public
buildings, transportation hubs, etc., and the city limits. Also,the maps are large enough with type
that is easy to read.
1. Thespreadsheet format listed the following conditions to be inventoried, street-by-
street, with comments keyed to each entry listed separately:
- danger spots for cyclists (intersections, markings, signs, etc.);
-condition of pavement and markings for [class 2] bike lanes,
-difficult intersections for cyclists;
-difficult or improperly-working traffic lights;
-debris, street cleaning needs;
I-1
{
-drainage grates,utility covers that pose a risk for bicycles;
-physical barriers to cycling, especially for commuters;
- dangerous railroad crossings(such as on Marsh Street);
-transit(bus,train) connections;
- improper parking of any kind of vehicle that impedes cyclists;
=connections to areas outside the city limits (especially for commuters);
- other conditions as identified at our meeting/s;
-higher than appropriate speeds on residential streets; and
bicycle parking facilities(public, commercial, apartment houses; etc.).
2. Cyclist counts at key locations and specified times/days. Counts will be organized for
later in the spring,but several key intersections were identified by the subcommittee.
3. Interview and record comments of various cyclists in the city(those who live here and
those who commute into and out of SLO). This will be an ongoing activity and will include the
new bicycle-based delivery service owner in the city.
Of the 15 cyclists recruited, 14 actually rode different sections of the city. Others will
participate at a later date and more volunteers will be sought to make up a community task force
for further updates. Items 2 and 3 were not covered during these January and February.
Volunteers who rode the areas include seven San Luis Obispo residents,three Cal Poly
students (who commute to the university),two Avila Beach residents(who cycle regularly to and
in SLO), and two Caltrans planners, one of whom commutes by bike from Arroyo Grande.
Public Review
All field data was analyzed and a synopsis of this work has been incorporated into the
appendix of this bicycle plan. City staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study, which
evaluates the project's impact on the environment, in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. This initial study found that the proposed bike plan amendments
would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Based on the content of the
initial study, the City's Community Development Director recommended that a Negative
Declaration be issued.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC) reviewed and considered this Director's
recommended Negative Declaration and a Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan at an advertised
public hearing on March 21, 2002. The Committee took public testimony from_people and
discussed various elements of the draft plan including .:. Copies of the minutes for the BAC
meeting are available upon request form the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department(805-
781-7210,
The BAC forwarded recommendations for adopting the updated bicycle plan to the City
Council. The Council conducted an advertised public hearing on May 7, 2002, approved a
Negative Declaration for the project, and adopted the revised Bicycle Transportation Plan. A
copy of the adopting resolution is included as Appendix M. Copies of the minutes of Council
meeting at which the plan amendments were adopted are available for the City Clerks Office at
805-781-7100.
I-2
APPENDIX J: Relationship to Other Plans
Specific Area Plans. The City of San Luis Obispo uses the"Specific Plan"process to provide
detailed planning for residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. These specific plans
(sometimes called"enhancement plans" or"district plans") prescribe the arrangement of land
uses, establish design standards for new development, and identify alignments for transportation
corridors, including Class I and II bikeways. The City also adopts "Route Plans" for bikeways
that will be retrofitted into existing neighborhoods and business districts.
This plan is designed to be consistent with specific plans and route plans. Figure#1: Bikeways
Map shows the type and general alignment of bikeways throughout San Luis Obispo. However,
the more precise alignment of bikeways is established by specific plans and route plans adopted
by the San Luis Obispo City Council. Most areas covered by these particular plans are shown
on Figure# 4 and described below.
1. The Railroad District Plan includes the Union Pacific Railroad and adjoining streets from
Johnson Avenue to Orcutt Road. The plan shows the general configuration of Class I
bikeways on both sides of the railroad and connections to neighborhood streets.
2. Railroad Safety-Trail Route Plan establishes a specific alignment for a Class I bikeway along
the Union Pacific Railroad from the AMTRAK passenger terminal on Santa Rosa Street to
Foothill Boulevard. This plan overlaps in part with the Railroad District Plan, but is much
more specific.
3. Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan includes properties along Higuera Street between Marsh
Street and a point just south of Madonna Road. The plan shows the configuration of Class I
bikeways along San Luis Obispo Creek and Class lI bikeways along Higuera and South
Streets and Madonna Road.
4. Edna-Islay Specific Plan includes residential properties between Orcutt Road and Broad
Street and is bisected by Tank Farm Road. Class I bikeways are prescribed along the
railroad and area creeks while Class II bikeways are shown on bordering and bisecting
arterial streets.
5. Margarita Area Specific Plan (draft) establishes the design of a new residential neighborhood
east of the current end of Margarita Avenue, north of Prado Road. The plan shows Class I
bikeways in the South Hills Area and Class II bikeways along principal neighborhood streets
and along Prado Road and Broad Street.
6. Airport Area Specific Plan (draft) establishes the design of service commercial and industrial
districts between S. Higuera and Broad Streets, generally north of the County Airport. The
plan shows Class I bikeways extending along two area creeks and Class II bikeways along all
area arterial and collector streets.
