Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2007, PH 1 - 2007 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE (GPI/ER 21-07) \1 J ` 1 council MRu May 15, 2007 j acEnc)a RepoRt CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O I FROM: Jay Walter, Director of PublicWo s o Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transpo tion Planner SUBJECT: 2007 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE (GPI/ER 21-07) CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the project. REPORT-IN-BRIEF During the past five years, the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) has been developing an update to the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The update involves a comprehensive review all of the bike plan's policies, programs, and projects and redrafts the document to improve its presentation and content. The proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan map changes improve bicycle circulation in the City by creating additional facilities and improvements to existing bicycle facilities. Many of the changes are meant to improve connections making it easier to bicycle from home to school (specifically the middle school and high school, as they serve the entire City), commercial centers (such as Madonna Plaza), and downtown. The proposed policy changes strengthen existing policies that promote bicycling, bicycling safety, and bicycling education. The changes establish policies for locating bikeways in sensitive areas, installing special design treatments, promoting enhanced bicycle parking services, installing bikeway lighting, and incorporating bikeway striping improvements into City paving projects. The changes also set standards for pavement quality,bikeway design, and long and short-term bicycle parking thus providing more clarity to those implementing the plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan at its meeting on March 28, 2007 and unanimously recommended approval of the document including revisions recommended by staff and the Commission at the meeting. DISCUSSION Phased Update Process In 2001, the Bicycle Advisory Committee initiated an update to the City's adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. The update process was divided into two phases. The reason for phasing the plan update process is that Phase I needed to be completed and submitted to the State for certification in 2002 so the City would be eligible to apply for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants. Phase I included the addition of information required to comply with Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This information was included in 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 2 the "Appendix" of the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update approved by the City Council that year. Phase II is the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan which is the subject of this report and involves a comprehensive review all of the bike plan's policies, programs, and projects and redrafts the document to improve its presentation and content. Phase II of the update needs to be completed and submitted to the State for certification in 2007 so the City can continue to be eligible to apply for grant funding for an additional five years. Proposed Bicycle.Transportation Plan Changes The Planning Commission staff report (see Attachment 1) contains a synopsis of the modifications to the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan maps and text. As with the adopted 2002 Plan, the 2007 plan continues to identify bikeways that serve the transportation needs of bicyclists (see Attachment 2, Figure 2C: 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Map of Existing and Proposed Bikeways). Of all the new information, the most significant is the new listing/description of bikeway projects and spreadsheet for prioritizing projects based on ten (10) criteria detailed in Appendix J of the plan. Use of these features will be demonstrated at the Council meeting by the Bicycle Advisory Committee chair person. The proposed map changes improve bicycle circulation in the City by creating additional facilities and improvements to existing bicycle facilities. Many of the changes are meant to improve connections making it easier to bicycle from home to school (specifically the middle school and high school, as they serve the entire City), commercial centers (such as Madonna Plaza), and downtown. As expected, the Railroad Safety Trail and Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail are the highest ranked projects in the plan. Given limited funding and an estimated cost of$54 million to design and construct all of the projects, prioritizing the projects to construct the highest priority projects first is an important component of the 2007 Plan. The individual project sheets also contain information which further clarifies the intent and purpose of each project. Providing this additional information became very important to the Bicycle Advisory Committee after the Montalban bicycle bridge project (identified in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan) was designed and funded, but not constructed due to a change of circumstances and a'lack of community support. The proposed policy changes strengthen existing policies that promote bicycling, bicycling safety, and bicycling education. The changes establish policies for locating bikeways in sensitive areas, installing special design treatments, promoting enhanced bicycle parking services, installing bikeway lighting, and incorporating bikeway striping improvements into City paving projects. The changes also set standards for pavement quality, bikeway design, and long and short-term bicycle parking providing more clarity to those implementing the plan. Finally, the proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan contains all the information (see Attachment 3, Bicycle Transportation Plan Checklist) required by Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code for State certification. 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 3 Because Phase H of the plan update was developed over a period of five .years, the Bicycle Advisory .Committee and staff were able to adequately "test" the Plan for adequacy and completeness. The Bicycle Advisory Committee tested the ranking system when looking for a project to submit for a Safe Routes to School grant application. Staff tested the plan's policies when reviewing development projects for consistency with City plans and programs. Additionally over people including staff members, volunteers and members of the public provided input in the preparation of the update improving its content and organization. General Plan Consistency The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan implements many goals, objectives, policies and programs in the Circulation, Conservation and Open Space, and Land Use Elements (see Attachment 1, Planning Commission staff report, for a specific listing).. The policies promote bicycling and call for the City to complete a continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways. Major City Goal Implementation Bikeway improvements are identified as a "Major City Goal" in the 2005-07 and 2007-09. City Financial Plans. The objective of the major City goal is to improve bicycling in the City. The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan has been developed with this goal in mind. The plan includes policies that promote bicycling, projects that improve the maintenance of existing facilities, a listing of proposed projects that complete a bikeway network within the City and connect to adjacent County facilities, and a method for prioritizing the implementation of all of the projects in the plan. The major Citygoal is also an integral part of the City's strategy to reduce and manage traffic congestion and improve the condition of City streets (many that include on-street bicycle facilities) and as such, directly supports a top priority for the use of Measure Y funds; as identified by the community both before and during the Measure Y campaign. Environmental Review An environmental initial study was prepared for the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan (see Attachment 4, Environmental Initial Study). The initial study identifies that the plan could have a potentially significant impact to aesthetics if new bridges installed over Highway 101 are not designed to reduce visual impacts. The analysis concludes that implementation of the following measures will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. 1. Architectural review of new bridge structures over Highway 101 shall be required with the goal to reduce visual impacts. 2. Class I bike path lighting shall comply with City standards; Additionally, lighting placement shall comply with the policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. 17.9 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 4 A notice of intention to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day review period. During the public review period, the State Public Utilities Commission submitted a letter (see Attachment 5, Letter from Public Utilities Commission) recommending that "any development projects planned adjacent to or near the rail corridor in the City be planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind". Staff believes this recommendation is adequately addressed by Policy 1.47 of the 2007 Plan and its accompanying illustration in the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan which states, "Class I bikeways along the railroad should include appropriate setbacks and fencing to ensure safe and compatible operations with active rail lines." Public Review and Planning Commission Recommendation The Bicycle Advisory Committee has been updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan at their public meetings over the last five years. Each meeting has been advertised and open to the public. Several members of the public and organizations such as the San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition have provided input into the Plan Update. As part of the public input, it was noted that several projects that were included in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation plan were mistakenly excluded from the public hearing draft 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan maps and/or project ranking sheets. These projects include Class II bike lanes on Roundhouse and Bishop Street should the Bishop Street extension be constructed; Class I bike paths connecting Boulevard Del Campo and Helena, EI Capitan and Poinsettia, Foothill and Stenner, and Jennifer and Fairview; and separated bikeways on the US 101/LOUR bridge interchange. Although these may not rank as high priority projects, staff recommends that they be retained in the Plan since the projects help complete the circulation network and the environmental impacts of these projects have already been evaluated. Additionally, the Bicycle Advisory Committee has given further thought to the proposed Highland/Chorro Class I bike path connection and requests that the project description be amended to include bike"channelization"(an opening in the median to allow bicycle access from Highland Drive to North Chorro) as the preferred solution should bicycle circulation become an issue at the intersection. The Planning Commission reviewed the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan at its meeting on March 28, 2007. Staff provided the Commission with a summary of the plan and staff recommended changes to the public hearing draft document and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Attachment 6, Staff recommended changes) in response to input received to date. Staff noted that the recommended changes had received the support of the Bicycle Advisory Committee at its March 22, 2007 meeting. The Commission received public testimony and discussed additional recommended changes to the document (see Attachment 7, Planning Commission recommended changes). After discussion, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that Council approve the plan as forwarded by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and revised by the Planning Commission including the changes recommended by staff at the meeting (see Attachment 8 and 9, Planning Commission resolution and minutes). 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of fully implementing the plan is significant and will likely extend over many years. Cost estimates for all bikeway projects (not funded by development) are presented in Appendix J of the plan. In sum, approximately $54 million in bikeway projects are identified, with approximately 90% of this amount associated with Class I bicycle facilities separated from streets. City transportation surveys and input provided at community forums on the City's financial plan show strong support by residents for bike paths separated from streets as an inducement for greater use of bicycles, which is a General Plan Circulation Element goal. Costs to develop Class I facilities are significant because they involve the purchase of land or easements and the construction of bike paths and associated structures such as bridges. The fiscal impact to the City (as well as the speed of implementing the Plan) will be affected by the City's ability to obtain grant funding for a significant portion of the costs. ALTERNATIVES 1. Council could recommend additional changes to the draft 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. Depending on the type and scope of the changes, the project's environmental document may need to be amended to reflect these modifications. 2. Council could continue this item to a future specific meeting date and request additional information of staff. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission staff report 2. 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Map of Existing and Proposed Bikeways(Figure 2C) 3. Bicycle Transportation Plan Checklist 4. Environmental Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 5. Letter submitted by the Sate of California Public Utilities Commission 6. Staff recommended changes 7. Planning Commission recommended changes 8. Planning Commission resolution 9. Planning Commission meeting minutes 10. Council resolution approving the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan PROVIDED TO COUNCIL: 2007 Public Hearing Draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan The 2007 Public Hearing Draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is available for review on the City's web site.(www.slociV.org). Hard copies are available at the City Clerk's office and at the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street. /-s -� ATTACHMENT CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT_ ITEM# FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director MEETING DATE: March 28, 2007 Prepared by: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner(Phone 805-781-7590) FILE NUMBER: GPI/ER 21-07 PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide SUBJECT: 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve an update to the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan as forwarded by the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project. BACKGROUND Situation In 2001, the Bicycle Advisory Committee initiated an update to the City's adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. The update process was divided into two phases: 1. Phase I included the addition of information required to comply with Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This information was included in the "Appendix" of the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update approved by the City Council that year. 2. Phase II, the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update which is the subject of this report, involves a comprehensive review all of the bike plan's policies, programs, and projects and redrafts the document improving its presentation and content. The reason for phasing the plan update process is that Phase I needed to be completed and submitted to the State for certification in 2002 so the City would be eligible to apply for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants. Certification establishes eligibility for BTA funding cycles for five years. During the current five year period, the City applied for and received a $541,800 grant to construct the section of.the Railroad Safety Trail between Hathway Street and Foothill Boulevard. Construction of this bikeway section should be completed September 2008. Now Phase II of the update needs to be completed and submitted to the State for certification in 2007 so the City can continue to be eligible to apply for grant funding for an additional five years. — e ATTACHMENT GPI/ER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 2 of 8 Data Summary Address: City Wide Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo (Bicycle Advisory Committee) Zoning: NA General Plan: Policy CI 3.9 of the Circulation Element calls for updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Environmental status: Mitigated Negative Declaration (See Attachment 1) Project action deadline: 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update must be sent to the State by December 1, 2007 for the City to be eligible to apply for upcoming Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant funding. Site Description: Citywide Project Description The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is a comprehensive update of all of the bike plan's policies, programs, and projects. The Plan has been redrafted to improve presentation and content. Proposed Bikeway Map Changes The following is a synopsis of the modifications to Figure #1 (Bicycle Transportation Map) that are included in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan. As with the adopted 2002 Plan, the 2007 Update continues to identify bikeways that serve the transportation needs of bicyclists. • Developing seven more bicycle boulevards (two of which cross over Highway 101). Morro Street is the City's first bicycle boulevard. • Extending the Prado Road Class I bike path (separated from vehicle traffic) from the Margarita Area Specific Plan west to Madonna Road. • Installing a pedestrian/bike signal at Foothill/Ferrini intersection. • Establishing a Class II bike lane on Tassajara between Ramona Drive and Cerro Romauldo. • Developing a Class I bike path connection between Oceanaire Drive and Laguna Lane, Ferrini Drive and North Chorro,.and Sacramento Drive and Laurel Lane. • Accommodating Class II bike lanes with a widening of Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Highway 101. • Accommodating Class II bike lanes with a reconstruction of the California Avenue Bridge at San Luis Drive and the Buena Vista Avenue bridge over Highway 101. - ATTACHMENT GPUER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan.Update Page 3 of 8 Proposed Text Changes The following is a listing of added features that have been incorporated into the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. Of all the new information, the most significant is the new listing of bikeway projects and spreadsheet for prioritizing projects based on ten (10) criteria detailed in Appendix J. Major Modifications to May 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007 # Recommended Change Description of Change 1 General Policies (Policy 1.1 Establishes and promotes bicycling as an equal and viable - 1.6) mode of transportation. 2 Class I Bikeways Adjoining Establishes policies and standards for locating bikeways in Creeks (Policy 1.7 - 1.10) sensitive habitat areas. Standards derived from the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan ovember 002). 3 Class I Bikeways Adjoining Establishes policies and standard for locating bikeways Flood Control Channels where parallel flood control channels or expansions of (Policy 1.11 - 1.14 existing channels are planned. 4 Class III Bikeways (Policy Establishes new permissive standards for locating Class III 1.20 - 1.22) bikeways along certain types of public streets. Enables the application of edge striping along certain Class III routes to provide a minimal buffer area for bikes. 5 Bicycle Boulevards (Policy. Establishes new criteria for locating Bicycle Boulevards on 1.23 - 1.24) certain types of public streets, with reference to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management TMprogram. 6 Bikeway Maintenance Sets standards for pavement quality consistent with Caltrans (Policy 1.34 - 1.41) standards. Sets protocol for remedial actions to improve bikeway maintenance as part of the City's ongoing pavement management program. 7 Special Design Provisions Establishes a permissive program for installing special design (Policy 1.44 - 1.47) treatments such as "colored" Class II bikeways at locations of high bicycle-vehicle conflict. Establishes basic setback standards for Class I bikeways adjoining the railroad. Standards are consistent with the Railroad Safety Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan (November 2001). 8 Short-Term.Bike Parking Stipulates that the inverted"U"-and the"Peak"bicycle rack (Policy 2.7-2.8) design shall be use&to satisfy short-term bike parking requirements. Establishes minimum dimensions and clearance requirements. 9 Long-Term Bike Parking Establishes new location standards for bike lockers. -`� ATTACHMENT _ GPI/ER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 4 of 8 (Policy 2.9 - 2.12) Establishes access criteria and minimum dimensions for interior rooms to be used for bicycle storage. Introduces the concept of establishing"Bicycle Centrals" at major employment sites. 10 Related Bicycle Parking Promotes enhanced bicycle parking services (Bike Valet) at Activities (Policy 2.15 - community events and the"Racks with Plaques"bicycle rack 2.19) donation program. I 1 Other Support Facilities Stipulates that the City will develop and maintain a bike map (Policy 3.1 - 3.12) for the City. Provides general guidance for lighting of Class I and II bikeways. Provides flexible standards for installing showers and lockers at major employment sites. 12 Education and Promotion Simplifies previous lengthy section and focuses on joint (Policy 4.1 -4.7) efforts with other agencies. Encourages hiring a bicycle coordinator for education and promotion activities and supports the use of a"traffic school" option for persons involved in bicycle related traffic violations. 