7. Orcutt Area Specific Plan-(draft) establishes the design of a new residential neighborhood
east of the railroad bordering Orcutt Road. Class I bikeways are planned adjoining the
railroad and along an area creek and Class II bikeways along bordering arterials streets and
collector streets within the neighborhood.
J-1
8. Bob Jones City-to-Sea Route Plan(draft) establishes the alignment for Class I bikeways
along San Luis Obispo Creek from Madonna Road to Los Osos Valley Road and along
Prefumo Creek from Madonna Road to the east end of Calle Joaquin.
When this Bicycle Transportation Plan update was prepared, a number of the plans listed above
were not yet adopted and are subject to public review and City Council consideration. Should
the bikeways prescribed by these draft plans be modified, this plan will be amended to achieve
consistency with the resultant adopted specific plan. In general, changing the alignment or type
of bikeway prescribed by an adopted specific planning or area plan may require an amendment
to Figure#1 of this plan.
County Bikeway Plan. In September 1994,the County of San Luis Obispo adopted a County
Bikeways Plan; this plan was updated.in 1996. This plan prescribes bikeways throughout the
County including Class II bikeways along major road corridors leading into the City(e.g. Orcutt
Road, SR 227, South Higuera Street,.Los Osos Valley Road, O'Connor Lane, and Foothill
Boulevard)and Class I bikeways along the Union Pacific Railroad from the south and Route 1
between San Luis Obispo and north Morro Bay. These bikeways generally link with similarly
classified bikeways within San Luis Obispo.
Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). The 2001 San Luis Obispo County Regional
Transportation Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments includes
provisions for non-motorized transportation. The RTP identifies a variety of Class H bikeways
along major regional routes that pass through and border the City of San Luis Obispo as well as
Class I bikeways along the Union Pacific Railroad and San Luis Obispo Creek (the Bob Jones
City-to-Sea Trail). The projects shown on Figure 2-8b of the plan are consistent with those
shown on Figure#1 of this plan.
This Plan and the 2001 RTP are consistent in that each shows bikeways along routes of regional
significance. However, in the Airport Specific Planning Area,the City has proposed a duel
system of Class MI bikeways along Tank Fane Road, Prado Road and Buckley Roads while the
RTP only shows Class II bikeways along these corridors.
J-2
CD
O
CD
0
li 0
S Hlb—UE
CD Ell
O� -O
DO
k a
Airo
.
CD
CL
(D cn
us 0)
(D
(D
0
0
G)
-n CD ;UOKKFM > CD
CD CL CL 000A)
cr
0 o2 :r > Pr Im w
2 :r 0) o M M co U)
a) ;* . C/) I
CL > g .00 M
> C5 z
0
o LF W 0) m > ae- m IL
O
F3,M -0 cn
CD .0
(D
0
0 M 0 0
3 5,
=r0
Crl (D
0
APPENDIX K: Setting Priorities & Financial Planning for Bikeways
Creating bikeways proposed by this plan will be constrained by the availability of funding.
While there are a number of competitive State and Federal grant programs that can provide
support, the amount of funds needed by the City to complete the community's bikeway network
($49,000,000) is out of scale with most available grant programs. The City has been modestly
successful in receiving grant.funds to build bikeways and has spent about$3.2 million over a six-
year period(using both grants and local funds), the equivalent of$530,000 per year. If this
spending level continues, it would take about 92 years to complete the proposed bikeways
network.
On way reducing implementation costs to the City is to require bikeways to be designed and
installed as part of new development. To a large degree,this strategy is proposed within the
urban expansion areas at the south end of the community and for major projects on "ill"
properties within the urban reserve. The limitation of this strategy is that desirable bikeway links
may be tied to the pace of outward community growth and take years to accomplish. The City
may choose to accelerate the development of a particular bikeway link when it addresses a
current critical need for bicycle commuting.
The following priorities describe the emphasis that will be placed on implementing various
bikeway projects. However, work may proceed on projects with lower priority ratings when
opportunities present themselves. Also,bikeways shown on private property that is subject to
development or redevelopment shall be installed no later than at the time development occurs,
unless guaranteed by the developers for installation at a later time.
Citywide Bikeway Priorities
151 Priority: bikeways that promote bicycle commuting and improve safety.
2°d Priority: bikeways that serve both commuter and recreational cyclists.
3rd Priority: bikeways that primarily serve a recreational purpose.
Category Bikeway Priorities
The major Class I bikeways are divided into a variety of segments. Some segments will provide
a greater benefit to bicycling than others. Conversely, some segments may be easier to
implement. The tables on the following pages list the bikeway projects and note both a citywide
and category priority for each project. Following this structure,the highest priority bikeways are
those that.have a 1/1 rating— 151 priority citywide and first in their category. The lowest priority
projects have a 3 citywide rating followed by their ranking within that particular category.
The following listings should help guide future Bicycle Advisory Committees and City Councils
in establishing implementation priorities as part of the ongoing financial planning process.
K-1
r�
O Z
U ¢ o
� u
o N m M o -tr te) �o
tic
M as n'E �' a E oW CN
m
96
E C4
kn
- w
> W 0 TO c a v to E c- N — s y
o a� c
vi m ti ? -0 o a ami m -0 3 o 0 ° o u o :'
s o ° H m CO = 0 m a o2i s y o ° 00o ti > a •. m e uO, c A
"a E jr. a m e c nom 3 m c v 7 m m E v o 3
y 3 y s a O o y c 0 c m .>
OO.._ ca d, N �
0 w
ah ° o a� S ° 0 3 = �j o o =
++ a7 0 ._ U .= m C T i y rn O m r m C M y 'a
.� C .'.y. I,• o O. a > T y N a) a) O �. �' s. O O cr. m rn 9 61
y 7 °� 3 c eD is cp . Ll. Q E
ur Y O O t ai $ x G mu 3
r o4r E x = _ o o c v v d E m 7 c =
Fj ° C V m al t D m •0 � O 0 .T m 0 'n s O vI C � .+ � Q y L
'fl VOi QE d Y 7 H 3 E 7 O v a) Y a) = m R. V .O as •fl G
d �' vn m m O m m V O o0 �, m ` O u 9 H C E g O 0 0 Q y •� 3
a c .p 3 ar s c d 0 A N E E d y .ca ^� 70
> y `"' O > C U •— > C > i N L > y d V C E N a0
7 C 0 0 E O c o 0 0 eo c m ° y m " o m ti � •`- m ° o o c =
U 0 ams °� 0 d 0 .= O � � Yw 3 o 0. cc
CIp E c O a CO 4" on x on c- .° a, o ,- O `' a4•.. y rn y N s v
'C d Y 0: y Y a' .fl C. d. N m 0 — y O 3 O
N A A m �` o 0 r- u d v = t► v
o t y _ m t o 7 d s s Y c0 c m = c a' 3
� Emcod 'cc mr E E 'y '^ rco = cu ES �° zaa '7yD: ycO :° d
u ee o „ @ F 3 V a vi m o h m o 0 o o Y 7 E � a.. m m � h a
G> U > mm E L O N E. m m y L m O L L V d '•O. N ° '� s O 'C °
m Q IV 0 A O O a1 7 y m a+ m A m W !� m •O C L p O E �' L .. 4... d a
i Ol y C �0 E a t s Y u �. N Q. y a•— y a 3 a) H N E a) 3 m L Y
C, .• o a o c m 0 d v E '° c 0 0 0
C = rn N = •In a) >r ° � 7 = � On� .O C � m = bD m 7 i0 '7 a) 7 G '/� rn 7 7 a
X O O' U .cx_ U p — .' '"' O 'o ,,,, ° a>i O > C O > N O E U O y
° c _ c _ x R x - c c _ s — ° s d . m e s o
0 m w U 3 'y 3 _ m m 3 O W U o w s V _ O h m .. rn v m
as
O C O h O r` O 'N m M N qT
ii O O
vs - O O N O n C 7 V1 �O O O
vCL Vl O
O Q O CI00O V1 V1 — M V1 �D N O �
07 O M �O 'R Vl Cl 00 t` 00 O —
Vl M Vl N V1 n 00 V1 O Vl Ol M -e O Ol
Men —
U M
.a
v
r
h o
Vl N
v Q
y a=i e0 a'
OC = O as o: 0 H > i d
o > d e ° m > m
c• ai m o ° 10 °c O V- T a, E 4 ° m �- s o T = ¢ E LL T
0 � ya sg � c' 3 a°i � Y ` � c � 3 " � m k � Re
0 0, s rm r m g -- ° amu, __ ° E orY a s
0 o r? p mom .0 H = F p " � p .'. U. as ix o
as Z c 0 as a d CO H o y y v > . —
m � � ono 000 co c ooc onm m 72 > v � •c > R > i >
p m Q ° = c = o m ° o .� o `n ° = v c a axi ° ami c c ° IV.. o f o =
A F mz m R e A `'ak y m _ c 0 10 06_ m bmo = `o .o o
m
12s0 E : •.=_ m
U
0 o o im
rn a .1c. 2 a B .2 co mwin m, e
3
O
T IT 1�1 "c r
a a a d i i d d
o am n v o
a z o: ae cc m
:T
C O r U C Y C N L t0 d �" d �'•CJ C T
E u E . E
7 ,C c E E ct c �C 6 O.n M ; 0 E o
y
*c � u m O s o c v a. Y a a+ m d o U M
m''-> E oe > vm2-� � cp `° �� w ¢�i rm a?i cc" E'> r
V � CJ nie a9 woD .. < �0.
L L
O
ami M 7 v1 \o P — N rn v N In v In %0 7D
a
e
L Y
� O
3 N N N N N N N N N M M en m en M c1 t+i
U
00
Y N
= C y •a O .0 O N e0 c i w
3 m 0 = v s E c d d CL
p a m s r ..o c'� v t o E ° m ° a0.i 'O c
cQ CL
C. m as m 3 •x m •N N E
G li'�. m ,'C., W v, m o U fl•
'o O.
t E �•' V O W W c 0
c •� 0 3 � �. To '0 O m N ;o e m �e L d p ,o C a. y c N a
00
6 '0
.c y �y j m ac', p c = 3 m is 3 LUr
C E c o o c p u ` t o07u o m y c ami cc
E N 7 0 c y o = p 3
V L N t C L G U C
.0C ma. C mR yd a� tm
� c OR N7 E o > cn OR O
O C y_
N
y
_ _ O C. �. O a) a) •- O t !n c G1 O p L U � y C
L a) O
c ° c d C N m .P' m v as
R NSG > a mW 0 d ° d : d ° a 3U
ami 3 Y c 3 0 2 E ,E ri L o m .c
r.-°D.