13 Bicycle Funding Programs Broadens the candidate use of TDA funds for bicycle-related (Policy 5.1 - 5.9) activities. Recommends that debt financing be used for large bike projects that are out of scale with grant funding. Recommends that small-scale projects such as signing and striping be incorporated into City pavingprojects. 14 Administration (Policy 6.1 - Establishes frequency of bike plan updates to comply with 6.2) the update re uirements of the State's BTA grant program. 15 Proposed Bikeway Projects Establishes a listing, description, and prioritizing spreadsheet (Appendix J) for over 50 projects in the Plan based on ten(10) criteria for ranking. Establishes the Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trails as generally the highest priority projects. 5 Bicycle Design Standards Sets standards for various widths of Class I bikeways based (Appendix M) on geographic and traffic conditions. Provides for wider Class II bike lanes along State Highways consistent with Caltrans standards. Establishes a minimum width standard for"bicycle slots" adjoining turn lanes on multi-lane arterial streets. 15 Bikeway Maint. Standards Establishes standard mitigation requirements for Class I and Standard Mitigation bikeways adjoining creeks (consistent with Bob Jones Trail (Appendix L and N) plan) and establishes pavement quality standards consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual. /- 9 -� ATTACHMENT GPI/ER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 5 of 8 EVALUATION The proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan map changes will improve bicycle circulation in the City by creating additional facilities and improvements to existing bicycle facilities. Many of the changes are meant,to improve connections making it easier to bicycle from home to school (specifically the City's only middle school and high school), commercial centers (such as Madonna Plaza), and downtown. The proposed projects shown on the map are listed in Appendix J and can be ranked in order of importance using ten different criteria. As expected, the Railroad Safety Trail and Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail are the highest ranked projects in the Plan. Ultimately the goal is to construct all of the projects identified in the Plan. However given limited funding and an estimated cost of$54 million to design and construct all of the projects, prioritizing the projects to construct the highest priority projects first is an important component of the 2007 Plan. The individual project sheets also contain information which further clarifies the intent and purpose of each project. Providing this additional information became very important to the Bicycle Advisory Committee after the Montalban bicycle bridge project (identified in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan) was designed and funded, but not constructed due to a change of circumstances and a lack of community support. The proposed policy changes strengthen existing policies that promote bicycling, bicycling safety, and bicycling education. The changes establish policies for locating bikeways in sensitive areas, installing special design treatments, promoting enhanced bicycle parking services, installing bikeway lighting, and incorporating bikeway striping improvements into City paving projects. The changes also set standards for pavement quality, bikeway design, and long and short-term bicycle parking providing more clarity to those implementing the plan. Finally, the proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update contains all the information (see Attachment 2, Bicycle Transportation Checklist) required by Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code for State certification. Because Phase II of the Plan Update was developed over a period of five years, the Bicycle Advisory Committee and staff were able to adequately "test" the Plan for adequacy and completeness. The Bicycle Advisory Committee tested the ranking system when looking for a ' project to submit for a Safe Routes to School grant application. Staff tested the Plan's policies when reviewing development projects for consistency with City plans and programs.. Additionally over 20 staff members, volunteers and members of the public provided input in the preparation of the update improving its content and organization. General Plan Consistency The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update implements the following Circulation; Conservation and Open Space, and Land Use Element goals, objectives,policies, and programs: ATTACHMENT GPI/ER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 6of8 Goals 2) Reduce Car Use. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. Objectives 11) Alternative Forms of Transportation. San Luis Obispo should complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the city by 2000 and extend the system to serve new growth areas. Policies Cl 33: Bikeways. The City shall complete a continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and with county bike routes as specified by the Bicycle Transportation Plan. C1 3.4: New Development. New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and standards. Cl 3.5: Bikeway Design and Maintenance. Bikeways should be designed and maintained to improve bicycling safety, convenience, and encourage people to use bicycles to commute to work or school. COSE 2.21.4: Promote walking, biking and use of public transit to reduce dependency on motor vehicles. City actions shall seek to reduce dependency on gasoline- or diesel powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking,biking, and public transit use. COSE 2.303: Alternative transportationjand use strategies. Implement public transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented land use and design strategies in new development, as described in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reduce the number of single-occupant trips in fossil-fueled vehicles. COSE 4.22.1: Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly design. Residences, work places and facilities for all other activities will be located and designed to promote travel by pedestrians and bicyclists. COSE 4.22.2: Alternative Transportation. The City's transportation and circulation systems shall foster travel by modes other than motor vehicles, including walking, bicycles, and public transit. LU 2.1.4: Neighborhood Connections. All areas should have a street and sidewalk patter that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. ATTACHMENT GPI/ER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 7of8 LUE 2.3.2: Separate Paths. Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separate from roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, schools, parks, and where feasible other areas of the City. Programs CI 3.9: Bicycle Plan Update. The City will update its bicycle plan consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation Element. The Bicycle Transportation Plan shall establish official city bike routes. Environmental Review An environmental initial study was prepared for the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. The initial study identifies that the project could have a potentially significant impact to aesthetics unless mitigation is incorporated. The analysis concludes that implementation of the following measures will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level. 1. Architectural review of bridge structures shall be required with the goal to reduce visual impacts. 2. Class I bike path lighting shall comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement shall comply with the policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. PUBLIC REVIEW/INPUT The Bicycle Advisory Committee has been updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan at their public meetings over the last five years. Each meeting has been advertised and open to the public. Several members of the public and organizations such as the San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition have provided input into the Plan Update. CONCURRENCES The Public Works Department (that provides staff support to the Bicycle Advisory Committee) supports the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update as recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. ATTACHMENT GPI/ER 21-07 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Page 8 of 8 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission may: 1. Recommend changes to the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan. Depending on the type and scope of the changes, the project's environmental document may need to be amended to reflect these modifications. 2. Continue this item to future specific meeting date and request additional information of staff. Attached: 1. Initial Environmental Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Bicycle Transportation Plan Checklist 3. Planning Commission Resolution Previously Distributed to Planning Commission and Available for Review at 919 Palm St.: 2007 Public Review Draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan �a3 ATTACHMENT Z.. c - Cv O O Q O C V M o tA a o is N CL M kn � cf � z ' 7 V1 C GJ a d J d m _Cl C IO Y 'o � O m Y p q N O�p {.L m V V U l9 C pw�w n. tn ;, X IIIIo V_ UJ m go - •' 114 •f 1 ' � •t �b s a %y 1� v a 0 ATTACHMENT \I �I F Q o r I I � z z o }I �I u o Q F o a � 72 A a Q ¢ a � tC iy"^ N •b L N 0 . 4-+ y a N a n o - toIdw o c cTi c 4° N 4 U w C tC C N • �+ r c N to ., ° O H •fl °' ca o a 'C c (�. o 0 0. 4 E G eu u m pv a H cTi w o C3. U v d .Y fl E ~ W y L A U ? L d O E Q y 0 =u 3 0 °Co 5 C •� o " s c a+ o u 'y N .fl N >. vi at �. L. u L L •p .� y •.1 I C :: to R C Y c u Y € 4 V 'O L T> -E - NL 'O y _ 4c: 0 O y > C T F+•I •Uw, S aEi E 3 v c ° ami �^ •oNr OOE. �cy�V.. =N c " No v Lc o oEu-00 E VCL Eby > u O O 'o 'C° o0 O O E tLr tuti V>U>"O mo Q O m . .a L u UN ' R u R R m° `E M ° c .� .4° ° m � � ,L m 9 N � aCi LU W Q C o c.L E c c 4 °c° c ti :� c0 CLi a4i o : °' d °L' e CL Q v > E aXi axi v L .y. Lo x O w 4: w u o J O C7 L 4.O L O O E wp •_ ot = N N y y y c tC L ` o° cd o Bc ;e oauo oa -2 I ca E Q . . = o O •c u L iQ O : 0 ° 9eo o ° a a0 E0L4 o c C .. Q ai 'u m L E R a= E A•o ° y 4 a c Zu E ai c E E o u E v � u d E m •y .o o d ai u u Q L v V L u > ¢ c c c o D o v E ¢ chi 0 a Q Q w R c .0 c 5 o y r .E o 0 0 0.` n 3 v 0. u. s 4 > .. N V w .. w L O 3 L :7.E R F ¢ z 0 ATTACFaffiW .4, INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#21-07 1. Project Title: 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Peggy Mandeville,Principal Transportation Planner(805) 781-7590 4. . Project Location: Community Wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable 7. Zoning: Not Applicable 8. Description of the Project: The City of San Luis Obispo adopted its Bicycle Transportation Plan(Bike Plan) on October 27, 1993. An update of the Plan was adopted on May 7, 2002. The purpose of the 2007 update is to achieve the following objectives: • Enable its certification in 2007 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 2007 Bike Plan. By having a "certified" Bike Plan, the City is eligible to continue to apply for State grants under the Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)program. • Update the bikeway maps and project listings to incorporate bicycle boulevards and bikeways shown in adopted specific plans and area plans (ie. Airport Area Specific Plan, . Margarita Area Specific Plan) and draft plans that will soon undergo public review (ie. Orcutt Area Specific Plan). ATTACHMENT • Update Bike Plan policies,projects and priorities. Proposed Bikeway Map Changes The following is a synopsis of the modifications to Figure #1 of the Bicycle Transportation Map that is included in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan. As with the existing Bike Plan, the 2007 Update continues to identify bikeways that serve the transportation needs of bicyclists. • Developing seven more bicycle boulevards (two of which cross over Highway 101). • Extending the Prado Road bike path (separated from vehicle traffic) from the Margarita Area Specific Plan west to Madonna Road. • Installing a pedestrian/bike signal at Foothill/Fen ini intersection. • Establishing a bike lane on Tassajara between Ramona Drive and Cerro Romauldo. • Developing a bike path connection between Oceanaire Drive and Laguna Lane, Ferrini Drive and North Chorro, and Sacramento Drive and Laurel Lane. • Accommodating bike lanes with a widening of Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Highway 101. • Accommodating bike lanes with a reconstruction of the California Avenue Bridge at San Luis Drive and the Buena Vista bridge over Highway 101. Proposed Text Changes The following is a listing of added features that have been incorporated into the 2007 Bike Plan. Of all the new information, the most significant is the new listing of bikeway projects and spreadsheet for prioritizing projects based on ten(10) criteria for ranking. Major Modifications to May 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007 # Recommended Change Description of Change 1 General Policies(Policy 1.1 - 1.6) Establishes and promotes bicycling as an equal and viable mode of transportation. 2 Class I Bikeways Adjoining Establishes policies and standards for locating bikeways in sensitive Creeks(Policy 1.7- 1.10) habitat areas. Standards derived from the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan(November 2002). 3 Class I Bikeways Adjoining Flood Establishes policies and standard for locating bikeways where parallel Control Channels(Policy 1.11 - flood control channels or expansions of existing channels are planned. 1.1.14) 4 Class III Bikeways(Policy 1.20- Establishes new permissive standards for locating Class III bikeways 1.22) along certain types of public streets. Enables the application of edge striping along certain Class III routes to provide a minimal buffer area for bikes. 5 Bicycle Boulevards(Policy 1.23 - Establishes new criteria for locating Bicycle Boulevards on certain types 1.24) of public streets,with reference to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management program. 6 Bikeway Maintenance(Policy Sets standards for pavement quality consistent with Caltrans standards. 1.34- 1.41) Sets protocol for remedial actions to improve bikeway maintenance as part of the City's ongoing pavement management program. /,,17 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTACHMENT 7 Special Design Provisions(Policy Establishes a permissive program for installing special design treatments 1.44- 1.47) such as"colored"Class II bikeways at locations of high bicycle-vehicle conflict. Establishes basic setback standards for Class I bikeways adjoining the railroad. Standards are consistent with the Railroad Safety Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan(November 2001). 8 Short-Term Bike Parking(Policy Stipulates that the inverted"U"and the."Peak"bicycle rack design shall 2.7-2.8) be used to satisfy short-term bike parking requirements. Establishes minimum dimensions and clearance requirements. 9 Long-Term Bike Parking(Policy Establishes new location standards for bike lockers. Establishes access 2.9-2.12) criteria and minimum dimensions for interior rooms to be used for bicycle storage. Introduces the concept of establishing`Bicycle Centrals"at major employment sites. 10 Related Bicycle Parking Promotes enhanced bicycle parking services(Bike Valet)at community Activities(Policy 2.15-2.19 events and the"Racks with Plaques"bicycle rack donation program. 11 Other Support Facilities(Policy Stipulates that the City will develop and maintain a bike map for the City. 3.1 -3.12) Provides general guidance for lighting of Class I and II bikeways. Provides flexible standards for installing showers and lockers at major employment sites. 12 Education and Promotion(Policy Simplifies previous lengthy section and focuses on joint efforts with other .4.1 -4.7) agencies. Encourages hiring a bicycle coordinator for education and promotion activities and supports the use of a"traffic school"option for persons involved in bicycle related traffic violations. 13 Bicycle Funding Programs Broadens the candidate use of TDA funds for bicycle-related activities. (Policy 5.1 -5.9) Recommends that debt financing be used for large bike project that are - out of scale with grant funding.Recommends that small-scale projects such as signing and striping be incorporated into City payingprojects. 14 Administration(Policy 6.1 - 6.2) Establishes frequency of bike plan updates to comply with the update requirements of the State's BTA grant program. 15 Proposed Bikeway Projects Establishes a listing,description,and prioritizing spreadsheet for over 50 (Appendix J) projects in the Plan based on ten(10)criteria for ranking. Establishes the Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trails as generally the highest p ority projects. 5 Bicycle Design Standards Sets standards for various widths of Class I bikeways based on (Appendix M) geographic and traffic conditions. Provides for wider Class H bike lanes along State Highways consistent with Caltrans standards. Establishes a minimum width standard for"bicycle slots"adjoining turn lanes on multi- lane arterial.streets. 15 Bikeway Maint. Standards and Establishes standard mitigation requirements for Class I bikeways Standard Mitigation adjoining creeks(consistent with Bob Jones Trail plan)and establishes (Appendix L and N) pavement quality standards consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Not Applicable 10. Project Entitlements Requested: City Council adoption of 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update 11. Other public agencies whose approval is.required: The 2007 Bicycle Transportation will be submitted to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) to determine its consistency with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and to the California Department of Transportation, Bicycle Unit, to determine its consistency with State Code requirements and to certify the plan. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20070 ATTACHMENT 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. X 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 Y Y 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 fora de minimi c 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 X 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)). �� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2067 ATTACHMENT DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 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 X 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" impacts) 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. Cg- Signature Date Kim Murry For: John Mandeville, Deputy Community Development Director Community Development Director- CITY irectorCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 -:' ATTACHMENT EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No ImpacC answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards(e.g. the project.will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial.evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17,"Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). . 5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. 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) ollowing: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. �- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poterinmty Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant hnpact ER # 21-07 Issues unless hnpact Mitigation Inco rated 1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 11,5 --X— b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited —X— 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 11,5,2 —X— the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would -X-- adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation The proposed grade separated crossings of Highway 101 are located within a corridor of moderate scenic value. Extending bicycle facilities over Highway 101 would alter the visual character of the corridor by adding new bridge structures and associated improvements. Mitigation measures, including requiring architectural review for bridge structures, are necessary to ensure that the new structures do not block or significantly impact scenic resources. The proposed lighting of Class'I bikeways could result in new sources of light or glare. Careful design and placement of street lighting and regulations to limit lighting will help to reduce new lighting impacts to a less than significant level. Conclusion Implementation of the following measures will mitigate potential impacts to a less that significant level. 1. Architectural review of bridge structures shall be required with the goal to reduce visual impacts. 2. Class I bike path lighting shall comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement shall comply with the policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a _}t_ Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to 5 —X-- their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland to non-a 'cultural use? Evaluation The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan contains Policy 1.15 to reduce the impact of locating bicycle paths on agricultural properties. No new paths are proposed to be located on agricultural properties. Conclusion Less than significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated with the implementation of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan update. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an 14 _X_ existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 14 quality plan? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 0 ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessTtan No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 21 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant --X- concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 28 people? e) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 14 —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)? Evaluation Implementation of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan should increase bicycle ridership and therefore have a positive effect on air quality. Conclusion No impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: "a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or 5,11, —X— through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a 10 candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or 5,11, —X— other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional 10 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 28 —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 5,28 —X— Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) 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? Evaluation The proposed bike path connection between Oceanaire Drive and Laguna Lane includes a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Prefumo Creek. In addition to standard City policies and regulations, the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan includes polices (Policy 1.7— 1.14) and standard mitigation(Appendix M)for locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impact to less than significant. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CH/LIST ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 21 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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 20 —X— archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource --X— or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of -X-- formal cemeteries? Evaluation Installing Class II bike lanes and bicycle boulevards along City streets will have no effect on subsurface resources. Installing Class I bike paths may affect currently unidentified cultural resources if resources are found during the minimal grading and excavation needed to provide a stable base for the bike path. 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 provision of mitigation measures, including avoidance where necessary. If potential cultural resources are found during construction, the City's Guidelines require that construction cease until a qualified archaeologist determines the extent of the resource,and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 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? Evaluation Facilities that support non-motorized transportation have a positive effect on non-renewable energy resources. Conclusion No Impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 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? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? —X— III. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? —X— IV. Landslides or mudflows? 11 —X-- b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1 I —X— c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 11 —X— would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence, 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 CITY of SAN Luis Osispo 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTACHMENT _ Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 21 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated - - or property? _ Evaluation The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4,a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will be required to meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. Conclusion Less than significant impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment _X_ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely _X_ hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous _X_ emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous —X— . materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within two miles 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 physically interfere with,the adopted emergency emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, 4 _X_ or death, involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation Installation of Class I bike paths range from eight to twelve feet wide with two-foot clear shoulders on each side (total clear dimension of 12-16 feet). These dimensions are sufficiently wide to accommodate most emergency vehicles. Since Class I bike paths generally provide additional access to areas,their development may have a positive effect on emergency access. Conclusion No impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALM. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge _X_ requirements? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 21 07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere —X— substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing 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 28 —X-- capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters (including,but not limited to,wetlands,riparian areas,ponds, springs,creeks,streams,rivers,lakes,estuaries,tidal areas,bays, ocean,etc.)? 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 24 _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 24 _X— would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into —X— ground or surface waters? i) Will Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality, temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity'? Evaluation Proposed new Class I bike paths 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 could impact ground water or adjoining habitat areas. The design and location of all Class I bike paths adjoining creeks have 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. Additionally, any construction requiring drainage analysis shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of 1 an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? _X_ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1 —X— community conservationplans? Evaluation The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update implement the following General Plan policies: Circulation Element Policy3.9 Bicycle Plan Update. The City will update its bicycle plan consistent with the objectives, /`26 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 464Q ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impaa ER # 21-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated policies,and standards of this Circulation Element. The Bicycle Transportation Plan shall establish official city bike routes. Land Use Element Policy 2.3.2 Separate Paths. Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which are separate from roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, schools, parks, and where feasible,other areas of the City. Land Use Element Policy 2.1.4: Neighborhood Connections. All areas should have a street and sidewalk pattern that promotes neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services to provide a continuous pedestrian paths throughout the City. Housing Element Policy 7.2.4. Within expansion areas, new residential development should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish a new neighborhood, with pedestrian and bicycle linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods,schools and shopping areas. Housing Element Policy 7.2.7.The physical designs of neighborhoods and dwellings should promote walking and bicycling,and should preserve open space and views. Conclusion No impact. 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise _X_ levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in _X_ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome _X__ vibration or groundbome 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? Evaluation Implementation of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is not anticipated to expose persons to unacceptable noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element. During construction,the operation of equipment will generate noise. Adherence to provisions of the municipal code that addresses construction noise should mitigate this concern to less than significant levels. Conclusion Less than significant. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (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? -�7 CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTAch-mENT 4 _ Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 27-07 Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Evaluation The proposed changes 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. Conclusion Less than significant impact. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? —X— b) Police protection? -_X-- c) Schools? —X— d) Parks? --X— e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? —X— Other public facilities? --X-- Evaluation New bicycle facilities will incrementally increase the demand for maintenance services as well as patrol by City Rangers, however these costs are considered as part of the City's budget process prior to the facility's construction. Conclusion Less than significant. 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? Evaluation Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan will have a positive effect on recreational opportunities within San Luis Obispo. Conclusion No impact. 15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the —X-- existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service —X— standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp -X— curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? —X— e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Significant Significant Significant Impacf ER # 21-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative 2 —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 chane in air trafficpatterns? Evaluation The proposed bikeways should have an overall positive impact on transportation and circulation by incrementally reducing the dependence of private vehicles,consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan Circulation Element, Conclusion No impact 16.UTELrMS 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 _}t_ treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control,or storm drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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 which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations —X— related to solid waste? Evaluation The Bicycle Transportation Plan would not impact City utilities or services. Conclusion No impact 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 Plan and proposed in the Plan Update,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 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update should be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but __}— cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, /-C W?- CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sotuces Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update significant Significant Significant Impact ER # 21-07 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) 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 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is positive. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause —X— substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirec Implementation of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will have a positive effect on human beings in that it will enable non-motorized access and travel. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 4 ATTACHMENT ; 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 and state where they are available for review. N/A 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 the earlier analysis. N/A 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 conditions of the project. 1. Architectural review of bridge structures shall be required with the goal to reduce visual impacts. 2. Class I bike path lighting shall comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement shall comply with the policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element,July 2002 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element,November 1994 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element,May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element,July 2000 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element,May 2006 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element December 2004 7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element,July 1996 8. City of SLO General Plan EIR 1994 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo,Land Use Inventory Database 11. Field Visit 12. USDA,Natural Resources Conservation Service,Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 13. San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan,August 2005 14. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County,Air Pollution Control District 1995 15. Margarita Area Specific Plan,October 2004 16. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Guidebook,May 1996 17. 2001 City of San Luis Obispo Water Resources Report 18. City of San Luis Obispo,Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines,on file in the Community Development Department 19. Public Hearing Draft 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan,February 2007 20. City of San Luis Obispo,Archeological Resource Guidelines 21. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Ma 22. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element,on file in the Utilities Department /-31 2"024 ATTACHMENT _ Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially . Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Issues Unless Impact Mitigation ER 21-07 Incorporated 23. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map,prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Eardquake Fault Zoning Act,effective January 1, 1990 24. Flood Insurance Rate Map(Corrinumity Panel 0603100005 C dated July 7, 1981 25. San Luis Obispo County ort Land Use Plan 26. San Luis Obispo Commum ity Design Guidelines 27. 1997 Uniform Building Code All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,919 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo,California(805)781-7590. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2007 1 ATTACHMENT 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Amold Schwarzenegger, Govemor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SOS VAN HESS AVENUE 'RECEIVE SAN FRANCISCO.CA 94102-3M April 10,2007 APR 1 7 2001 Peggy Mandeville CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 RE: 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, SCH#2007031096 Dear Ms. Mandeville: As the state agency responsible for rail safety within California,we recommend that any development projects planned adjacent to or near the rail corridor in the City be planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections,but also at at-grade highway-rail crossings. This includes considering pedestrian/bicyclist circulation patterns/destinations with respect to railroad right-of-way(ROW). Safety factors to consider include,but are not limited to,the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade highway-rail crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and appropriate fencing to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad right-of- way. Any project that includes a modification to an exiting crossing or proposes a new crossing is legally required to obtain authority to construct from the Commission. If the project includes a proposed new crossing, the Commission will be a responsible party under CEQA and the impacts of the crossing must be discussed within.the environmental documents. Of specific concern is the existing problem of trespassing along the Union Pacific Railroad ROW. The completed southern portion of the path has reduced trespassing in that area,but the fencing along the corridor is constantly being vandalized, allowing trespassers onto the tracks. Vandal-resistant fencing should be used in all fature construction of facilities adjacent to the ROW. Funds must be secured to construct the un-constructed segments of the safety trail as soon as possible, especially the segment along California Boulevard between US 101 and the Calpoly campus. The above-mentioned safety improvements should be considered when approval is sought for the new development. Working with Commission staff early in the conceptual design phase will help improve the safety to motorists and pedestrians in the City. ATTACHMENT 5_ If you have any questions in this matter,please call me at(415) 703-2795. Very truly ours, Kevin Boles Environmental Specialist Rail Crossings Engineering Section Consumer Protection and Safety Division cc: Terrel Anderson, Union Pacific Railroad Lisa Carvalho, Steefel,Levitt&Weiss ATTACHMENT�( _ Staff Recommended Changes 2007 Public Hearing Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Presented to Planning Commission March 28, 2007 Retain the following projects identified in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan: 1. Boulevard Del Campo Class I 2. El Capitan/Poinsettia Class I 3. Foothill to Stenner Class I 4. Jennifer to Fairview Class 1 5. LOVR Interchange Class I 6. Highland/Santa Rosa Class 1 7. Roundhouse to Bishop Class II Revise Plan Map: 8. Better identify grade separated crossings Revise Plan Text: 9. Complete ranking sheets for all Plan projects 10. Revise description of Highland/Chorro Class I Add wording to Mitigation Measure No. I for clarification: 11. Architectural review of new bridge structures over Highway 101 shall be required with the goal to reduce visual impacts. J ATTACHMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals and groups were Public Works Department involved in the research, preparation,review or adoption of this Plan. Jay Walter Administration Timothy Bochum Administration City Council Peggy Mandeville Project Manager Mary Andrews GIS Information David R. Romero Mayor Adam Fukushima Technical Support Paul Brown Jake Hudson Technical Support Andrew Carter Chris Overby Technical Support Christine Mulholland Bryan Wheeler Technical Support Allen K. Settle Planning Commission Special thanks... Andrea Miller Chair Past BAC members: John Ashbaugh Darren Brown,Mark Grayson,Mary Lou Johnson, Amanda Brodie Kristen Kent,Dixon Moore,Chris Overby,Phil Carlyn Christianson, Reimer. Diana Gould-Wells tDdae: Jason McCoy Past staff members: Michelle Sindorf,Terry Charles Stevenson Sanville. Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC) San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition Kevin Christian Chair Kevin Christian(for exceptional database work) Jean Anderson Tim Gillham Trevor Keith Ben Lerner Glen Matteson Tom Nuckols -_. l` _o► � ���ST IIS. 1-7 r y San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®®® - 6 - ®R ATTACHMENT Bikeways-Are bike lanes,paths, streets or routes a curb lane width too narrow for motorists and that provide for bicycle travel. (A description of cyclists to safely travel side by side within the lane. bikeway design standards is located in the City's Engineering Standards) Short-Term Bike Parking-Is parking provided to accommodate visitors and customers, who are Class I Bikeway(Bike Path)-Provides a right-of- parking for less than four hours. Bicycle racks way reserved for bicycles and pedestrians that is meeting City standards satisfy this need. completely separated from streets. Showers-Are bathing stalls accompanied by Class II Bikeway(Bike Lane)-Provides a striped clothing lockers and changing areas reserved for lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or each gender at a work site. highway. In San Luis Obispo: Specific Planning Areas-Are lands surrounding Class H-A Bikeways are located on the or within San Luis Obispo where the City has outside of curb parking bays. adopted, or intends to adopt,a specific plan,district plan, enhancement plan,area plan,route plan, or Class H-B Bikeways are located at the edge alignment plan to guide its use. of the roadway where no vehicle parking exists and next to a curb where present. Class III Bikeways (Bike Routes)-Are generally Comment^ddd-6=«�Ir^ ° lightly traveled streets that provide alternative routes for recreational riders,and in some cases - - l; commuters. Commercial Core-Includes the Downtown Commercial(CD)Zoning District in downtown San Luis Obispo. Downtown Planning Area-Includes the commercial core and surrounding neighborhoods as shown in the General Plan Land Use Element. `' ' Long-Term Bike Parking-Is bicycle parking Example of Long-Term,Locker-type Bike parking meant to accommodate employees, students, residents,commuters, and others expected to park -� on a regular basis for more than four hours. This ?? parking is to be provided in a secure,weather- protected manner and location. Long-term parking . type will be a bicycle locker,a locked room with standard racks and access limited to bicyclists only, _ or standard racks in a monitored location. - Now Multi-Tenant Work Sites-Consist of a structure, or group of structures,on one worksite where more than one employer conducts business. Shared-Lane Markings-Otherwise known as Sharrows, shared-lane markings are pavement legends intended to improve the positioning of bicyclists on roadways with regular bicycle use and San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) essa- 10 - /-.37 ATTACHMENT 3. Sponsor partnership programs that provide bicycle parking for land uses that lack needed facilities. 4. Require new development to provide bikeways and bicycle parking consistent with adopted City plans and standards. 5. Contribute to bicycle safety,promotion and education activities in cooperation with ® other organizations that share a common vision and purpose. 6. Provide guidelines and technical assistance BICYCLING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES to agencies,property owners, designers and developers for designing and locating Program Goals bicycle facilities. 7. Cooperate with the County, State, San Luis 1. Increase the percentage of all trips made by Obispo Council of Governments, and Cal bicycle within San Luis Obispo. Poly in the planning and design of bicycle 2. Establish and maintain an integrated system facilities such as the Bob Jones City to SeaBike Trail and the Railroad Safety Trail. of bikeways and parking facilities that enables safe and convenient bicycling. 8. Secure and earmark sufficient funds to 3. Advocate bicycling as a way of preserving implement this plan. clean air,reducing traffic congestion and 9. Improve bicycle circulation by identifying noise,conserving land and energy and addressing barriers to bicycling. resources, and promoting good health. 4. Develop financial partnerships with other organizations when the resultant bicycle 1. BIKEWAYS facilities or activities provide significant benefits to San Luis Obispo residents. General Policies Program Objectives 1.1 All public streets shall be designed and 1. By 2017, complete a network of Class II maintained to accommodate bicyclists. and III Bikeways and related improvements within the City Limits. 