N aE� c '�° c '� 'rad ° °. m •°° ° .5 a0__ 'o m o o E Eto
c —. „ ° �. a •0
'v OD C y 0 'fl s m .y m a) 'C N E u
3 y •N N N V 'aa ;O E •p m C 'O 'O N 'O a1 co
• rOi� aJ .� C 2 1 N L'• 3 7 m
p C N X x p v v y •O R 0. C y R
d c F se e o E p
d t O D a) vi a) L a1 M L 'C R
y •p V C .�' ,0 �. = .0. 0. y O y N ` = N �p s,,, Y T m °n
° o. c 3 3 'c L y R u E L I .T c m y o m R 3 N + d ° a
o ° m v y v aPi as 3 o :: N as m > > a°i a n as
e °
s 'o > d >, c __ a �" ? N R 0 E R ? __ ? c o '- _ ° E 0o ° Rai
E C m y R C p p R 0. V O > C p .O p C N y Ito
y L C
C m y C L O L O d = ° O C m C C C
wmaLo � v � � 3a q 3 rn van ¢ v _ U3 ._ _ � ¢ 3 � > 0 [n ._ Ci. n.w
G
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 O o ++ 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o 0 0
O N SID n N O O O �o O �
ff D� V1 O p� O O W. W O
40 %D In 0� O �o N "D h
U N n Y5 O G m C N 00 N
a
n V
(D In O h N O O O O O O h h
C c N en N '/l 00 -.' pp CO In N l/1 1- �O — N
_yil G N 00 T V) — N
Ill 00 "D Nm N �D �° 00 M
T
F
Ix c °�' Y s c �i
o E
t D: D: � ^., d V] U w cc
c R c
S ° U o: `o = �o E r O E y E is oY
D = > L o cp « �j o E Y E o d E o m U U D: OM L
T N O Y N Y fn O E O C U C O
G ° N N y C '00 •.`. y (i. y 3 OD G N
N R y,L Ya7 'O
V •O y 3 y N H O V2 L 9 a. 'a7 'p a) -� a7 O R a) y .II O On O
C y C y 0 y .� •N p R r, N '`, a) U L R L Eu 7 v �• ` L a) R m a)
m s. w E d o W s oo W o U L W ° ea
o +. 0 .0 0 3 W 0
,, o � o: a, o oca, � 00 -0p ° Ng ° 0 � d
E m c 'o c ° 3 0 0 0 0 Cd 0 s o o ° _ ° m . :_ ^gy m e d � as a� p s o
LQ M c R CO .'� y > 0 d '0 'N > e .0 0] 'N t :E 4, c 'a on C •0_ > R
ILI: y m m O = Q O V Q N �- p N p y O v N O y
N C
�. 0 RIra ` .O1 a) -� 0.-• mr. a N R N m y a) R N •p O y in m y > R` Y
d0O. D: in p3 d '3a ril' [rm] �n3mv] dU amifi71 .° Lmi] O d [i]
0
l �
•V 0 E L A ° Q L�W > E6 j
i
N _
C y •T' N N
= N 0 3 3
d
t v
o v v v v
�^ E.E - E cN EErn E.S7 v, %D r co ON C fV
m Eeo� F4ay E iim - - - -
U on a m a Oda o`5 CL.
e Q c Q c Q c $ c
'U
Rq
C Cy= 7 O C- y 07
' N y R y y = 3 Y 00 ti 'C
to = d -� C �•• � m d W d W p O v -O A R
� V =
a d 7 N O O C L O N N ar O Y t
° me aNi � A € Eo �_ � a _ Ua0i MM — = .o °
o ° .N C =y c o 00 N as 3 e>0 `O m o .c v aEi m o E = v >a
•� H C �t Q: .��., N � O V t H W L .II r _ � O m L v y- N � y i
R U o > c E ocis— c_m c� R a aa CLcs c E LRz Q t
...= C N •y O C V N G C O 4a M W y '� O 'E. � O y C O > N
Op V C W V] — R Cd d y '� = T E p O L y 00 > W O = O
.:•y w Y > •.L.. = O .p > pp:"' C W E N y r 4aOp tV > DA N •,: L y 00
O CL
o O `R ° o 00 .E ce �..0 .y, 3 ° o c E 'a .£. s 3 °L' .D = •E d d `E E Y
a+ t E 3 a' O .E O y N C W ' C V v 0 •fl O y 0 = = i W '— L
C°• N e. O ..V. 3 C ._ O ��+ C V y ld t0 y C R d y 61 r N
L G d d % N. ` 0) W V N V .0 �. N = yO C ° N W C •OA
c v E u Q °' O ° 00 y L V o A V o V °° 06
=00 3 .� E N
.N. ey0 S E N .