1.2 Bikeways shall be established at locations comment Cn..g d 2B to 2C shown on Figure#2C: Existing&Proposed 2. By 2027,complete a network of Class I Bikeways. Where a bikeway is located Bikeways that are located outside of within a Specific Planning Area, its specific planning areas. Construct Class I location shall be as shown by the Specific Bikeways within Specific Planning Areas Plan(see Appendix I for affected areas). consistent with the phasing called for by After receiving input from the Bicycle each plan. Advisory Committee,the Public Works Director may approve changes in the location and/or designation of bikeways to reduce environmental impacts,better serve San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®®® ATTACHMENT ---� the needs of bicyclists, or provide a 1.10 The number of bicycle-pedestrian bridges bikeway connection through a new over creeks shall be minimized. Bridges development. shall: a) Be of a"clear span"design 1.3 All bikeways shall meet or exceed b)To the greatest extent possible,be minimum standards set forth in the located to avoid removal of native trees California Highway Design Manual(Fifth and streamside habitat or impacts to Edition). important aquatic habitat areas c) Minimize grading of creek banks or 1.4 Annexation,planning and development changes to the channel alignment activities,and street reconstruction or d) Include a smooth riding surface to reconfiguration projects shall provide minimize noise bikeways as prescribed by this plan. I 67 n lit ft; 1.5 All new developments/subdivisions shall be """°' I r designed with bicycle use as an equal and I alcntcd wlth— f� viable option for transportation to, from, i active Ptor,ts and within a development.Access shall I trod Fdne'vu] t include bicycle routes to schools serving I to Protect A. 1 Creek Hebitot ` I the community, Class II bike lanes(or t I Class I bike paths),and approved bicycle parking as referenced in the Plan's short- term bike parking standards. Aki 1.6 The location,design and installation of bikeways shall be coordinated with sg- ,,n_e R, Suggested Routes to School programs in .� tet A mm "mmo residential neighborhoods. Illustration ojPolicy!.8 Bikeway within Creek Setback Class I Bikeways Adioinine Creeks Delet2d:7:Bikexvy o Lde Creek Setback 1.7 Class I Bikeways shall be located outside of creek setbacks except where otherwise allowed or as provided for in the Conservation&Open Space Element. 1.8 Where setback encroachments cannot be avoided,their extent shall be minimized and existing riparian vegetation shall be reinforced with native plants to create landscaped buffers between the bikeway and the riparian canopy. (Other mitigation measures are described in Appendix M.) 1.9 Bikeway encroachments into the creek setback shall be subject to the exception process of the Creek Setback Regulations contained in the Municipal Code. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®®® - 12 - �� ATTACHMENT j deet Setback 1.13 When existing creeks are Potwgcd for Plantlnq I so or creat carrWW widened or when new flood uft moi^ I I control channels are constructed, t Class I Bikeways should be tD prated installed at the same time or,at a Oe& "d1tv1 minimum,their rights-of-Way MW Tran of shall be reserved and maintained as clear space to enable their t ,I eventual installation. as7 m EN"t 1.14 long parallel flood control >a � Rat"ear channels,Class I Bikeways and service roads may share the same alignment. The structural design Illustration of Policy 1.7 Bikeway outside of Creek 8:Bik`my w rdm cr"k of these facilities shall be Setback sufficient to support maintenance vehicles. Class I Bikeways & Flood Control Channels Class I Bikeways on Agricultural Land 1.11 Where an existing creek channel is widened 1.15 Bikeways that cross or border agricultural to establish a new top of bank,Class I land shall: odebed: should Bikeways shall be located as prescribed by Standard 1_7. a)Use existing service roads where shared oataoea 1.a use is compatible with agricultural and 1.12 Where parallel flood control channels are bicycling operations constructed,Class I Bikeways may be b) Be fenced and signed to discourage located within the riparian canopy trespassing onto adjoining areas established by the new flood control c)Avoid dividing properties in away that channel,parallel to the channel side that is unduly complicates agricultural farthest from the parent creek. operations Illustration of Policy 1.11:Class I Bikeways and Flood Control Channels rlatrm Lme:. c vhru&, uc:inq Lyaflaf.'.eq•:aliar. . �ClYrt4:krO tCP a'Lm. rvun:ee:.>:fi nrq plfrlirj, w `� 47 m � 3.Pa: cfi.nnri Laanxtl A n m:i.e ars:r..mtl� • 1,t 1• i �. I `.4c1� I .lanLonarc .49n•.erun T ad L l uLr San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) - 13 - ATTACHMENT 1.24 Bicycle Boulevards shall: a)Be located along local or collector streets that provide for through bike connections to important destinations Other Related Activities � hm b)Be established only after residents or businesses have been provided sufficient „ opportunity to participate in the development and review of the design sha]4 iRvmve the PreN48ieF1 of Shaft to c)Be considered and coordinated with any proposal to adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan d)Where necessary, include traffic calming 1.26 City and regional transit vehicles shall devices that reduce the differential continue to provide racks for the transport between motor vehicle and bicycle speeds of bicycles and increase capacity as demand e)Avoid diverting a significant amount of increases and rack design improves. motor vehicle traffic to other residential 1.27 Neighborhood traffic management projects streets,consistent with adopted Neighborhood Traffic Management (traffic calmingshall be designed to safely Guidelines accommodate bicyclists. Faw " oma° 1.28 New or modified traffic signals along mew voft(MM 1: designated Class H or III Bikeways shall include detection for bicycles.Video ® detection is the preferred system. If in- - r pavement detection is used,stencil I �„°^p0�.°"°°' markings shall be applied to the road surface that identifies optimum spots for I bicyclists to queue. I 1: _ I 1.29 Where cul-de-sacs are used in subdivisions, J pedestrian/bikeway connections shall be j; provided to through streets. Where 11 perimeter walls are employed,breaks shall 1 be provided at safe locations to enable 1 i pedestrian and bicycle circulation to 1 _ adjoining areas or public streets. 1_ izion, BWNm 1.30 Reconstruction of"at grade"railroad kmM. crossings by the Union Pacific Railroad or others shall include the installation of concrete panels on the approaches and between the tracks. .4"aztmnftds� 1.31 When installing new drainage inlets or replacing old ones,grates should be kept out of Class II Bikeways. ° 1.32 The City's Subdivision Regulations shall be revised to include cross-sections for streets Illustration of a "Bicycle Boulevard"and candidate facilities that include Class II Bikeways. Source:Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(1995) San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®®® - 15 - �� ATTACHMENT S PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5474-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2007 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT GPI/ER 21-07 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 28, 2007, for the purpose of considering Planning Application GPI/ER 21-07, a project to comprehensively update the policies, programs and projects in the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, said public hearing was held for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS, the recommended 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is based on input received from the Bicycle Advisory Committee and members of the public, including testimony received by the Bicycle Advisory Committee at their public meetings held over a five year period when the Plan Update was being developed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (ER 21-07) for the project, and determined that the document adequately addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, including mitigation measures as amended by the Planning Commission that will avoid or reduce to insignificant levels impacts associated with the project.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of Bicycle Advisory Committee members, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following findings: L The proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will promote the public health, safety and welfare of persons working or living in the City by providing a network of convenient bikeways, bicycling safety, and bicycling education. 2. The proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will further General Plan goals to reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. '1 I-) ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5474-07 Page 2 3. The proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will provide new and improved bicycling facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and the county bike routes 4. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project adequately addresses environmental impacts in the areas of aesthetics and incorporates mitigation measures as amended by the Planning Commission to insure that the impacts of the project are less than significant. Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project as amended by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update as amended by the Planning Commission March 28, 2007. On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh, seconded by Commr. Brodie, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, McCoy, Stevenson, Gould-wells NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: Miller The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of March, 2007. Kim Murry, Secretary LI) Planning Commission ATTACHMENT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28, 2007 CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Amanda Brodie, Diane Gould-Wells, Charles Stevenson, John Ashbaugh, Jason McCoy, Vice-Chair Carlyn Christianson Absent: Chairperson Andrea Miller Staff: Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, Deputy Community Development Director Kim Murry, Assistant Planner Michael Codron, Community Development Director John Mandeville, Economic Development Manager Claire Clark, Assistant City Attorney Christine Dietrick and Recording Secretary Jill Francis ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. The agenda was accepted as written. MINUTES: Minutes of January 24, 2007. Approve or amend. The minutes of January 24, 2007 were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 3000 Calle Malva/reb -07; Gen ral Plan Conformity Report for a conservation easement coverins of o n space land on a 98 acre parcel; C/OS-100 zone, City of San o, ap icant. (Neil Havlik) Natural Resources Mil avlik presented the staff report recommending the Commission determinort to the City Council that the proposed property acquisitionconsistent General plan. PUBLIC COMMENTSThere were no commefrom the public. ��7 ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes-' March 28, 2007 Page 2 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Ashbaugh asked if the property is currently used for cattle grazing,.and if cattle grazing would continue with the proposed easement. On motion by Commr. Stevenson- to find and report /othe Ci Council that the acquisition both in. fee and easement. is in conformit with the City's General Plan. Seconded by Commr. McCoy. AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, cCoy, Stevenson, Gould-Wells NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller The motion passed on 6:0 vote. 2. Open Space. GPC 30-07; Gen ral Plan Conformity Report for a gift of 315 acres of open space land located no of the city on TV Tower Road; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Neil Havl' ) Natural Resources Manager eil Havlik presented the staff report recommending the Commission determine an report to the City Council that the proposed property acquisition consistent with ity's General plan. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jan Marx, 265 Albe Drive, ECOSLO, spoke in support of the request. There were no fu her comments made from the public. COMMISSIO COMMENT: On a motio by Commr. Stevenson to determine and re ort to the Ci Council that the proposed roe acquisition is consistent with the Cit 's General Plan. Seconded b Commr. Ashbauah. AYES Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, McCoy, Stevenson, Gould-Wells NOE None RE USED: None A SENT: Commr. Miller he motion passed on 6:0 vote. 3. Citywide. GPI and ER 21-07; 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and Environmental Review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Peggy Mandeville) Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the /_ZW ATTACHMEN' � J Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2007 Page 3 update to the 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. She gave a summary of grant funding and improvements associated with the approved 2002 Bicycle Plan was presented followed by a discussion of new/amended policies, definitions, standards and bikeways, noting that this update has been in process for five years. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kevin Christian, Bicycle Advisory Committee Chairperson (BAC), demonstrated the web site information showing aerial photos and documentation of the committee's work. Jean Anderson, BAC member and certified bicycle instructor spoke in support of the plan and provided copies of a Handy Guide for Cyclists. Adam Fukushima of the Bicycle Coalition, spoke in favor of the ranking system being used by the BAC and the Plan in general, and supported the updated plan. COMMISSION COMMENT: Commissioners discussed the plan, corrected several minor errors and gave some suggestions. Commr. Ashbaugh suggested a definition of a bicycle be included, and noted some minor clerical errors to be corrected. It was noted that the definition of a bicycle is included in the State Code. On motion by Commr. Ashbaugh to recommend to the City Council approval of the 2007 Bicycle Plan (with corrections noted) and adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Seconded by Commr. Brodie. AYES: Commrs. Brodie, Ashbaugh, Christianson, McCoy, Stevenson, Gould-Wells NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commr. Miller The motion passed on A 6:0 vote. 4. Air rt and Mar arita Area. ANNX and ER 172-05; Review of the City of San Luis Obispo roposal to annex 620 acres of land and environmental review, City of San Luis Obispo, licant. (Michael Codron) Michael Codron presente the staff report with a discussion of phasing, numbers of parcels affected, public outrea that was conducted, annexation costs and the LAFCO process, recommending that the mmission recommend to the Council, approval of a resolution of intention to annex appr imately 620 acres of land in the Margarita Area and Airport Area, a pre-zoning ordinan consistent with the Margarita Area Specific Plan, and a Negative Declaration of Environ tal Impact. ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Minutes- ' March 28, 2007 Page 6 A motion to extend the meeting past 11:00 p.m. was taken nd passed. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 5. Staff A. Request to consider adding a specia lanning Commission meeting on April 18, 2007 for a study session on th road Street corridor design plan. Deputy Director Kim Murry requested co sideration of a special Planning Commission meeting on April 18, 2007 in order t schedule the introduction of the South Broad Street Corridor Plan with the Commis on. The Planning Commission agreed to add the date as a special meeting. B. Agenda Forecast Deputy Director Kim Murry i dicated that a Planning Commissioner retreat was in the planning stages and that th re were two dates under consideration: May 16th and June 11th. The retreat is plan ed to be a 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. meeting held off-site to discuss Commission operation Od issues. Planning Commissioners will respond via email as /Chair r preferred date r this session. y Director Mu also gave a preview of items currently anticipated for the April 11, Commissio meeting: Airport Hotel project, City's annual report on the General yearly con deration of by-laws, installation of the new Commissioner and election ers. omm' sion iss' ner Stevenson expressed appreciation of service by Jason McCoy to the n Commission for the last term. He indicated that Commissioner McCoy brought insight as a working architect and a practical point of view that will be missed. Chair Carlyn Christianson and Commissioner John Ashbaugh added their .URMENT: With no further business before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:07 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street. Respectfully submitted by Approved by the Architectural Review Commission on April 11, 2007 Jill Francis Recording Secretary Diane R. Stuart, CM Management Assistant �j7 1 7 ATTACHMENT r , RESOLUTION NO. (2007 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,UPDATING THE 2002 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (GPI/ER 21-07).AND RECINDING RESOLUTION NO.9308 (2002 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 City's 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan approved by Resolution No. 9308 needs to be updated and certified by the State in 2007 to comply with the Streets and Highways Code in order for the City to continue to be eligible to apply for State Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA)grant funding; and WHEREAS, the Bicycle Advisory Committee has developed a comprehensive update to the 2002 Plan based on input received from the Bicycle Advisory Committee and members of the public, including testimony received by the Bicycle Advisory Committee at their public meetings held over a five year period; and WHEREAS, in February 2007, a Public Hearing Draft of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update was published and placed on the City's web page for public review; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Directors designee has reviewed the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and its Initial Environmental Study and has recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved; and WHEREAS, on March 28, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed the Public Hearing Draft of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and its Mitigated Negative Declaration (GPI/ER 21-07) at a public hearing, and has recommended that the City Council approve the Plan and its Mitigated Negative Declaration as forwarded by the Bicycle Transportation Committee and revised by the Planning Commission including the changes recommended by staff and the meeting, and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on May 15, 2007 and has considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and determines that the Plan Update's Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby approves said Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the following mitigation measures into the project: ATTACHMENT 1D Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 2 1. Architectural review of new bridge structures over Highway 101 shall be required with the goal to reduce visual impacts. 2. Class I bike path lighting shall comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement shall comply with the policies of the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. SECTION 2: Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update as recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following findings: 1. The proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will promote the public health, safety and welfare of persons working or living in the City by providing a network of convenient bikeways, bicycling safety, and bicycling education. 2. The proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will further General Plan goals to reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. 3. The proposed 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will provide new and improved bicycling facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and the county bike routes SECTION 3: Approval. The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby approved. The 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4: Resolution No. 9308 (2002 Series) is hereby rescinded. Upon motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTACHMENT i T,. Resolution No. (2007 Series) Page 3 Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: b Jo athan . well Cityttorney council mcmoRAnbum January 19, 2007 RECEIVED TO: City Council MAY 10 2001 FROM Jay Walter, Public Works Direc r- SLO CITY CLERK SUBJECT: 2006 Bicycle Count Report J .Attached is the 6h edition of the Biennial Bicycle Count Report, produced by the Public Works Department. This report, published every two years, provides information on how bicycle counts have changed since the first counts were done in L996. The counts were performed in October 2006 and the data analyzed over the last year. These counts are used by staff in the design of transportation improvement projects, for specific bicycle improvement projects such as the Bill Roalman Bike Blvd, The Railroad Safety Trail and for analysis of future needs for bicycle facilities. We are providing this information to Council members so that as you are contacted by citizens with questions about bicycle counts, you have a reference to use. This report is now available for the public's review at the Public Works office(919 Palm Street), and online at http://www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca-.us/publicworks/documents.asp If you have any questions regarding the technical information in the report, please contact Deputy Public Works Director Tim Bochum at x203. G COUNCIL CDD DIR RED FILE CAO � FIN DIR MEETING AGENDA IRACAO FIRE-'CHIEF ����� 2 ATTORNEY PW DIR cc: Walter DATE$ ,S ITEM #�� 1 CLEftORIG POLICE CHF Linden Ln OE�1 EAC)8 REG DIR Bochum Z 13-ll�'IL(A ® i�F�l�lp Hudson r oeHs`� Senor %0 Bledsoe GLB Bicycle Advisory Committee Aileen Loe-Caltrans Adam Fukushima-SLO County Bicycle Coalition Sudeshna Mitra-Cal Poly Professor G:\Transportation-Data\_Unsorted Stuft\Tiansportation\Transportation Projects\Bicycles\Bicycle Volume Counts\council memorandum.doc 1 1 � 11 ♦.. � ;fes I �' '�c: q ti,�4��a�,•��1; � � � � MF 7 ��� .�„� .1R. / T/j �. J F y • {.Y� • ,.''rJJ���f:� 3 w :S'�T frf�7 C .w. y A 1 _ f L dd le+ 6 j�. • �` � '� � ��y�—"-mow. .„q� f` � .-�C�.► �� ��}�R` _ " � �. •rte}^�1�� �! ��f��t. �I R M1 ` � 11- �.� '1 �Y. • • r 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) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE..................................................................................:..........................................i I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1 II. 