d W c •y V N o >, w W d c N � — $ a— o T 0 c c '- L W
0 mo a E E c0 ° Co ,md Ea=i "' 3 = fi oo oO d ° c
s v mom° c E o •- ° o o ° _ � W ° w o °� O 3 � -� c R
O N V N O 9 = C W y O L •p d 'C 9 •� O = W .N.. d '._. 02 •p d a
y u °', v_ Q Y O •e U =.•°, ; G'y = a. L a c •O U -° G t. ai cc wascu .y
o c N > > c y o = o o
On °? o f oo � c °' � c E o N ° :C vL 39
v o o _ m = � '„ E Wt T D C c N
E E a t W 5 o > W a ; N o ° _ v r R o s > m p =
7 W o Y N Q E a V _ wa L C Y — �' o E a L R N R Y a, R o
° = O t O .R+ C 9 y R C C N a ° 3 N C N Qa
cr
Mt U o _ W W W E v d ° o v L
V ? O ° 9 = ' L j U .�.fl R 00 = •p � L V 7 d ° O .�,.° m 'O t.U ai � R ._
cos aci O ° o cyRi d c ami ' L° Y ° o :° D = iO SLR.
o _ H a T - r a'- N a > _ >
UR � � oO' " ` � mm � a � oo '2ywXo � o � soao = = v� oRm —
= m Rmo: cUN 3 b :: cn � .n V da F- � of av= a 3 = ° OuFt
0 0 0o D o .D o v ° o d
e — —
0 0 0 0 0 00 li 00 0 o o D
O N itK to
00 vi C� M W) rn h 00 •Op .OU N O0
N N 67 N N
z z z
yeo '^ C. 0
0 0 0 0 o Q
CA
= O
w _` O C L C N
O G
c O - lu
O t O O O O
41 > V O O N N O W N
O d � L O Yfn Y 'C � L �' O c=v'
E o f eve 5 _ ._ 'ets .�
u w m ' = v c v° c v = c c c c J m o m
O W y 00 0: D .>_ o i0 W Oy EU =` m2 E . > s0 = 3Y
.. S •p .0 ''• = � /U�l W L � O N y O y N m G O N
N co N O O N V O m L' W W
end � � vi W3U = _ cmr UyoUNE
00 d W o = v
as 3 L -0 = add v °'o ? m? ° o :? 0 5a °' L° a ° � _ ° � v Q :° u c
D V W •y D y Y L ._ N ._ Nc ° N ° N W Y o o N ° 0: = N
r W O O N
2C2m2 $ mom O3 E c � cN c � ms a cCA 0 am � av�
oo Ol
•O = N VI N � N N N N N N
C
U
� � A
m
E� > E
g
C
0
0
'L Y
a L
N N N M M M M M M 1 I
D
cc
U
HQ o0 � s 'om c� d
= cc S = Yd c 3 Nd
p S E .R •7 = �. > R R ` R
r y •m p p _ � L a 3 = > o 0 0
c o p `p °`' > co as E j = F- d 33 ° .� a
m £ G 3 H c O = 3 O m C R m V u O 0
U w o 3 0 a y c a o L c L oOq > y Y R a L L
cR cL 3 E eea e R y e E p CC 0. CL
ctj 0 ;? 0" m o
03
> ° R o „ y ._ C R as o R _ o a
O E o ry) m a m .� o ° c ca c: o y e a 3 3 .� c U
« a R Y a c
R0 a o s V H o = c : a W -011-
CC
JD
L L a) R y t V G a) y y E 0 = E c o C R y R W R y T y = y t
aC6w
C y
a R V O aVi R y .Va. O N •p :: >+ V >+ _:
G H ° m o .y R e' t Q; V • c.., a y •- v $ O L a y c V R -C R R
A H oIm, c r c 3 > asci d c o 3 c v o E
a3i p c � fi � a'"� e.O, m � '� � .3 aVi `. E .p :_' v R 3 °o •3 °o E c � m � t,."-_.
oo
U d p R > 10
.v y r+ a n, a, cRi ee •e _.tv 4. v y
•O C ° O L a E O = a) .� .� R .9 O a O. 7 y V r >. V C y C V C •p
= C V t y p -id v Q y 2 ,00 R V R t R V R
C. R y C Cn = .3 C 0 = •� ` i i �. O = C t 'C .� 0.0 y y y a
° d ° C U .Si > '� O >, Q A 00 C Ra tR a c L" y m m •00
E c E 775 a _ °� c° ° v °�' Y00 3 R R U p U r
` dOOOay9 ` L ' — e -.=U �3zt y U"' C H R 5% t3i
0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0
.. M o o M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 v, 0 0
OD
v o 0 o v' a o o Q Q.