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 1) ........................................5 D. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Lanes (Class Il)......................................7 E. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Routes Class III 10 F. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Boulevards .............................................10 G. Policies and Standards for Maintenance of Paths, Lanes and Routes............1 l IV. BICYCLE PARIONG 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.....................................................:...........a...;......:...W..16 VI. PLAN DIPLEMENTATION ............................................................. 19 VII. APPENDECIES APPENDIX A: SLO Bicycle Commuters APPENDIX Bc Existing and Proposed Land Use Development Patterns APPENDIX C: Description of Existing.Bikeways(January 2002) APPENDIX D: Description of Proposed Bikeways APPENDIX E: Existing&Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities APPENDIX F: Existing&Proposed Bike Parking at Transportation Hubs APPENDIX G: Existing&Proposed Changing& Storage Facilities APPENDIX H: Bicycle Safety&Education Programs APPENDIX I: Citizen& Community Involvement in Plan Development APPENDIX J: Relationship of This Plan to Other Adopted Plans APPENDIX K: Setting Priorities& Financial Planning for Bikeways APPENDIX L: Past Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities (1995 to 2002) APPENDIX M: City Council Resolution Amending the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure#1: Bicycle Transportation Map Figure#2: Existing Bicycle Facilities (January 2002) Figure#3: Bicycle Paths and Lanes:New Segments Figure#4: Class II Bike Lane Standards Figure#5: Signed Class III Bike Routes Figure#6: Bicycle Parking Space Standards Figure#7: Bicycle Parking for Existing Land Uses PREFACE This Bicycle Transportation Plan was originally adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council on October 27, 1993. At that time, the Plan fully complied with California Streets and Highways Code content requirements. However, since 1993 State Code requirements have been modified and expanded. In 2001, the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) initiated an update to the community's Bicycle Transportation Plan. The purpose of this effort was to ensure that the Bike Plan complies with State Code requirements, reflects new bikeway planning provisions included in adopted and pending Specific Plans and Area plans, and addresses needed revisions to bicycle parking design standards. On May 7, 2002, the City Council adopted the changes to the Bicycle Transportation Plan proposed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. For readers that may already possess a 1993 edition of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, significant changes between 1993 and 2002 editions include the following: Location I Changed Items CHANGES TO BIKEWAYS • Add a Class I Bike Path along Tank Farm Creek south of Tank Farm Road Figure# 1 after • Delete the Class I Bike Path that extends across the ridgeline of South Hills. page 5 . Add Class lI Bike Lanes along Santa Fe Road and its proposed extension • Add Class I Bike Paths along the extension of Prado Road between Broad Street and its current terminus east of S.Higuera Street,along the Circulation Element's alignment. • Add Class I Bike Path along north side of Buckley Road from Broad St.to Vachell Ln. • Reconfigure the Class I Bike Paths along the Union Pacific Railroad • Create a Bicycle Boulevard along Morro Street between Santa Barbara and Marsh Streets • 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. CHANGES TO BIKE PARKING STANDARDS Page 13 • Bike racks must provide two vertical contact points for bike frames. • Bike parking areas should be illuminated at night when the use is open to the public. • Bike parking areas should be sheltered when attractively accomplished as part of the project's architecture. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE UMED BY STATE CODES Appendix A • Estimate of bicycle commuters. Appendix B • Existing and proposed settlement patterns. Appendix C • Description of existing bikeways Appendix D • Description of proposed bikeways. Appendix E • Existing and proposed bike parking. Appendix F . Bike parking at transportation hubs Appendix G . Changing and storage facilities Appendix H • Bicycle education and safety programs Appendix I • Citizen involvement in Plan development Appendix J • Relationship to other plans Appendix K • Setting priorities and financial planning for bikeways i I. E14MODUMON 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 parldng. A primary purpose of this plan is to identify facilities that provide for safe and convenient bicycling. To encourage bicycling and to increase bicycle safety awareness, this plan also identifies promotional and educational programs that the City should sponsor. This Bicycle Transportation Plan carries out the goals and objectives broadly stated in the Circulation Element by recommending projects and programs that will encourage and enhance bicycling in San Luis Obispo. History and Public Participation The City adopted a Bicycle Facilities Plan in 1985. In 1991, the City Council established a Bicycle Committee to update the 1985 Bicycle Facilities Plan and hired a Bicycle Coordinator to manage this update and perform other related bicycle activities. Between June, 1992 and March, 1993, the Bicycle Committee held 17 meetings to study options for installing bicycle lanes and paths, setting bicycle parking standards, and establishing promotional and educational programs. City residents were kept apprised of the Committee's progress through news articles, television and radio coverage, special events and City mailings. The Committee received considerable input from the community at its study sessions. In June, 1993, the Bicycle Committee held five public hearings to review a draft Bicycle Transportation Plan. The public was notified of these meeting through direct mailings and advertisements in the Telegram Tribune newspaper. In July, 1993, the C mmittee forwarded recommendations to the City Council. On October 27, 1993, the Council considered the Committee's recommendations at a public hearing and adopted this plan. 1 Relationship to Other Adopted Plans and Programs This plan is consistent with the proposed San Luis Obispo's General Plan Circulation Element (1993). While the Circulation Element establishes broad objectives for improving bicycling, this plan identifies specific activities for meeting these objectives. This plan is supported by provisions of the Downtown Concept Plan (1993) which states that the City should "provide more facilities that encourage and enhance the use of bicycles" (Downtown Concept Plan, transportation policy "e"). This plan supports the policies and standards of the General Plan Open Space Element (1993) by including standards for the sensitive development of Class I bicycle paths along creeks, on hillsides, and across open space areas at the edge of the City. This plan supports the goals, objectives and programs called for by the Clean Air Plan (1991) adopted by the County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Air Pollution Control Board. Since 50% of air pollution in California is caused by motor vehicles, achieving this plan's goals will help to achieve the Clean Air Plan's goals. This plan is consistent with and complementary to the bicycle element of the Regional Transportation Plan (1990). Bicycle paths and lanes in the City have been linked to important routes that extend throughout the County. The bicycle facilities in this plan are consistent with the standards presented in the California Highway Design Manual, fourth edition, published by the California Department of Transportation. This plan includes all information needed to comply with provisions of the California Bikeways Act (Sections 2370 through 2392 of the Streets and Highway Code) which requires agencies to adopt a General Bikeway Plan (GBP) to be eligible for state funding of bicycle facilities. Organizations and Individuals Consulted • San Luis Obispo County • San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District • San Luis Obispo Council of Govemments (RTPA) • San Luis Obispo Regional Rideshare Program • California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 5 0 Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo • San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce • Downtown Business Improvement Association (BIA) • Sierra Club • Local bicycle clubs and interested individuals 2 H. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES GOALS • Increase the percentage of trips taken by bicycle within the City. • Establish and maintain an integrated system of facilities that provide safe and convenient travel for bicyclists. • Promote bicycling as a method of reducing motor vehicle use, thereby preserving clean air, reducing traffic congestion, and conserving energy. OBJECTIVES To achieve the goals stated above the City will: • Complete a network of Class IIbicycle lanes and Class III routes within SanLuis Obispo by 1995 and extend the system to serve new growth areas, connect with County bicycle routes, and improve linkages to Cal Poly State University. • Construct a network of Class I bicycle paths within the City's urban reserve to connect with paths in surrounding county areas. • Fund the construction of bicycle facilities, bicycle parking, promotional and educational programs. • Sponsor promotional and educational programs in cooperation with other government agencies, community civic and business groups, school districts, Cuesta College and Cal Poly State University. • Work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to acknowledge and promote bicycle use as part of the APCD's Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901). • Amend City land use regulations to establish standards for the design and installation of bicycle facilities. • Provide technical assistance to property owners and developers and institutions such as Cal Poly in the design and location of facilities that encourage and accommodate bicycling. 3 { � xWi 1��� { 4•fes~`��.� M� � � C � - • r ," ', w ��;x 'fa y« .cry. t{, '.� � • SECTION III 710BICYCLE 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 1) are reserved for bicycles and separated from roadways. Bicycle Innes (Class Tn are located within the roadway and are reserved for bicyclists. Class II-A bicycle lanes are located on the outside of parking bays. Class 11-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 with agricultural operations. 10. Bicycle paths along creeks should: • Be located outside setbacks required to protect creek banks and riparian vegetation. Access points to the creek should be limited in number and avoid the removal of significant habitat or impacts on important fishery areas. 5 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 installer) 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 area (as defined by the Open Space Element) should: • Be preceded by a survey of wildlife resources along the trail alignment. • Whenever possible, avoid direct or indirect damage to sensitive wildlife resource areas and limit impacts to those associated with constructing the path. 14. Bicycle paths in areas where archaeological resources may be present should: • Be preceded by a surface survey and records search conducted by a qualified archaeologist to determine the presence of significant archaeological resources. • Minimize subsurface disturbances: • Comply with other mitigation strategies, including relocation of the paths, as required by Archaeological Survey Guidelines adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo. 6 15. The Railroad Bicycle Path should extend north of Highway 101 to the Taft Street intersection and be terminated. The Taft Street intersection should include stop controls to allow bicyclists safe access to on-street lanes from the Railroad Bike Path. When a bicycle crossing system is designed for Foothill Boulevard (eg. underpass or special signal system at California and Foothill), the Railroad Bicycle Path may be extended north of Taft Street to connect with the Cal Poly Campus and beyond. D. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Lanes (Class In 'The planning for future bicycle facilities should place a priority on linking major activity centers and on the completion of an intra-city bicycle network with regional and county bicycle network connections. In particular, bike routes within downtown and routes connecting downtown and Cal Poly need to be considered.' Source: Phase I Circulation Study, DES 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 f/3 BICYCLE LANE:AND INTERSECTION MPROVElViENTS Street From To Description Foothill"* .at Santa Rosa Install right turn pockets,through bicycle slots,:and facilities that enable safe pedestrian crossing of Routed. Highland MB)** -at Santa Rosa Install through bicycle slot: Higuem(NB)** at South Widen nun pocket and install through'bicycle slot. Santa Rosa(NB)**.at Imigliland Install Himugh bicycle slot Santa Rosa(SB) Palm: Monterey Elimnate:asphei[lcoticreteseam an bike lane South(EB) at$road install#hrotrgh Bicycle slot S.Higuera at Los Osos Valley Road: InstallAirough bicycle slot S. Iiiguera :.at Margarita }iGmtnate:asphalticoiicrete seam m bike lane S. Higuera Granada ''Frontage Road Remove sidewalk,::inswll Class 3I blie lane/gutteri and build new sidewalk in babe of trees. =SEGMENTS TO BE CONSIDERID TOR'FURTSER STUDY:. Strep Froan . To<: Description Broad Marsh High Evaluatebikewayoptiaas r Bullock Omutt city:limits Evaluate for bike'tane:installation California . ;Marsh.:: San`;Laiis- E.v:al:uate ' for :br idge widen agllane . installafion Chorro FoothillLincoln Shown as Bicycle Route: evaluate other bikeway opyons Foothill at California Evali ateIutersecf :oa desi.ga` .fo.t:.. 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 bliinimtmt ADT 95% Vehide Speeds Gmdes:(c) Bicycle Speed Width (b) Class 11-A 4 feet <10,000 <35 mph. <4% <20 mph 5 feet 2!10,000 >35 mph >4% <20-mph b feet >10,000 >35 mph >4% mph Class 11a 5 feet(d) 010,000 <35 mph <4% <20 mph,. : 61eet >101000 >35 mph. >4% >20 mph<.: (a) The width of a bicycle lane it_measuredfrom the outside of the parking bay stripe to 1heseater of the ': b1 lane-stripe for'Class II A lanes,-:and from`the face of curb.to the center of':the bi7ce'lane stnping., for Ciess:Ii"a lanes. (b) rhe tegiured v�ndth of a bicycle path es conhngeaf upon all of the criteria(ADT,ve�cle st eeds, snd bi ..i cyce speeds)bungmet Where one of the cntenoa is ezceaded;f the under'btcycle lanes shorild ire-installed. . `calcailated on slopes. '-that:are 5001eet or longer (d) Where space is 9imited,.a 4 foot `II=8 bicycle lanes is allowed where:the roadway paving extends to.d face of the curb.and provides a seamless surface for cychsts:orwltem a.wide gutter(4 foot wills.:. or more)is constructed. 10. At intersections: • With right-hand turn pockets for vehicles, through-moving lanes for bicycles should be provided to the left of the turn pocket. (See Figure 1003.2C in the Highway Design Manual.) • Where right-hand turn lanes are not present, all bicycle lane delineations should be dashed prior to the intersection to remind through-moving bicyclists to merge with through-moving traffic. 11. Consistent with Section 1004 of the Highway Design Manual, signs and pavement markings should be installed as follows: • Signs and bike lane pavement markings should be installed at the beginning of each block. • Where blocks are longer than 500 feet, an additional sign and pavement marking should be placed at mid-bock. 9 • Whenever possible, bike lane signs should be installed on existing sign poles, traffic signal poles, street light standards or other utility poles. • Along newly-established Class II-B bike lanes, the Public Works Director may require additional signage or pavement markings to help enforce the prohibition of parking. Extra signs should be removed after the bicycle lane is operational for a 12-month period. • Painting the curb red or placing a single sign at the mid-point may be utilized where segments of Class 11-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 11 bike lanes or Bicycle Boulevards after further study of alternatives. 4. The City should require Class III facilities in developing and redeveloping areas where they link major activity centers and serve the needs of commuting bicyclists. 5. Convenient and safe shortcuts for bicyclists should be identified as bicycle routes wherever possible. 6. The standards for bicycle routes will be as prescribed in the Highway Design Manual. F. Policies and Standards for Bicycle Boulevards 1. The flow of traffic, impacts on surrounding land use, and changes to the level of service on surrounding streets are factors that should be considered when establishing Bicycle Boulevards. 2. The design of bicycle boulevards will be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. 10 G. Policies and Standards for Path, Lane and Route Maintenance 1. Bikeways demarcation (striping and stenciling) should be remarked on a regular basis. 2. Rubberized crossing systems should be installed at railroad grade crossings. Figure #5: Class.M'Bicycle Routes Street From To Cuutments .broad Foothill Murray Signage to encourage use of Bicycle Boulevard. Peach C horro Nipomo Signage on Chorro for downtown:bypass mute... Nipomo peach High Bti2=lara. Culvert Nipomo Sign.when under freeway culvert constructed. Margarita : South Higuera City Limits Sign when paths as South Street Hill installed.: ... Bridge/Beebe South Higuera South Street San Luis' . California Highway 101 Signwheii ander.freeway culvert construcXed. .is Mill California Chorro IemrtferfElla :` Johnson Railroad Sign when brtdge:over railroad constntcted Dana Nrpomo ;End Sign when creek path estahlished South c< iguera Wesf'End Sign when creek pa:b 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-stmt 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 C- 0 � W d y z O CD (D W N N N 0 cc to - 9 D S HIGU o I!Hlul� ,� ED ❑ coo �1 7T 1• 1 m � D < 4 N rn r Q s So oN s In CAZ < OD a m W D o � o m y 1 yid D11 J D 10 - �O❑ U O�O ���OO dIN �.,, O D �jj ❑�oao� o o 0 0 ❑ ❑❑oo r -75 Sy '_ lift f� w000CD, � sink rn mcmncmn � �. ca co) cn o —_ —_ — � 0 o 0 a — m N V cn n N N N `�1 rt m N a IY i. r / SECTION • BICYCLE PARKING , SUPPORT IV. BICYCLE PARTING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES A. Introduction 'Bikeways will be most successful in reducing travel m communities with complimentary policies such as bike parking, shower and lockers at job sites...' Source: Energy Planning Guide, California Energy Commission,January, 1993. Convenient and secure parking encourages people to ride bicycles. This plan presents design standards and requirements for the installation of bicycle parking for multi-family housing and commercial land uses in San Luis Obispo. Requirements vary depending on whether the destination is for shopping, working, living, or visiting. Showers installed at work sites will serve as an added incentive for those with a one way commute distance of over 5 miles. Consistent with policies of the Circulation Element, this plan recommends standards for installing showers at employment sites. The following policies and standards were developed in cooperation with the County Air Pollution Control District and are supportive of the District's Commute Alternatives Rule(Rule 901). B. Definitions Short-Term Bicycle Parking is used by visitors to multi-family housing and by patrons of commercial and institutional uses. Bicycle racks are used to satisfy this need. Long-Term Bicycle Parking is used by employees of commercial and institutional uses and by residents. Fully enclosed lockers are used to satisfy this need. Lockable rooms reserved for bicycle storage and secured parking areas managed by attendants are other acceptable forms. Showers are bathing stalls accompanied by clothing lockers and changing areas reserved for each gender at the work site. Multi-Tenant Work Sites are known by a common name, are governed by common set of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's), were approved as an entity by the City, are covered by a single tentative or final subdivision map, or are located on a single, or adjacent assessor's parcels. 12 C. Policies and Standards for Bicycle parking and Showers 1. Short- and long-term bicycle parking should be provided whenever a new structure is erected or enlarged or whenever a new use is established requiring more spaces according to the schedule shown on Figure #6. For existing commercial and institutional uses, including multi-tenant work sites, bicycle parking should be installed as shown in Figure#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, or constructed of a durable material that prevents rust or corrosion. • Allow the frame and both wheels (one wheel removed from the frame) to be locked to the rack using common locking devices such as a standard-sized "U" lock. • Be installed with mounting brackets on a concrete surface with access provided by aisles at least five feet wide.. • Be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of the destination as possible, at least as convenient as the most convenient automobile parking space available to the general public. • Be visible from the interior of the destination. • Be placed where vehicles will not damage them. • Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured. • Be illuminated at night to the extent that the destination supports nighttime activity. • Be sheltered, when shelter can be attractively integrated with the project's architecture. 3. Area employers should provide showers for commuter bicyclists consistent with provisions of the Commute Alternatives Rule (Rule 901 adopted by the County Air pollution Control Board. D. PROGRAMS 1. City zoning regulations will be amended or other ordinances adopted to incorporate provisions that implement the parking and shower standards prescribed by this plan. 2. The downtown parking in-lieu fee program will be amended to address bicycle parking standards prescribed by this plan. 3. The Architectural Review Guidelines will be amended to reference this plan's design guidelines. 13 4. The City will pursue Federal and State grant programs that can provide funding for bicycle parking. 