Lnz z
-- z = —
S@od o o ^ c c O ¢ o 0 0 ¢ Q
.d N C — R en z
.r
a)
m 7 -0 R O y C y
O C = Y R p = 0
C Q O p y O N y
y
� = R > 0 0 � �° _ � c > � C c 0 c oa= y 3
O O y E O H p 'v R Y
Ca
E y o y y ° :o -� Z R y p c p ` v m
v o aay c@� � Y � ecL caco
Ll E e � $ e00 cUsY- in V °� oQ x R
ILC c > y a d= $ a> e D c d O y N R Q
E E o y 0 = p E o` Y t ar' y ac
3 v o =
O c O " C U p O R C Ln ,C R R 9 •X R E C..` 'U X 'i. ¢' •i
ck c ck ° v �. m - E c- c R L - S c d c d O 0 Lt7 R y+ R
°
co R .. ° o � vs ,y CE c Ck°
R O �. R •+ O` V C y 3 i R R U C y y R O a) .= R 7
a - 3a m e: o = o9- a � 0 = o o = o = c amSrna .� u E
•Q N_ N_ N_ _N V_1 N_ _N N_ N_ N_
i
r �
u � �
Ea �
r
i
O
i
a
u Ly E
Y
•3 i O V 'y C Y Y y -
C
— a
v c c R E U T
- U u •C Y_ C y y v .� CU
R CO E u C C N y C 3 N
u >
c R .up m 3 •y : aRi c 'N
CL
x C is y a� � p `• d o axi .:
° — o
u
U ° -
R 61 y u y i 1.. �.. N 0 7 �. C t„u„
06 E p cYi N .y. i •p R •C R E O
7 3 >
C p V1 M to M V5 V1 N
U — e4
vi 'n
v pp
IT
N
`V z z z z z z
c
0
.0010
0C OA y C
C u C 0 C O
C R = o cu R 0.
R
p O. c i •° c ° m m n.
^� i '� •R m O m T. Y 0 E
a r R a a Y c m U E
c13
e
0 CL. E °=
0
R
.� F �e a � UauC U U
L o
Bikeway Project Financial Planning
Proj# Description Length(m) Total Cost City Developer(1) Grant Comment
Expectations Targets
Railroad Bicycle Path
RBP-1 Path along west side of 800 2,538,505 1,776,953 - 761,552
RR from Marsh to the 70% 30%
north end of AMTRAK TE
Station parking lot
RBP-2 Path along east side of 367 350,000 74,750 275,250
RR from Foothill to 11.5% 88.5%
Hathaway. STA
RBP-3 Path along north side of 55 128,425 128,425 - Try and combine with
Orcutt from end of RBP 100% Orcutt Rd.at grade
to Laurel Ln. crossing ro'ect
RBP-4 Trail along north side of 293 350,000 350,000
creek from RBP east to 100%
north end of Southwood TE
Dr.
RBP-5 Path along east side of 1,660 1,073,897 741,727 332,170 May be deferred and
RR from Laurel Ln.to 70% 30% implemented by Orcutt
Tank Farm Rd. TE or BTA Area Development
R13P-6 Path from Hathaway 1,100 6,386,570 5,747,913 638,657 Partially-elevated path
Avenue to Marsh Street 90% 10% on east side of tracks
TE/BTA
RBP-7 Path along east side of 160 154,542 154,542 Cal Poly Funded when
RR from Foothill Blvd 100% parking garage is built
to campus entrance per CP master plan
BRP-8 Path on east side of RR 1175 705,148 705,148 Cal Poly funded as part
from CP campus of master plan
entrance to sports development
complex n/o Highland
Dr.
RBP-9 Bridge over Tank Farm 295 1,457,353 1,020,147 - 437,206
Rd.along east side of 70% 30%
RR. TESTA
RBP- Path on west side of RR 520 398,562 398,562 - -
10 from Stenner St.to 100%
Foothill Blvd.
R13P- Under RR connection at 60 537,648 537,648 - Orcutt Area
11 east end of Industrial 100% Development
Wy or other location in
vicinity.
RBP- Bridge over Foothill 158 1,748,206 874,103 874,103 Target contribution
12 Blvd just west of 50% 50% from Cal Poly
California Ave.
RBP- Bridge over RR from 250 3,100,000 2,790,000 310,000
13 Sinsheimer Park to 90% 10%
Lawrence Dr. TE
RBP- Bridge over RR at 45 191,900 -- 191,900 Could be City funded
14 Fairview St.to Connect 100% once Fairview Ave.
to Penny Ln. TE connected to Lizzie St.
RBP- Path from east end of 225 225,000 27,000 - 198,000
15 High St.to the East End 12% 88%
of Roundhouse. TE
RBP- Path along west side of 830 720'000216,000 504,000 Target only for
16 RR from Roundhouse to 30% 70% SLOCOG grant funds
McMillian TE
K-8
Pro' 'p ' _ _ City . Developer Grant: Comment
J Descrt hon �naa(m) 'Total Cost
Ea ectations Ta ets
P,BP- Path along west side of 525 500,000 150,000 -- 350,000 Target only for
17 RR from McMillian to 30% 70% SLOCOG grant funds
Orcutt. TE
RBP- Path on west side of RR 950 900,000 600,000 - 300,000
18 from Orcutt to Industrial 66% 33%
TE/BTA
RBP- Path Along East Side of 585 560,000 140,000 140,000 280,000 Assumes French
19 Railroad from the 25% 25% 50% Hospital contribute to
Jennifer Street Bridge to TE construction.