5. The Public Works Department will periodically review the need for additional downtown bicycle parking facilities, seeking input from the BIA and affected businesses. 6. The Public Works Department will maintain a library of vendor information on bicycle racks and lockers and will assist developers with the selection and location of bicycle parking facilities. FIGURE M. BICYCLE PARKING"SPACE REQUU EM IM )<srtd Use JT bike`spaces:.as: M'inimtua '!6 Mwitatmi°k ca 8 y a �o b regtmed 'Short".Term Lori Term auto'spaces'(a).' Bicycle'spaces Bicycle Spaces Medium Medium- 59fo. ::1004b (b) Mgbi.&'High :ISeastp �tleatial:.: Central Retail(c) General Retail. 15% 50% 4096 Neighborhood Retail :Offioea:;: 1596` 1096 8096 Tourist Commetrial10% . 8096 Services 8c 1596 .. 4096 8096 :Manufacamng Schools(Junior High 1 space per 3'students jo College) Park-and-Ride Lots 1096 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 dwblling:or•a m strucdue(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 panting to be installed in public areas such as surface parking lots, parking garages, or ureas within street right"f--way. 14 Figure #7: BICYCLE PARKING FOR ERISTING COMMERCIAL AND INSTI I UTIONAL USES Number of Employees paruog By: 100 or more 1995 SO to 99 '1997 .20 to 49 1999 15 .t'•� � .has • { a s 46 �:�. �` #' �J�Cyir.Y•..ii.�_< Yam.ti.mom �s.�� y� (TioSECTION PROMOTIONAL AND EDUCATIe 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. o The County Rideshare Office to develop a "bike-buddy" database that encourages novice cyclists to ride along with experienced riders. • The County Sheriff's Department to expand programs for refurbishing donated or unclaimed bicycles for use by low- or moderate income people. • Businesses and neighborhood associations, bicycle clubs, and civic groups in sponsoring recurring promotional activities. 3. Better integrate bicycling with transit by: • Evaluating the effectiveness of the present method of loading bicycles inside City buses and making changes if necessary. 16 • Working with Amtrak to encourage bicyclists to take the train for both commuting and recreation. 4. Encourage the licensing and identification of bicycles by: • Working with local bike shops to administer a licensing program for new bicycle purchases and for repairs. • Working with the City Police Department to offer free bicycle identification programs at schools and promotional events. 5. Promote bicycle tourism by: • Working with the Chamber of Commerce and Visitors Bureau to develop literature, videos and other materials for distribution. • Supporting the establishment of an American Youth Hostel if it can be shown to enhance bicycle tourism. 6. Encourage its employees to bicycle by: • Integrating bicycling to work efforts with Wellness program incentives. • Providing bicycles for inspectors, police patrols and other field workers. • 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 `1cy e t '• F�� :•� ' 6t i . emu / SECTION • PLAN IWLEMENTATION 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 II bicycle lanes will be maintained as part of the City's ongoing pavement management program. 5. As part of the City's financial planning cycle, the Public Works Department will identify Class I bike path projects for City Council consideration. The Department will evaluate all strategies for implementing targeted proposals including grant funding sources, public/private partnerships, and the creation of a non-profit foundations to solicit private sector participation. 6. The City will reserve a minimum of 2% of it's Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for bicycle promotional and educational purposes. 19 C. Plan Amendments 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 d. k :C 3Yw�t + .�� * � b E �,,,. �,�aA•.i��)�/.r�N d�� "-.��• �. r..^v�.:�-pro+ .; r 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: G 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 an estimate of adult bicycle commuters within the City limits in 2001. California Polytechnic State University adjoins the City Limits and has an on-campus resident population of 2,800 students. The transportation survey provides an estimate of the percentage of Cal Poly students that are bicycle commuters. This percentage was applied to the total on-campus student population to estimate the number of university student bicycle commuters. Adding the results described above provides an estimate of the 2001 adult bicycle commuters within the City's urban reserve—San Luis Obispo's planning area(see item"i"below). The 2001 transportation survey also provides an estimate of the number of"non-bike riders"that would ride a bike for commute purposes if certain inducements(e.g. additional bikeways and parking)were provided. These types of inducements are central components of this Bicycle Transportation Plan. Therefore,from the survey,we can estimate how many additional adults bicycle commuters might result from full implementation of the bicycle plan. Adding this number to the number of existing bicycle commuters provides an estimate of total potential bicycle commuters in San Luis Obispo using base year population(see item"p"below). _ Resalt> >InformahonfSource,'.-.. Item 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 Survey e. Adult commute bicyclists in SLO(c x d) 6,514 — f. University students living on Cal Poly Campus 2,800 Cal Poly University g. Percentage of on-campus students that bicycle commute 23% 2001 Transportation Survey h. Cal Poly resident bike commuters f x 644 L Existini 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 respond to an inducements 91.7% 2001 transportation Survey m. %of non-riders that respond to bike plan inducements 54.4% 2001 Transportation Survey n. Number of potential riders x 1 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+o 15,886 — Estimated San Luis Obispo Urban Area Po ulation 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 APPENDIX B: Existing and Proposed Land Use and Settlement Patterns History and Existing Development Pattern The community of San Luis Obispo began in 1772 with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. During its first century, a retail and financial district and government center formed around the Old Mission. Today this area employs more that 6,000 people. Following a traditional expansion pattern, offices and residential neighborhoods now surround the "Downtown Core,"extend outward and are served by arterial streets, some of which are also State highways. With this outward expansion over the second century came new shopping and employment centers located near the town's periphery. At the close of the 19d' Century, the Southern Pacific Railroad (now the Union Pacific Railroad) pushed through the eastern side of San Luis Obispo, forming a circulation barrier for community residents but providing a vital link to interstate destinations. In 1901,the California Polytechnic School was founded at the north edge of the City, adjoining the railroad. Today Cal Poly State University employs more than 2,600 faculty and staff that support 17,000 students. In the mid 1950s, Highway 101, a four-lane freeway,was constructed along the town's western edge, dividing some older neighborhoods and again limiting cross-town access. Today, San Luis Obispo occupies about ten square miles,has a total daytime workforce of 34,000,and a resident population of 45,000 living in 19,000 dwellings. Residential neighborhoods have developed following a more-or-less traditional pattern and often include, schools, churches, retail shopping centers, and neighborhood and community parks. San Luis Obispo is the County seat and includes offices for City, County; State and Federal agencies located in the Downtown Core,on South Higuera Street near Prado Road, and at several other scattered locations. Major employment centers include Cal Poly,the Downtown Core, and light. industrial and office development along Broad and South Higuera Streets. Proposed Settlement Pattern To the north and east, outward growth of San Luis Obispo is limited by topography(e.g. the Santa Lucia Foothills and Bishop Peak)and by State-owned land (Cal Poly University). To the west,productive agricultural lands and a flood plain surrounding Laguna Lake border Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill Boulevard. These areas are part of a"green belt"proposed for preservation as open space. Most urban growth is slated for areas along the southern edge of the City. The extent of future growth is shown on the accompanying map and includes two new residential neighborhoods(the Margarita and Orcutt Areas), significant expansions of retail commercial uses along Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road, and substantial industrial development north of the County Airport in the Airport Area. Specific Plans have been prepared for these "expansion areas"that incorporate a network of Class I and II bikeways connected to the existing system. Full development of land, as envisioned by San Luis Obispo's General Plan, will result in the City occupying about 12 square miles,with a total daytime workforce of 45,7001 people, and a. resident population of 58,000 people living in 24,000 dwellings. 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 © 111110 IC 1 1mm Pmmm r TMJ �o:: , *10 k. Ot Downtown gpli Core in r - ,.��.an _ . . • • r • • 1 - • o «- • • • •. 1 U1111 visit r. �t+• Q • /O� r. 1 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 H 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 1 and 227. Class III Bike Routes. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan.identifies a number of streets in residential and commercial districts that that are used by cyclists to connect to the Class 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 1 t i ; •?lr a r d> tiipu _, • ' v 41 Ll "Mo 4 , CD Cn Cl) V) U) Cl) N CD 0 \U o r_ X C r r` c�i o o Sv -00 w Cr ca C� y z � n APPENDIX D: Description of Proposed Bikeways The tables on the following pages and Figures #I 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 11 bikeway network. Figure # : Pro osed New Major Class I Bikeways Corridor Location Length (klm)- Total S Cost Railroad Bicycle Path Cal Poly to 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 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 94. 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 Type of Project Number of Projects Estimated Total S Cost Creek crossings(bridges or underpass) 4 543,000 New Class H 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 safety improvements 1 25,000 GRAND TOTALS 24 6,819,000 Bicycle Boulevards. The City is developing Morro Street south of the downtown as a "Bicycle Boulevard." This plan defines a bicycle boulevard as a street "...that has been closed to through motor vehicle traffic and where stop controls on side streets give preference to bicycle traffic..." The Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard will extend from Marsh Street to Santa Barbara Street and include the closure of the street at its south end and installation of a traffic signal at the Morro- Upham-Santa Barbara intersection. D-2 APPENDIX E. Existing and Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities Evolution of Current Standards Until 1993, San Luis Obispo did not have bicycle parking standards. With the adoption of the Bicycle Transportation Plan (October 1993), bicycle parking became a"condition of approval" for new development, except for very small-scale projects. This bike plan's standards stipulate that both short-and long-term bicycle parking be provided and specify the amount of bicycle parking to be provided—keyed to the number of required motor vehicle spaces required for a particular land use. This bike plan also includes location and design standards for bike racks. As part of the 2002 update, the design and location standards were refined to include new provisions that address night lighting, shelter, and level of support for bicycles that don't have kickstands, among other refinements. In November 1994, San Luis Obispo adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element contains broad policies and programs that address bicycling in San Luis Obispo,including the provision of parking by new development. Relevant Circulation Element provisions include: e New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage,parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and standards(reference Policy 3.4,page 14). The City will modify its zoning regulations to establish standards for the installation of lockers, secured bicycle parking, and showers(reference Program 3.12, page 15). Finally,in 1999 the City amended its zoning regulations to include Table 6.5. This table is identical to the one shown as Figure #6 on page 14 of this plan. The zoning regulations also stipulate that development projects that provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle spaces, up to a 10%reduction. All bicycle parking that exceeds the required number of spaces shall be apportioned between short-term and long-term bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6.5. In sum, guidance for bicycle parking is currently provided in the following ways: Feature Source Broad Policy Direction General Plan Circulation Element(1994),pages 14& 15 Number and Type of Bike Parkin Spaces Zoning Regulations,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. 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 comer,"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. o 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. o Access. The parking area should be convenient to building entrances and street access, but away from normal pedestrian and auto traffic (see below). Avoid locations that require bicycles to travel over stairs. Access for those on tricycles should be near a ramp used by people in wheelchairs. Security. Surveillance is essential to reduce theft and vandalism. For security, locate parking within view of passers-by,retail activity, or office windows. Lighting. Bicycle parking areas should be well lit for theft protection,personal security and accident prevention. Weather protection. Whenever possible protect bicycle parking areas from weather. Alternative treatments include using an existing overhang or covered walkway, constructing a canopy or roof—either freestanding or attached to a building. Inventorying Existing Conditions and Needed Improvements Citizen volunteers and members of the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee surveyed many, of the retail shopping areas, employment centers, and major public facilities throughout San Luis Obispo that are identified in Appendix B(City Development Patterns). While this initial inventory was not exhaustive and will require future refinements, it did point out areas where bicycle parking should be improved, either by installing bike racks for the first time, replacing racks that are poorly designed, or improving bike rack placement. The table beginning on page E-4 identifies the locations of bicycle parking outside of Downtown San Luis Obispo, identifies the type of bike rack, and points out correctable deficiencies, using the following notation. Key Evaluation Gl;b 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 puking accommodations. Area should be revisited to encourage owners to install bicycle parking. Bflce Rack Type WV BR series"wave" style with single to 6 loops. WP 1, 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 o � m m C 9 'C O G - Y > C S S -fib =CC m O O Q E@ c p, u L e o � � 3 h Z C� ems• Ji C U a 14 m x w @ F � U O Y 3 y � _- r•� g � � 8 m � ,� e mm 7 G O E S C 8 o :6 O C FJ = L Wig. m 15 4. 6 Y J E � 1333 u C C G u r N @ o Q E ° Z 5 5 5 O u v 3 v F ,7,• o (5 85U - 3 't4 # 4 ,om444 € m 4 mmmxm4x4mxxx xm r r IXmX (D4 € xx 22 � T T T T T T o u o U o 0 o u u o 0 0 aba a s m U Z• .. v o � •- v — q = g o s€ 3 . O e ° O 9 _ a {i � °im � cmc � � �s •eq+ g o 2 � m �$~ o' E Cv `d �, a 2. bci 9 � '3q rY � � >, a> g'v °' m •C6. •=e ca u 8. 7 t •8 V Q 7 V A — m C = u ti. •G7 � u` c _ p m U � � go 7' $'o.� > �. � i Z 2' y .•o �' d 8 = ^' o _ � _ $' � � u � m .5 ° o � � U �° Y � h m o � � •� — g _`� .5 = E 2 = = c 2 Z m ' ti a � �. M1 csi :; v, F > amu ftiu � �¢ > ., .. — > > � I✓ a � � > � 3 o momo' ° C �7 7 N g C Z Z Z o e`o Caos �`a4 r o� � � $ � 9mb� eeHe �eenuaFaa = mmmgo meeeeeee ° ° mm OAS 33 � 33 g N J N �a Y w Y F u ° E k Y gT Y Gx Y L S L C � m u u , � S E Y s 6r g 8 ` u u � E 2 0 3, IM MI t bf•a t u € u u Y r6 o u u u o u e° m — — X m# x x m 4 X I,m# X c X x X m € m m 4 x x -t 4 m x m m m x X X x 11 X m m m m m X Vlu V U U ti U s g e C Y is '� ;, m � z � L = a ° �• U � eC v �3 � •�B �C �O m � 8 3 y m � SF -Y r � $ C C u mS T = C C C m m m O C C Vl m OY Y 'O m y L Y C y O 1 oil ° � 12 0SlaTm my u° a� > mvmS m a u u ti u > > > m mm pp 179 11 1 1111 'R11111 m1 1111 9 '8 '91 rT C`1 n' r N . � . ) e \ � } ) � ! \ - � xm / xcx# x J . \ ! 2722 , ° � 00 � ,r, pl, PF ,<<. M z O p Z O O O O O O O O O � O � `O `0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •- O `0 O � O " O � � O .!= O O O L) 00colco� C7co, (o00LFi0L.LcLaC) UoUDrLa-0 0o-0 0 (LLLU- CLLL (L (D0' (i U ai w 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 W N M W N N N N CO w N N N " O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W U Q a U) 0 z Zvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvlov -ovav -ova -vv -ovvvvvv -ovv Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m m m m 0 d v10LU v v O o 0 0 v1 to xx 'D U) m m > m -0 -0 -0 -0 -a -0 -0 0) -omvv a 'o 'Dv -o -avvvv ^ YYYm m � ym mLL mOC C CiO yt L i' L C C C1' ri' r O � -05 -01 3: to � 0 0 2i U c c c c aj F c c c c O c 0 c. c c c c c c c c c c c ^C W m U " " C z � � � � m � � � � � U mmmmoma) 00)0)> mmm E o o c c E m o E c � LLTmmamaMLLa2CT0aa022M. M- 22222202 00000000 = C •s Y o0 i $ 'a co Y Y CL o m 3 >1 >1m a0 0 W (D :Ifta Y Y m m N N N O 0 m m m m 0 � al o 0 o E E E m m m m 1° " m Y Y Y Y m m o o o o o o N m m O uui @ o a o' o'aaa m 0 0 0 0 c 2V o � � g uoi � o o m0000000 L W O 0000 N0010000f0O fCO y OOCO00000~DO � tODa �nrn 000000000 F- v v cn ao rn IM aarrrO00000DO � � rOrrrOrO00prrrrr •M� C CL CD CL m 2 c U cm U1 J J ,., (n 0 m 'o y y tm N m 3 mcm 0) a m (Np L 3 'O y N N O m 7 c a d O F 0m �' O y _ p a c O c a s z m '� m o m m m °� m fN0 0 y m m 2 LL N N C m 0 c a a E � tm C a C N m 7 m N rn U U cz = m — m O O m O c C C N - E m o m L a. 02 Q 2 S S a L L Z^ N U) 'D 2 0 a 0 0 0 c o o 'rn N c c c c c c 0 w UEa O > > Q � YoovNmtrnvdOQ � orEcc� Lmic� c� cmic� oo O 0aac�iai �c�i � cicicviz2m2mMiF3 03< C.) UM° F- aY » » » � 3 G QrNMtl In CD I� CDOOrNM � � fO I� Co00rNMCln OI� GOTOrNMRM (O r r r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M pa 0 0 ' xO 0 0 0 0 'L 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o aO O � a0 o o o � a0 " ao = a0 � a0 O O Cp 'p O OOO ip O o o o m m m m m m o o 0 m o m O o o o CO O 'p O 'm O 'm O U C7 LL,LL C7 d d C7 LL 0 (7 d LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 0- LL C7 LL 0- LL a CL d a LL 0 LL C7 LL LL C� m N 47 D R 16 U U U a CL u CL 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 0 N N N 0 O M V N N N N N N M Cr) M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N 'T N a — mmmcomUmmmmmmmmmcommmmcommcocommmmmmmmmmUm L L a a CD a _ _aa m d O o a) N > > > 2 = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > L D L aaa Q) d 10 10m m 10a10a10aa1010a1010m "0 *0 a N N N O N Y N d N N 0 N N N N a) N@ N a) N N N N N ul -O N -o N 0) 'C 'C > L > 0 N 0 N 0 d N > > > > > > d 41 N N N N N N N N N CD G1 m +oN m > > > > m.J > > > > > > m m m m m m > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O > O > C C C O Q C C C C C C .0 C C C .0 C C C c c c C C C O C C 4) N m N N N C C C C C C N m N N o N UUUUUU J J J C C C C C C J J 3 3 o 3 o o m m m m M m Co m m co m rno rno Co m co o) rn rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 N N G C L C L L L L L L C C C C C C N A N CD d N N N 0) N m m G d C E Y ` ` yCDCO ; 3 3 3 3 3 7 7 7 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 qiC 7 .L O rn rn rn m m m m m m m .o 0 0 0 0 0 m o m m L L m m m m m�m m � m m S22 d 0. 200000022UU2:22M: mm: x a. xaZ Q m m mem O mm mmm000mmmmmmmmmmmm O O O o O y 0 V) O y L m m x 2 x O2 m m U m m m m m m m m m m m m.m Lm.o V U m m m m m m m m m m m m r o m 2 2 2 2 CO OON co MM V 0) MM0000000000 CO CO M N CO CO Cl 00 00 ao Cl M OCOQ 0000 � mm � a`moa°Ooma�'ommoma°'oa°'oa°'oa°'oma�ommoo ^ c�ocncnc°'oWMLOLooLow m m d U x E a c m ' E c d U > c a� d a� d d m ami o � Ucn c tt a) E' a� y 3 o cmi Lmi �j< a) d aaaaBB 0 00 U) a)i 'o 0 0 � y LL v g u) d 2 ullZ ZZZ fA oU CL!E U m o m E m c c00 _o 0 0 '9 '9 m am , r — L L ' ' e$ *acacacaca CL 3. `m Y mOm tH � U � � CO Q J m N V1 m o U U a. m m y fA 0 W 0 0 m � M .O L a L U c m -- •' L1 Q 7 C Y y m ,.` oaa° a0 u, m E E E E E c c c m :� ° m mO m �' y C cmi c � m c y c � O_ t C (� O O J m m m m m L b V L L J > •— m m m 7:L m — m m OLL OZ- » > U CQLLLL -4 � mmmmmmHCn > H000 0 > > ofucn (Aa cnc cnv -W IT V v -VRv IT W V) to Lo W) LO Lo W) it LO LO CO CO CO CO CO CO coOCO co CO On rl nrl O I ' O p Q p p Q O !_ .10 'W (0 ° t0 .O l0 (a (O N (a o ° o o 0 ° a) LL LL LL 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL d 0 IL a 0 U LL Na) a) a) cc a a (L a. (D CDcoN V N V NNNNNNNNNcr) N r a aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa � a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a) O mmmmmmcalm mmmmmmmcoo m CD a) a) 0 CD a) a) a) a a a a 2 a) 2 2 2 aa ai ° aa)) a) )) L x L L = L =) D =3 M M M � a) � a2i103 a aaaaaa a a L a a c a C C C r r r O C m a? Q) (D 0) a) m 0) 0) a) a) a) m > 0 o h o > o > o > > > > > > > > > m > 05 p FnsV5 c65 c c c c c c c c c 0 0 (fon J J O >+ p) °) c m a) MIX C C L L L L a) a a a a1 a1 a) to L N L t6 lala (0 fa la f6 O O O °) O) m W to O = to CL (L � C� mmmssxco m rn �+ C O d yLL LLL 'O tp a) O OCL C = M ca m m ca � m m rnrnrnm m gL rn m to to m to - M dxxx (A2tnri y O N tO N I- 00 ON _p)cl) l- 0 �- V rf) N tfnO (Dmnr � - mom Nt-- 0) COITNr' . = N In to CO 9T g 7 f0 ° U = ca0 C cm CD ° a) c :5H m a cm 3 m° c � � a? ¢ t fa 21 O O O W Z'. Q Y y N N O 7 W LL = a C N L R rn V O O C y N O f L Y H 4n) cn ` 3 j D L a) > — ° C m a) ¢ W a) ° " a) C a m mmF- a2 � U) < ML V tOCDnCornorNoovu) ml-- 00o) 0 I.- I.- I� IlI� f.- 000o0o0o0o0o0ococomrnrn APPENDIX F: Existing& Proposed Bicycle Parldng 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 N:-E3dstin &Propose d Bie cle Parkin Transportation Hubs Eaistin Pro osed Location Type Facility Capacity Type Facility Total Capacity Amtrak Passenger Rail 5 angle tube lock 10 tricycles Replace existing with 4 8 bicycles Terminal: 1011 Railroad racks inverted"V'bike racks Avenue Greyhound Bus Station: 146 Non_a NA Install 2 Inverted"U, 4 bicycles South Street bike racks CCAT Bus Transfer Center: 1 `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 Pahn 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 carry two (2) bicycles. As growth occurs,the SLO Transit system will be expanded into new areas along the southern edge of the community. The Airport Area Specific Plan identifies a proposed transit routing strategy. All buses serving new growth areas will be equipped with on-board bicycle racks. The City is improving its Downtown Transit Center located at 990 Palm Street. The improvements will include the replacement of the older slotted wheel bike rack with new inverted"U"racks, placed parallel to each other for maximum support. The Central Coast Area Transit System(COAT)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 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 ' D � ooh I Z , c �El o Oouc DF N N w 0- 40 0go cr � � to00 CD 0 N CO N (A y c r* `� (1 \TC\ r (a C n O k X 7�C `p y CD �- CL A) c cn O w Q z o� c W APPENDIX H: Bicycle Safety and Education Programs Ezistine 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: o 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 is not readily available from the SWITRS system and the City's own database, established in 1999, has insufficient historical data to determine a relationship between safety programs and collision data. Current programs do not educate the City's adult bicycle riding public,which includes Cal Poly University students that ride bicycles the most. H-1 APPENDIX I. Citizen and Community Involvement in Plan Development Background In 1991 the San Luis Obispo City Council created a Bicycle Advisory Committee and asked it to prepare a bicycle transportation plan that met State law requirements in place at that time. This work was completed and a Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted on October 27, 1993. Since 1993, State codes that establishes the content of bicycle plans has changed. Therefore, updating the City's 1993 plan focused on developing and including new information as required by Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. This"update"process involved City staff,members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and its subcommittee, and citizen volunteers. Their work is described below.. Citizen Involvement With Fieldwork A subcommittee of the SLO Bicycle Advisory Committee was appointed to help update the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. Because work on the 1993 plan was performed about a decade ago, the subcommittee required more recent information and counts. During the months of January and February 2002, some 15 cyclists responded to a request(posted to Internet announcement/discussion lists for the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club and the SLO County Bicycle Coalition)for volunteers to ride different sections of the city to survey and inventory bicycle parking facilities and overall concerns for cyclists. Selecting items to be surveyed was based on a recent work program developed by Evanston Illinois and sent to the subcommittee by Randy Warren, a former San Luis Obispo resident and cyclist now living in Illinois. The cyclists who volunteered generated other concerns and questions. One of the cyclists,a Caltrans planner who commutes into work from another community, suggested that the group stress objectivity. The group recognized that a simple form is not always easy to fill out and that it can be difficult not to be subjective.Volunteers were encouraged to look at conditions from the point of view of an elementary school student,not only because some of the data collected will be used to generate information for a"Safe Routes to School"program,but because most of the information will be valuable for planning safe commute routes for adults. Survey/Inventory During a meeting of most of the volunteers at Meadow Park, a large map of the city was divided into 13 areas and spreadsheet forms were distributed to each of the participants. The Chamber of Commerce provided,free of charge, copies of their 1999 map of San Luis Obispo and each map was marked with all 13 areas outlined with a green highlighter pen and distributed to volunteers(with help from the staff at the Parks&Recreation Department. These maps were used because they show clearly all parks and open space areas, schools,hospitals,public buildings,transportation hubs, etc., and the city limits. Also,the maps are large enough with type that is easy to read. 1. The spreadsheet format listed the following conditions to be inventoried, street-by- street, with comments keyed to each entry listed separately: -danger spots for cyclists (intersections,markings, signs, etc.); -condition of pavement and markings for [class 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. On March 21, 2002,the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)reviewed and considered this Director's recommended Negative Declaration and a Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan at an advertised public hearing. The Committee took public testimony from_people and discussed various elements of the draft plan including the relationship of the Bike Plan to other City planning efforts. Copies of the minutes for the BAC meeting are available upon request from the San Luis Obispo Public Works Department,telephone 805-781-7210. On April 10,2002,the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the recommended Negative Declaration and the Draft Bike Plan at an advertised public hearing. The Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the Bike Plan. Copies of the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting are available upon request from the Community Development Department,telephone 805-781-7172. On May 7, 2002,the City Council considered the recommendations of its Planning Commission and Bicycle Advisory Committee at a public hearing,took public testimony, and I-2 unanimously approved a resolution adopting this document—resolution included as Appendix M. Copies of the minutes of Council meeting are available for the City Clerks Office at 805- 781-7103. The Council also identified a variety of topics that it felt its Bicycle Committee and staff should further study during Fiscal Year 2002-03, including: Q Identification of traffic generators outside the downtown and whether they provide bicycle parking. The relationship between in-city bikeways and those that connect to sub-regional destinations, such as recreational facilities and Cuesta Junior College. Mapping of available bicycle parking throughout San Luis Obispo. Coordinating the planning of pedestrian paths and trails with that of bikeways. Policies and standards for developing Class I bikeways adjoining creek corridors. e Reevaluation of the design of bike lanes along Prefinno Canyon Road west of Los Osos Valley Road. o Developing a more continuous Class I bikeway network, without interruption by major streets or highways. Q Consideration of additional"Bicycle Boulevards" and"Slow Streets"throughout San Luis Obispo. I-3 APPENDIX J: Relationship to Other Plans Specific Area Plans. The City of San Luis Obispo uses the"Specific Plan" process to provide detailed planning for residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. These specific plans (sometimes called"enhancement plans" or"district plans") prescribe the arrangement of land uses, establish design standards for new development, and identify alignments for transportation corridors, including Class I and II bikeways. The City also adopts"Route Plans" for bikeways that will be retrofitted into existing neighborhoods and business districts. This plan is designed to be consistent with specific plans and route plans. Figure#1: Bikeways Map shows the type and general alignment of bikeways throughout San Luis Obispo. However, the more precise alignment of bikeways is established by specific plans and route plans adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council. Most areas covered by these particular plans are shown on Figure #4 and described below. 1. The Railroad District Plan includes the Union Pacific Railroad and adjoining streets from Johnson Avenue to Orcutt.Road. The plan shows the general configuration of Class I bikeways on both sides of the railroad and connections to neighborhood streets. 2. Railroad Safety Trail Route Plan establishes a specific alignment fora Class I bikeway along the Union Pacific Railroad from the AMTRAK passenger terminal on Santa Rosa Street to Foothill Boulevard. This plan overlaps in part with the Railroad District Plan, but is much more specific. 3. Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan includes properties along Higuera Street between Marsh Street and a point just south of Madonna Road. The plan shows the configuration of Class I bikeways along San Luis Obispo Creek and Class II bikeways along Higuera and South Streets and Madonna Road. 4. Edna-Islay Specific Plan includes residential properties between Orcutt Road and Broad Street and is bisected by Tank Farm Road. Class I bikeways are prescribed along the railroad and area creeks while Class II bikeways are shown on bordering and bisecting arterial streets. 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. Hguera 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 SQecific 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 Prefwno Creek from Madonna Road to the east end of Calle Joaquin. When this Bicycle Transportation Plan update was prepared, a number of the plans listed above were not yet adopted and are subject to public review and City Council consideration. Should the bikeways prescribed by these draft plans be modified, this plan will be amended to achieve consistency with the resultant adopted specific plan. In general, changing the alignment or type of bikeway prescribed by an adopted specific planning or area plan may require an amendment to Figure#1 of this plan. County Bikeway Plan. In September 1994, the County of San Luis Obispo adopted a County Bikeways Plan; this plan was updated in 1996. This plan prescribes bikeways throughout the County including Class II bikeways along major road corridors leading into the City(e.g. Orcutt Road, SR 227, South Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Road, O'Connor Lane, and Foothill Boulevard) and Class I bikeways along the Union Pacific Railroad from the south and Route 1 between San Luis Obispo and north Morro Bay. These bikeways generally link with similarly classified bikeways within San Luis Obispo. Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2001 San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments includes provisions for non-motorized transportation. The RTP identifies a variety of Class 11 bikeways along major regional routes that pass through and border the City of San Luis Obispo as well as Class I bikeways along the Union Pacific Railroad and San Luis Obispo Creek(the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail). The projects shown on Figure 2-8b of the plan are consistent with those shown on Figure #1 of this plan. This Plan and the 2001 RTP are consistent in that each shows bikeways along routes of regional significance. However, in the Airport Specific Planning Area,the City has proposed a duel system of Class I/II bikeways along Tank Farm Road, Prado Road and Buckley Roads while the RTP only shows Class II bikeways along these corridors. J-2 RA Wil tj APPENDIX K: Setting Priorities & Financial Planning for Bikeways Creating bikeways proposed by this plan will be constrained by the availability of funding. While there area number of competitive State and Federal grant programs that can provide support,the amount of funds needed by the City to complete the community's bikeway network ($49,000,000)is out of scale with most.available grant programs. The City has been modestly successful in receiving grant funds to build bikeways and has spent about$3.2 million over a six- year period(using both grants and local funds), the equivalent of$530,000 per year. If this spending level continues, it would take about 92 years to complete the proposed bikeways network. On way reducing implementation costs to the City is to require bikeways to be designed and installed as part of new development. To a large degree,this strategy is proposed within the urban expansion areas at the south end of the community and for major projects on"infill" properties within the urban reserve. The limitation of this strategy is that desirable bikeway links may be tied to the pace of outward community:growth and take years to accomplish. The City may choose to accelerate the development of a particular bikeway link when it addresses a current critical need for bicycle commuting. The following priorities describe the emphasis that will be placed on implementing various bikeway projects. However, work may proceed on projects with lower priority ratings when opportunities present themselves. Also, bikeways shown on private property that is subject to development or redevelopment shall be installed no later than at the time development occurs, unless guaranteed by the developers for installation at a later time. Citywide Bikeway Priorities 1"Priority: bikeways that promote bicycle commuting and improve safety. 2°d Priority: bikeways that serve both commuter and recreational cyclists. Yd 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— 1S`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 V7 T'0 E C � c Og oa � � U 6 0 N m M _ _ m 0. •e - c Eoh e G:7 v N N V w 'm ca � • � •o o d Q r g :? � � .n u 00 - 0 r�\ cc E y m V C x O C O V O cc p 2 'O Om` ` O^R. C LL t ° R R u c R o �o y o O E 000 y ° =° rll E F° u c y 4 0 ; a^ R 3 R e. u O03 ` .` s :3 poy � � u � .ate of V] y w C O ..1. V R r 'V L O �O V = y� tot ° V a s E` s ?+ � c 0-0 m= a.3 i7 0 -e .p C Oa` O > > •i o :� U •o . i° 7 C y R C y 7 C €. •O i. (/� y a p o ,m ^] R A c ` S V w 0 Qy •E .� ..l c ms E R d `-' - o .9 p y T u y °' t o y c u 0 a= S 'O •- O t° y R w a°i R R ` •p R c X c 3 E o > �c Y R O ; (ONO. . :� y y m d m ec u c y m S = > p = u y F- of = y m m Q w v 3 d s c d u R ° H E 'a R E. m u .R o u d LT. v �. p .� O y E O C v1 O o •C O V C: R 7 '� R v O R HL.. .� A m O V ;O Iv- t.. C a c o c ti L fl a o y a R u u u a� E ,, c L R m OC V N N N V w v Y �"' 3 O 4.. O N bn L y y 0 0 •° t :V •p p N ,-°i ya, .� "O O W p •C N 'O p L N X V Y. a .� o y .0 o N fl R `O s ao c R _ u R °c o d '� $ ° m ° E c E " '^ r c > ° c aui E E CO s m n R o ° p • ° a c �r o w i o w �. 00 m y a y Q > mmR s O > N E �O R i L m u s e �O N U N w N ° L_ O C O U R Q N O R O d N a— R R V .� R R m:"' R •0 c t N H � w N a y R i a t Y U y = y V 3 y a... y a N y y w O L E „ s - y L �«. m w — u L o• , E X 3 u a� 'p E a 3 «, 9 o a y o E a r z v CL o d - Q .0 v o= d = -cu- v >>i c > c > aQi E U ° o 3 C o C V x i 3 3 N C C 3 X R 4 X 'i C C: L y t N R O s v um W V .,, � is — ia 0 WU o W .0 0 — mrnmu.. vn •0 RQ � v� 2 y > O v1 O h O n O N M N 00 �D O O •"1i wq L" O O N O cc n V R c/1 lO Nc O O O ,yam d9 v1 O C^ O W h V•1 M vi NO N O T w w ra 00 O 00 O M �O R h r- 00 r- 00 c; y M �/1 N N n 00 1A O V1 O M O �!! V1 M M O M �• l� R M Vl I� `•' U =.� N O M Q ;u. o o hcc O+ O ^ O R V 00 M N N to N J _ o E c X `-- o o y � y d �n o ° � � -� d ° � ti 3 Er ov Rs c 3 py a' s 0: 4 3 - °' aC € > y y pce CL OC m ccw cd > 3 c R :c p o �, u. u E cui R R m t' ° •y LR, .� w 'O j"+ T� cO ° 9 �i+ C t0 .0 0 •�'" C�. 6. R y ed C6 t• L y t— y S F., y 0 p 1 y O R O y y ISI 3 L N V T. C 4. C N > N — V 6i Cl cv c co aoc > > U > GR — m V yoc CCotyR id ° C d O ':. ° t OO O CgsE � Lo sE 'mEE � � L � � o � z En esu � � oc � aU R o o o R R A Roc Ro o � 3 Rw c cnCL o. rn ❑ m 8 3[ N nt Q r �? r d c a A. o o i o y a z c x s me m 04 C C ce. CG ,—o+ d �•_ c a y c o '�o =°� v � m v E. �E � E A G E � OL L Y e c E u u E n :. E _ QmaC6 9L a r e V1 �O N M N c+1 IT F 00 `w y U 0 C 9 3 N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M U W Y 00 00 .W. e., opo O y C i LTJ = 3e y •a o � .. � e0 :o Uo c = o o a °' E `- i c p a 9:6 0p O y api Cl) c v '� O. S aci 0000 oq;o •C '� E o $ v .p° _] 9 e e10 mp Ln L 'G� f°/1 •x W •y N E 1 c d x c L L p p o y o o V a p p p s > c mt py y� W3o € `o po 'v a scapi `0000 � W c L ftc° L = CL L y O Y C C " cpi a W W — y v W E H o W p a a o 3 0 0 .°L.dC.. CW mL� C:L. yu L p •� Lifl U� x o O p .WeR � apoi v>o yyp -Ripe .p t: -0 0 = bc un N L V C> ° = ;1; E C > 'a7 .0 � U " C a e 2 gm ° o� :4mdrLp. °•�NWCo°+ 'm�Co; 'Dpyay vHo y2 wl a 3U y W > y Y p eye p p ., W 4., O EE E VI a— .+ ... W 0 •c Colo d 3 Y v i .0. 3 ° v 2 •`' a`i 'O E y V7 .c .O a0 ` c c,. •�R O ep0 > — c y c e0:: > o > y s p o W oYe... ea A ._ p "- • e o 0 0 o E E e = L�' o aoo w E e0c y s v _ «. 9 p p 0.L W p o0 E H op e o .p ° U •` c a� S 3 •N •C N •yL•' N '� '.:;� L L L r O = .9 E i 9 y �" M L y Wy E OD d U a) p N x _x " ;viWp ad gE. da yp •.aO. cVv Lp' NW% 'flE .p3� U.W. =L pOL W G ._ p L o O O W p p L Li M oWU iLYT WG �pOt•W3 Lv_� typb0 �L, C __ :v_ a W y y � O y W c W N V a0i :R m 3 'p" O r y N.E a1 y'- p V p Y 7 > N W a y 21 3 p L .p.. E p L y a) E U p p L y Q'. p Y. 7 y W ... W 'O 3 7 L' 7 L E o0 p L 7 A y >> a O E. > > C �" _ 7 C y L — W �" 'G cc a>, p L EO W uc W `p W ° ` = 3 vpai = � �nQv p° U3 = � c°a ¢ 33 = > o cn c: aj Lama L o p ° 3 a a . - p 0 0 0 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 O '' 0 0 ++ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o q o 0 0 00 0 �cj F o N � r- eq 0 0 0 �O 0 \o O Vi O O O O _ O M W O O+ O O %r N O N N O O �D N O �O �D vi C4 O CO v1 N -O en N e0 N d\ � M m pp aii v1 O vl O h .� N O ,n O v1 O O C y N M N W) 00 '�,. e0 �O kn N v1 N M N 00 h O to :�. N 00 �c N M N 00 'A L [r cnLov r� 0 p 3 I00 0 N m� � Y .tp y zpy 2 to cO Y EO R aYi Wpr vCo �y°p. 'yp oy pO e:. •ope • oo y LE o W V° i c ' o oo � , U> y = et p � Re y ',s p9 C �U Cn ea G Y mmO vaOy Q co V p •O y 0 H CW ;y y R.s O (/� y :E p L ` 'p -� L ` $ W N uj .1 p y p e 00 o ° scK ecC ° oa o e p o o � c o o p0 L p E W c c c 3 0 o a o c6 "a y c 9 m 'y s ,� W 3 b '� W •- D: �t W Rt O 2. Q O «+ Ucr L —] L O y 0 y p L s E E r c°i L •` p '.ao ayi a— .W 4 oyi O y c�a m � y o y y ' W > La Y aSa � a � a0awrn p3 $ v� � a 30, w � wen3 'mul du a°iLU ° Lu � oW 4 0 y r o0 D\ Pit F09 e :L a i i i 0 m m m m p w •o � t c •o U � U t m � yr Z u � — .� U Q O C � ° 3 U •y � ° ° R � w i 0 � � v ° t .- _ O c o`n ° o ' 0 3 d •o ae v c — v g s v H Y ° 3 y R O v, y C '� 7 O m •� 'O x = to ° m w U � o s .. Or O x o R y w v v E on E v a 3 0 fl R O y C c> > a) a) - a R L y o a1 c ,. y Oc.. m � am >C •= t L.+ m `y,• t«. R > O L L c ° .. R C O d p E " w y CL-1:3 O R y > y u > G H o R 0n 0 0n y 0n p .p y ._ R p y °' O C m c ° 'fl 'fl = Q O g c C ° d rz an o � o dv � •= nsaoivc " ° o > o EdoscRd ° 03 Gi .D U a •p R N w p F" N p w 7 a) c a) U a) 0q to N p y 'C ,� C 3 ep R ` ° ° H L ° �. R Y �,. c y s o a y ° : E t; On yLl •O N OD c vi y R R C R Y1 a) O C V d i O O U y •RO d O C O'h O .�. R y i .Q F- ..t. a>i s v 3cn czo 0D c c .c_ = € n t 3 °3 = E 3 avi o N = ° 0 0 0 fl 3 d x s O o 06 m � ° � "- 9 > ao, = c � Ecr ;: _ flv3 R o ao o .s U v 0 .0 o ° _ _ ° •Q,•a °' y oC33 CL rj 8 3 R 3 •o m o :: T E a•Rp 5 F. 3 R °.3 c °L 3 H u c y d c U a"i a u w 16 0 � E � = R o •E � 'mv c .° ° s m „ = — c > 'o ❑ R 'o R •o as = c o c coo o p c R v e e y y x o d c x o o . o c C R c - na3a 3 3 [- Rrn R ._ n. O 3 � � _ a� RaU R 0. � a, � aaRa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y o0 o y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � N :l O �O O O O p a vi N N vi O vi O y 0 O O O Ci O V L1 N M to -- to O O 000 R 'fn tn n i N R vi a00 w O O 000 yj O� vl 00 — 00 I+�1 R N N O O y L O aci L •C 'fl ct 03 CL my o Ew d y Rs° `�° c Doncc c � r„ d _ r- Y wj OC O 00 C w y 'C C FO' N DF: [i L N O N S fn aOj R p O O Cd y C (n m cis -�d 'QOO)D U=p �'i' •y>O CL aV =HREa) •.•:cX, E° —UN yvi R 7Y=of Yc3 mr = E -19 97 ) -Z m7 RNR cc — V U Oi LT- 6i wa•p R° w >tR m c, U a� �. �i � a a� w ayQ o � U omU omam v� F M ? 67 ci N rpt q' Q < < < < < � m m Fy (L. 7 a n N e Y N 3 3 C —m U te - Q a U U C a •o a •a E E E N E E M C S C v1 a m e m m e E c — — •• U opa ma log ma p o c o c o c Q e r 0 �C;d gatCc .m+ = y =. O C O y y a> y Y — - N d A N = •V .� = G N a G m L 7 d O O C = C O E d y C L m- O Y p '.O O v; = vi m .N. '� € E ° •v " o G U U d Q N -° Xm `fl.rz . •n t y N m yN C 0 N .° p 4' m E > V 'E .. > Nw 4; 7 70 . O > L = E ...•0 m y c`Ga O A `a as c E' ° N -Y N :? E � ma v 3 �+ „ 9 0. a'- eOaEsL zz r y m a �, •y C c G N G = O d N m y .N G .'� > y C C > .� 9 G7 y m m .fl > 00L E � d d m > 04 N -� i. Oy e0 = ° N y = ° _ = O•'C = N N N S C N V O = 0 oom = pm oy� � o N3 opE � L „ 3a � � �. dd EY CL c — o N V y m '� o G G b o o yp y p E m m N 'C V N U .t0 y O N m p ._+ 7 = p N m E C m m 00 7. -' G N .� N m �. •C 00 — G L o0 .� �- t 'C "N (i 4.. > Q N E'. N O y O r O'04- N V O a._ N y 00.. 9 > U C •`. 1 7 0 i =' 4.. m N m C V O �_ o C ` S m i .0 •` V O L = y O m p C E U N O T O L p=q y 9:6— p >' c d = Q d = pp m c a� E p = H ° .N v E aci .°' 3 :: f% E. o z° p ._ c c L u is c .mom. p ° c m d m u. o a L ° f,/] G N •�..N op > p Gia � G t O a h d o L E U �° 3 o V N c a a••o U a=i o s " v a > = G p E o 4 n 3 0 o > m t c o L m m r > m E atm m o 3 N - o W, C m e. o 7 m m o Y G N Q E a G y a '- C X o E a O° m N m Y °' ; m Q. o a o L o 9 Y N is ° o c No a e w ° 3 2 7 c d m m m m B: um = _ ° G d o _- o o d E Nos m v c o a a.00 o v_ =° N L G = v U N 'g 'd N d U _: N _ = _ 'C = y E N ::. N O n+ C � V U L N d i' N ,7 N O C m m o0 m •_ r N N y' d. .T U r N d r _ 7 d••7 YCX . n. G"•' •> O m ..jv En N .E > G m o o 'd R N m F a t Cn t%1 U axi 0. F s o FL- a a` 3 m 3 0 U E- Q = 0] m .LnD: = UN 3 O OO O O 4 O G N O O O 00 7 00 O �D •� O L r OO V•1 7 W C0 VO N 00 kn N M v1 M N N 00 '00 N Cm0 z z z e6 o ^ o 0 0 0 0 0 o Q M N — v _ _ O �J _ .0 O ° •. _ E _ V .D C 9 Y G 7 O iA C O L ° O G O m N O i •C m N 3 C O O d r- H y G = ytaCM �• F V L O y Y D: Y m L N Y N c N 3 0 C C4 L° m y `- D: C G C `•'= ° •C O = ° •_ L O m .O •o :'. � Nz (~ninao 7 > 7m m o � EU .x 'S' y C L U R L°r y N m V 61 V m >, m G = 7 2 m ° C1 r ck o o m d v h > m O = y ° e0 Q O v C O m > v 00 t ,7� Y U OD os CO) dcGa� = mdU c = mm �' V UNE Nv� av� � y t3 � fle � � v 5d � ° � w a) esL o � � w oV O O 2 _ II= =y it f�j _ N Nt q vi r oo T o N nt 96 v � m A w �' 1O c u � '• > F � o — $° N M C M1 ,O �u T O. �L d 9 3 N N N M M M M M M 'U u U C 3 D d N ___ . .N a� 10 s = vo „ Ls° a _ o > oua R _ o a ❑ 3 y 5m a r _ea°i ° yy CR .O C y m y . Oa-C c0 YC .O+ > r L O A C U U C U — O y O C •O A y .— G O y T Lo GYO. 3 > O y O ."L = s ° 9wd > :o aQ c �° E Y' > � F 0 03 ` '> E E o ° w ° v a3 y c o a 3 0 m .� ° c R m i H � A o U ° U 'E `•= >to .0 , �`, aci aL� °e$•u '� o �° Qoj c 9 A v .9 C '-Os O � y y O U m U Iy. ¢ cC .