Fairview St.
Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail
BJT-1 West side of creek from 1,825 2,121,700 1,591,275 530,425 Assume that Prado-
Prado to LOVR 75% 25% Higuera project will
TE dedicate land.
BJT-2 Separated bikeways on 260 500,000 165,000 335,000 Incorporate into PSR
US IO1/LOVR 33% 66% process and build as
bridge/interchange. STIP part of new bridge
BJT-3 Parallel bridge over 45 363,200 363,200 - Build as part of
SLO Creek @ Prado 100% replacement of bridge
Rd.
BJT-4 West side of creek from 850 1,469,600 1,028,720 -- 440,880 Incorporate as part of
Elks to Prado 70% 30% property
TE redevelopment&/or
flood project
BJT=5 East side of creek from 625 1,155;700 346,710 462,280 346,710 Construct as part of
Madonna Road to Elks 30% 40% 30% redevelopment of
Lane TE Caltrans site
BJT-6 East side of creek from 250 290,200 .290,000 - -- Assume land
Marsh St.to Bianchi 100% dedication as part of
Lane property
redevelopment
13JT-7 West side of creek from 376 809,000 405,500 - 405,500 Involves significant
Bianchi to South Street 50% 50% bridge structure
TE
BJT-8 East side of creek from 260 260,000 260,000 - -- Develop as part of
south end of Brook to 100% entry park with rec.
Madonna funds
13JT-9 Cross under Madonna 60 150,000 150,000 - Combine with Caltrans
Rd on east side of creek 100% project to widen bridge
to install sidewalks
BJT-10 East side of Prefumo 1,600 925,600 - 925,600 -- Construct as part of
Creek&drainage swale 100% Marketplace/McBride
from Calle Joaquin to projects
Madonna Rd.
BJT-ll East side of SLO Creek 825 465,000 465,000 Joint City-County
from LOVR to 100% grant request.
Octagonal Barn TE
BJT-12 Parallel bridge over 35 350,600 175,300 175,300 Construct when Drive
creek at Elks Lane 50% 50% In property redevelops
TE
BJT-13 Bridge over Madonna 153 1,565,200 766,948 328,692 469,560 Senior housing project
Road to connect 50% 20% 30% fronting Madonna Rd.
W/Laguna Lake Park TE or Rec. contributes to project
K-9
AirpOrt Area Bikeways
Prof Description Length(m) Total Cost City Developer Grant Comment
Ex ectations Taraets
Act-1 Rockview to south end 925 592,000 123,000 345,000 123,000 Rockview Pl.corner '
of sports field complex 21% 58% 21% development pays
TE or Rec. small share.
Act-2 West side of creek from 540 245,600 - 245,600 - Unocal may install
sports field complex to 100% when property
Tank Farm develops
Act-3 Underpass @ SR 227 85 350,000 - 500,000 - Must receive Caltrans
between existing trail& 100% approval
Rockview
Act-4 From Tank Farm Road 180 115,000 115,000 - Part of AASP-funded
south parallel to Santa 100% flood control project&
Fe to south side of creek area impact fees
Act-5 Along east side then 1,750 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 - Part of AASP-funded
west side of creek to 100% flood control project&
Buckley Road. area impact fees
BRP-1 Class II bike lanes on 840 10,000 10,000 - Garcia Ranch
both side of Vachel 100% development installs
Lane,Higuera to with frontage facilities
Buckle
BRB-2 Class II bike lane on 4,300 1,000,000 - 200,000 800,000 County TE application
south side of Buckley 20% 80%
from S.Higuera to County TE
Broad.
BRB-3 Path parallels Buckley 2,100 1,540,000 770,000 770,000 Joint City-County
Rd. from Broad St.to 50% 50% application for STIP
Santa Fe Rd. STIP proiect
BRB-a Path parallels Buckley 2,180 1,840,000 1,380,000 920,000 Avila Ranch
Rd. Santa Fe Road to 50% 50% contributes$460K.
Vachel Lane STIP
TFC-2 Path along creek from 1,640 1,400,000 - 1,400,000 - Part of AASP-funded
Tank Farm Rd.to 100% flood control project
Buckley Rd.
Miscellaneous Bikewa Pro'ects
Mis-I Morro St.bicycle 500 125,000 125,000 - - Project under
boulevard between 100% development&
Santa Barbara and includes traffic signal
Marsh
Mis-2 Bridge over Stenner 35 187,000 21,500 - 165,500 Project programmed
Creek @ Montalban 11.5% 88.5%
SHA
Mis-3 Widen South Street 200 50,000 50,000 - $50K is City share of a
between Beebe and 100% Caltrans project
Higuera to include bike
lanes
Mis4 Orcutt Road RR 100 1,270,000 $500,000 -- 770,000
crossing widening and 39% 61%
realignment of Bullock USHA&
Lane STIP
Mis-5 Install eastbound bike 10 135,816 $135,816 - Cal Poly install as part
slot on Highland Drive 100% of H-8 site
at SR 1 Intersection development
Mis-6 Install eastbound bike 10 154,409 154,409 - Maybe pursue traffic
slot on Foothill @ 100% safety grants
California
K-10
Proi p Descnlption Lefigth(m) Total Cost City Developer' Grant Comment
E -. ctations -Tatgets` _ - -
Mu-7 Install an eastbound 10 135,816 135,816 — Construct as part of
bike slot on South @ 100% Broad Street Plaza
Broad SR 227project
Mis-8 Install northbound bike 10 250,000 250,000 — — Construct after City
slot on Madonna @ 100% takes over Rt 227
South Street.
Mis-9 Bikeway from north end 345 283,695 283,695 — Consider safe route to
of Flora,across County 100% school funding
&church property to
Fixlini
Mis-10 Install Class II bike 175 Negligible - 100% _ Cal Poly install as part
lane on north side of of H-8 site
Highland from SRI to development
bottom of hill
Mis-11 Install Class II BL @ 60 Negligible 100% -- --
east end of Marsh as it
curves onto California
Blvd.
Mis-12 Reconstruct three NA 25,000 25,000 — Caltrans Minor A/B
gutters along Broad St. 100% project unless City
Old Vons Site takes over project.
Mis-13 Install bike lane on 170 . Negligible 100% -
north side of Peach
Street where it adjoins
Stenner Creek
Mis-14 Path from end of Broad 235 256,136 256,136 — Requires Caltrans
n/o US 101,under 100% approval
freeway to connect
w/Brizzolara St.
Mis-15 Path from south end of 400 130,000 130,000 — — Includes cost of
Brizzolara St.thru 100% establishing easement.
Promontory project to
Hi uera
Mis-16 Redefine and reinforce 10 25,000 - 25,000 Include as part of ramp
bike slot on SB LOVR 100% modifications to
Calle Joaquin STIP LOVR interchange
Mis-17 Install Class II bike 465 Negligible 100%
lanes on the outside_ of
parking bays on
Prefumo Rd. from
LOVR east
Mis-18 Path from north end of 1,700 1,600,000 480,000
Laguna Lake Park to 30%
Foothill O'Connor TE/BTA
Mis-19 Install bike lanes on 3.26 300,000 75,000 75,000 150,000 Caltrans to improve
both sides of Marsh 25% 25% 50% bike link to Fernandez
from Fernandez Lane, Minor A/B TE Lane across their ROW
under interchange to
Marsh
Mis-20 Install a southbound 10 200,000 -- 200,000 - Do as part of Garcia
bike slot on S.Higuera 100% Ranch development
LOVR
Mis-21 Install access controls at NA 5,000 5,000 --
the east end of San Luis 100%
Drive
K-11
Prof# Description l flgenlm) Total Cost City Developer Grant Comment
Expectatioas Tareets
Mis-22 Pave existing path from 200 90,500 45,250 — 45,250
Boulevard Del Campo 50% Rec.Gant
to Helena @ north end
of Sinsheimer Park
Mis-23 Path Under US 101 from 250 100,000 50,000 - 50,000
San Luis Drive to 50% Rec.Grant
Cuesta Park
Mis-24 Connection over South 630 1,500,000 1,025,000 450,000
Hills from Exposition 70% 30%
Drive to Margarita SP TE
Area
Mis-25 Orcutt Area Bikeways NA NA 100% —
Mis-26 Margarita Area NA NA — 100%
Bikeways
Other Non-Bikeway Pro'ects
OBP-t Transportation NA 5,000 5,000
information kiosk in 100%
Railroad Square
013F-2 Provide additional NA 3,000 3,000 — —
downtown bicycle 100%
parking as needed
OBF-3 City-Wide Bicycle NA 5,000 5,000 --
Parking Retrofit 100%
Program
OBF4 City Park Bicycle NA 3,000 3,000
Parkin 100%
OBF-5 Community Bicycle NA 15,000 15,000 — —
Program 100%
OBF-6 Install"Bike Route" NA 5,000 5,000 -
signs on targeted Class 1000/0
III routes.
TOTALS $48,522,812 $28,559,027 $7,397,685 $12,566,100
100% 59%(2) 15% 26%
Notes:
(1) Developer Expectations also include area impact fees or area assessments paid by development within specific
plan areas.
(2) Of the City's $28,559,027 contributions, $4,253,253 is contributions from the TIF program for the Railroad
Bicycle Path; and $1,659,696 for other bicycle projects supported by the TIF. If these amounts were subtracted
from the City's total above, the result would be $22,646,078 or about 47% of the total cost of all bike projects
listed.
(3) The above listing and cost estimates does not include all bicycle projects. For example, Miscellaneous Projects
#25 and 26 are unspecified projects included in the Margarita and Orcutt Area specific plan areas. Bikeway
projects in these areas will be the full responsibility of area developers.
Also, the Class I trail system that is shown on the Figure #1 that extends along the west side of U.S. 101 will
require additional analysis and is a future study item.
K-12