` y a� t ._ VI U L .O y ,_ O M . U S N c0 O 2 C y Y C U y .fl ° y O O 4+ tE .d 7 C a 7 C W 7 c o L end C m m y . 03 Oq dy rcU U N •O1m" � •>y 2V] O MO O R � y y O O C E a OL_ C A 7 y 7 .y C ` a eU 10 ° y L c .0 -0 ° a As y o d v . ms m m p E m p y w g s m o c y • ,; o o s a y c ° m v o v d o '� v > H c o ti e c c 3 g y aci y o0'E � 3 G d e c 3 O c °> c c o U �° d > c° d o e o N y y c Y o ° £ ° _ o c 0 3 ° O .� v � U y aj, y � L o % V � = cl d s o Y aD > -o v o E a- - c o o > - a c O. Q. O 0 E ° •- v N ya m � � - s •04. v y c � � aE 'o aYyi � .o m � o c'£ 'o d w ¢ u 2 m m R `° ° A dLv � Q �e y m� 0 3 � = :' °o d E v ° y > 3 rss '° H ,C a: y 0 O •C Qj .—� L L v O C Z •° .� a 0 H y N O m E o y o ° �_ Q `� = o >, A ee c o d O n eee u. °' _ - ° U E c = y ° .°. c 3 d 0 _ R L y >, y s g U U U .L E' O .0 — aUi >_ U 9 d N. U Y Y Cts as C. 3 O C •O y — .O C R C •O r U Y G .0 0_ '> O rn C ai a� O O U° �! .2 .2 9t V') z �' U3 ° ° = ° 3 o o o o D o o 0 0 O Q N O OO O+ O O z z V N — M N Cp aY�i M00 O O N O Q C V) OM Q Q y� N Q M z N N �O z z ..l .r U ° C � co y N y O y 7 = is 7 e0 O y C y c Y 0 p „ co 1L = O O y O pC L N Y ,> O E W S 2 R 0 o d d c T> w ? o > —vO L1 0 ° o p CLto y 3 O O L U — _ Q O L C p E 7 G p m yL .] C — C O dO O L m O O 0 O m on cs o f c 3 t m c v� p R 3 .£ O U O y La., U C G J R U �.y 7 L = i Y m V '09 7 3 L v Y h L+ U. C a U C d-Z t � O E tF �' m a00 Od = O O � d m L yam = � > y ati c ° v ° e d yw 0 e L L c Hv� ea ¢ f �° ° =° o a E � ° Y r S, y o v ° @� °' °° > c °a ? '-' �u CL- p - a L - Z - y ° _ cs � C e� txl m o ao N •°� p to ? s u U :9 a :° �n yy > o 0 y t .= c2 E +- M e0 O m to L OL p C `� 7 � iC W �' 4. C y.. C lC l0 C l0 7 0 0 � L tQ a - 3 am o aS o � ° amSrna � U b X' r N N N N N N N .O N_ Al Al N_ 52 N_ .14N_ N_ N_ N N_ N_ d �Y do Ea L O i. a Y a E cc a � cc •O V C �C N r .y R -c c 40 Cd 0 N N L -0 .0 c E C ° d c$ c = 3 U R 'x E T „ y Cc o c �3 iO H v c ds c o E ,,,•, :. �c s 3 c E o v a. o eo E m d 0 cc a c m o onca ..� 0 3 d t o F C O N dv = E C x O y T eC V d T R E > ai H E V] i O O O V1 iv LL1 t0 O O OO O O N � O O O O O O ... C p = v1 M v1 M h Vl N U _ v, us r z z z z z z Y C E _ (� 3 en m o c g � c c cc C EE C >, to E v v o d a `L '° •� :� ` . mom m Y = � 0. u w V U W Y n q BikewayPrgJ t Financial Planning Proi a Description Length(m) Total Cost City Developer(1) Grant Comment Expectations Tareets 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 project RBP4 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 RBP-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 Faun 295 1,457,353 1,020,147 - 437,206 Rd. along east side of 70% 30% RR. TE/BTA RBP- Path on west side of RR 520 398,562 398,562 - 10 from Stenner St.to 100% Foothill Blvd. RBP- Under RR connection at 60 537,648 - 537,648 -- Orcutt Area 11 east end of Industrial 100% Development Wy or other location in 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 830 720,000 216,000 - 504,000 Target only for 16 RR from Roundhouse to 30% 70% SLOCOG grant funds McMillian TE K-8 Proi a Description Length(m) Total Cost City Developer Grant Comment Ea ectations Tarvets RBP- 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 RSP- Path on west side of RR 950 900,000 600,000 300,000 18 from Orcutt to Industrial 66% 33% TESTA 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 B3T-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 101/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 Lyne property redevelopment B1T-7 West side of creek from 376 809,000 405,500 405,500 Involves significant Bianchi to South Street 50% 50% bridge structure TE Bn-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 BJT-9 Cross under Madonna 60 150,000 150,000 -- Combine with Caltrans Rd on east side of creek 100% project to widen bridge to install sidewalks BJT-10 East side of Prefumo 1,600 925,600 -- 925,600 - Construct as pan of Creek&drainage swale 100% Marketplace/McBride from Calle Joaquin to projects Madonna Rd. BTr-11 East side of SLO Creek 825 465,000 - 465,000 Joint City-County from LOVR to 100% grant request. Octagonal Barn TE BPr-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 Expectations Tarzets Act-1 Rockview to south end 925 592,000 123,000 345,000 123,000 Rockview Pl.comer 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. I 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 500/0 50% application for STIP Santa Fe Rd. STIP I project BRB-4 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 Bikeway1'ro'ects Mis-1 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 C7ci 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# Description LenO(m) Total Cost City Developer Grant Comment Expectations Targets 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 AB 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 Sterner Creek Mis-14 Path from end of Broad 235 256,136 256,136 — Requires Caltrans n/o US 101,under 1000/0 approval freeway to connect wBrizzolara St. Mis-15 Path from south end of 400 130,000 130,000 — Includes cost of Brizzolara St.thru 100% establishing easement. Promontory project to Hi era 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 Pref uno 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 326 300,000 75,000 75,000 150,000 Caltrans to improve both sides of Marsh 25% 25% 50% bike link to Fernandez from Fernandez Lane, Minor AB TE Lane across their ROW under interchange to Marsh Mis-20 Install a southbound 10 200,000 200,000 -- Do as part of Garcia bike slot on S.Higuera 100% Ranch development LOVR Mis zl Install access controls at NA 5,000 5,000 — the east end of San Luis 100% Drive K-11 Prol# Description Leno(m) Total Cost City Developer Grant Comment Expectations 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 US101 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-1 Transportation NA 5,000 5,000 information kiosk in 100% Railroad Square OBF-2 Provide additional NA 3,000 3,000 -- downtown bicycle 100% parking as needed OBF-3 City-Wide Bicycle NA 5,000 5,000 -- — Parking Retrofit 100% Program OBF-4 City Park Bicycle NA 3,000 3,000 — Parkin 100% OBF-5 Community Bicycle NA 15,000 15,000 — Program 100% OBF-6 Install"Bike Route" NA 5,000 5,000 -- — signs on targeted Class 100% 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 APPENDIX L: Past Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities (1995 to 2002) Every two years, the City Council adopts a Financial Plan. An integral part of the Financial Plan is the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP identifies major equipment or facility needs for the next four years. The information below is taken from CIPS dating back to 1995 and reflects bicycle projects that are either completed or are under construction. Where a bicycle facility was just a part of a larger project, an estimate of only the bicycle component is shown. City expenditures for repaving and rehabilitating streets that include Class II bike lanes are not shown in the table below, although these costs are significant. In 2001 alone,the total cost of repaving of South Higuera Street and Johnson Avenue exceeded $2,000,000 with bike lanes accounting for 10-12% of the street area. Figure Al .: Past:Ex enditures for Major Bicycle Facilities 1995 to 2002 Type and Location of Facility Year Total Cost Completed $1,000 On-Street Bicycle Lanes: stripe over 4.5 miles of Class II bike lanes along 1995 215 arterial streets. Johnson Park Bike & Pedestrian Path: a Class I bike path through the park 1995 20 between Augusta St.and Southwood Dr.. Jennifer Street Bridge: a 168-foot clear span.bicycle&pedestrian bridge over 1998 1,300 the Union Pacific Railroad. Railroad Bicycle Path (Phase I): a Class I bike path along the east side of the 1998 760 railroad between Orcutt Rd.and Bushnell St. FPAC Property Acquisition: a parcel of land for the eventual construction of a 1998 90 Class I bike path along the west side of the railroad between Francis St. and McMillan Ave with connections to the east end of Lawrence.Dr. Railroad At-Grade Crossing Improvements: concrete inserts between the rail 2000-01 150(1) lines and repaving of the at-grade railroad crossings at Foothill Blvd and Orcutt Rd. Railroad Bicycle Path (Phase in: a Class I bike path along the east side of the 2002 400 railroad between Bushnell St.and the Jennifer Street Bridge. Railroad Bicycle Path (Phase ": preliminary engineered plans for the path 2001 70 between the AMTRAK passenger terminal and Foothill Blvd. Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail: preliminary engineering plans for a path 2001 40 along SLO Creek between Madonna Rd. and Los Osos Valley Rd. and along Prefinno Creek from Madonna Rd.to Calle Joaquin. Railroad Transportation Center (RTC): a segment of Class I bike and 2001 70 pedestrian path along the east side of a newly constructed parking lot next to the railroad. Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard: closing the south end of Morro Street to 2002 50 vehicle access while maintaining bicycle access and use of Morro Street as a downtown connector route. TOTAL $37165,000 1)Estimated expenditure by Union Pacific Railroad L-1 Appendix M RESOLU'T'ION NO. 9308 (2002 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,AMENDING THE 1993 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,AND RECINDING RESOLUTION NO.8240(1993 Series) WHEREAS, the City Council established the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and charged it with, among other responsibilities, maintaining and updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan; and WHEREAS, the BAC determined that the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan did not meet current state guidelines, which inhibits the City's ability to apply for Bicycle Transportation Account(BTA)grants; and WHEREAS, the BAC appointed a "Plan Update Subcommittee" that enlisted the help of community volunteers that collected information necessary to complete the 20002 Bike Plan update; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2002, a Public Review Draft of the updated Bicycle Transportation Plan was published and later placed on the City's web page for public review; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's designee has reviewed the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Initial Environmental Study and has recommended that a Negative Declaration be approved; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2002 the BAC reviewed the draft update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Negative Declaration at a public hearing, and on April 10, 2002 the Planning Commission also reviewed the Plan materials and each body has recommended that the City Council approve the Plan and its Negative Declaration;and WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan supports the goals and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element :that call for "... the per capita reduction of automobile use in the City and the use of alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles..." NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby approves a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts associated with implementation of the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan. Section 2: The Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby amended. The amended Bicycle Transportation Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3: Resolution No 8240 (1993 Series)is hereby rescinded. R 9308 Resolution No. 9308 (2002 Series) Page 2 On motion of Council Member Ewan, seconded by Council Member Marx, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Ewan, Mulholland, Schwartz, Vice Mayor Marx, and Mayor Settle NOES: None ABSENT: None The following resolution was adopted this 7d'day of May 2002. Allen K Settle,Mayor ATTEST: Lee Price, City Clerk ff y G. orgen ,CK Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF LOCAL ASSISTANCE, MS 1 1120 N STREET 0 P. 0.BOX 942874 Flex your power! SACRAMENTO,CA 94274-0001 Be energy efficient! PHONE (916)653-0036 FAX (916)654-2409 J U L - 5 2002 July 1, 2002 Mr. Terry Sanville Principal Transportation Planner City of San Luis Obispo 955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Mr. Sanville: The California Department of Transportation's Bicycle Facilities Unit has completed its review of the City of San Luis Obispo's Bicycle Transportation Plan, adopted May 7, 2002, and finds that it complies with Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code. The plan allows the City of San Luis Obispo to be eligible to apply for funds from the Bicycle Transportation Account program. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by telephone at (916) 653-0036 or e-mail at david priebe(a.dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, i4;:� DAVID PRIEBE Bicycle Facilities Unit Division of Local Assistance "Caltrans improves mobility across California" '?irizii=i'r.2C•:a3�TiiGZi�?i: ila!l1t- 10 b vv v i • ►,� ��� � _.•-rte \ _ � � :ir1�la i .•, 'At� y' - ,V ,••, L M ' i - � Aim-,./ HN.4' .•i /I .. r3 1 11 11 a 1 1 r 1 1 / PREFACE 1 1 On , 2007 the City Council adopted an update to the May 7,2002 Bicycle Transportation 1 Plan. Significant changes adopted in the 2007 Plan include the following: I 1 Major Modifications to May 2002 Bicycle Transportation Plan 1 (February 200 1 # Recommended Change Description of Change 1 1 General Policies(Policy 1.1 - 1.6) Establishes and promotes bicycling as an equal and viable mode of transportation. 1 2 Class I Bikeways Adjoining Establishes policies and standards for locating bikeways in sensitive 1 Creeks(Policy 1.7- 1.10) habitat areas. Standards derived from the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan(November 2002). 1 3 Class IBikeways Adjoining Establishes policies and standard for locating bikeways where parallel 1 Flood Control Channels(Policy flood control channels or expansions of existing channels are planned. 1.11 - 1.14 1 4 Class III Bikeways(Policy 1.20- Establishes new permissive standards for locating Class III bikeways 1 1.22) along certain types of public streets. Enables the application of edge striping along certain Class III routes to provide a minimal buffer area for 1 bikes. 1 5 Bicycle Boulevards(Policy 1.23- Establishes new criteria for locating Bicycle Boulevards on certain types 1.24) of public streets,with reference to the City's Neighborhood Traffic 1 Managementprogram. 1 6 Bikeway Maintenance(Policy Sets standards for pavement quality consistent with Caltrans standards. 1.34- 1.41) Sets protocol for remedial actions to improve bikeway maintenance as 1 art of the City's ongoing pavement management program. 1 7 Special Design Provisions(Policy Establishes a permissive program for installing special design treatments 1.44- 1.47) such as"colored"Class II bikeways at locations of high bicycle-vehicle 1 conflict Establishes basic setback standards for Class I bikeways adjoining the 1 railroad. Standards are consistent with the Railroad Safety Trail Prelimi Alt meet Plan (November 2001 . 1 8 Short-Term Bike Parking(Policy Stipulates that the inverted"U"and the`Teak"bicycle rack design shall 1 2.7-2.8) be used to satisfy short-term bike parking requirements. Establishes minimum dimensions and clearance requirements. 1 9 Long-Term Bike Parking(Policy Establishes new location standards for bike lockers. Establishes access 2.9-2.12) criteria and minimum dimensions for interior rooms to be used for bicycle.storage. Introduces.the-concept of establishing`Bicycle Centrals"at major employment sites. 10 Related Bicycle Parking Promotes enhanced bicycle parking services(Bike Valet)at community Activities(Policy 2.15-2.19 events and the"Racks with Plaques"bicycle rack donation program. 11 Other Support Facilities(Policy Stipulates that the City will develop and maintain a bike map for the City. 3.1 -3.12) Provides general guidance for lighting of Class I and II bikeways. 1 Provides flexible standards for installing showers and lockers at major 1employment sites. 12 Education and Promotion(Policy Simplifies previous lengthy section and focuses on joint efforts with other 1 4.1 -4.7) agencies. Encourages the hiring a bicycle coordinator for education and - - promotion activities and supports the use of a"traffic school"option for persons involved in bicycle related traffic violations. 13 Bicycle Funding Programs Broadens the candidate use of TDA funds for bicycle-related activities. 1 (Policy 5.1 -5.9) Recommends that debt financing be used for large bike project that are out of scale with grant fimdmg.Recommends that small-scale projects 1 1 1� such as si2ing and striping be incorporated into City paying projects. 14 Administration(Policy 6.1 - 6.2) Establishes frequency of bike plan updates to comply with the update re ants of the State's BTA grant 15 Proposed Bikeway Projects Establishes a listing,description,and prioritizing spreadsheet for over 50 (Appendix J) projects in the Plan based on ten(10)criteria for ranking. Establishes the Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trails as generally the highest priority projects.Lists new projects to include developing seven more bicycle boulevards(two of which cross over Highway 101); extending the Prado Road a bike path(separated from vehicle traffic) from the Margarita Area Specific Plan west to Madonna Road;installing a pedestrian/bike signal at Foothill/Ferrini intersection;establishing a bike lane on Tassajara between Ramona Drive and Cerro Romauldo; developing a bike path connection between Oceanaire Drive and I agung Lane,Ferrim Drive and North Chorro,and Sacramento Drive and Laurel Lane;accommodating bike lanes with a widening of Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Highway 101;and accommodating bike lanes with a reconstruction of the California Avenue Bridge at San Luis Drive and the Buena Vista bridge over Highway 101. 5 Bicycle Design Standards Sets standards for various widths of Class I bikeways based on (Appendix, geographic and traffic conditions. Provides for wider Class II bike lanes along State Highways consistent with Caltrans standards. Establishes a minimum width standard for"bicycle slots"adjoining turn lanes on multi-lane arterial streets. 15 Appendix L and M Establishes standard mitigation requirements for Class I bikeways adjoining creeks(consistent with Bob Jones Trail plan)and establishes pavement quality standards consistent with Caltrans Highway Design Manual. L GATransportation Projects\Bicycles\BikePlanUpdate(2003)\BikePlanDocunientlSummary of Changes Fmm 2002BikePhmdoc 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Title Page.................................................................................................................. l 1 Table Of Contents ....................................................................................................2 1 List of Figures........................................................................................................... 5 1 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................:. 6 1 Introduction ...................................................:.......................................................... 7 1 A SLO Vision of the Future..................................................................................................................7 1 History of Bicycle Planning in SLO.................... ... 7 1 Application...........................................................................................................................................8 1 Compliance............................................................................................................................................8 1 Related.Plans .......................................................................................:............::.............................:....g ' Structure. ................................................................................... 9 ' Gloss arv.................................................................................................................................................9 ' Bicycling Goals and Objectives............................................................................. 11 ' Program Goals................................:.................................................................................................. 11 ProffamObjectives ........................................................................................................................... 11 1. Bikeways ............................................................................................................ 11 . General Policies........................ .......................................................................................... ............... 11 ' Class I Bikeways Adioining Creeks.................................................................................................. 12 ' Class I Bikeways& Flood Control Channels......................................:.:.................................:......... 13 Class I Bikeways on Agricultural Land.........:.....................::..............:.:.......................................:... 13 Class I Bikeways Near Laguna Lake....................... ............ 14 .............................................................. 1 _ Class II Bikeways.................................................................:::................ . ._.. ......................... . 14 . .Class III Bikeways...........:..................................: ................................ 14 1 Bicycle Boulevards............................................................................................................................. 14 Other Related Activities....................................: . ........................ 15 Maintenance. Monitoring&Construction......................................................................................... 16 hnvlementation Priorities.................:................................................................................................ 16 Special Design Provisions................ 16 ................................................................................................. 2. Bicycle Parking & Storage................................................................................. 17 GeneralPolicies................................................................................................................................. 17 Short-Term Bicycle Parking Standards....................................................................:........................ 17 Long-Term Bicycle Parking Standards............................................................................................. 18 Bicycle Parking Maintenance Standards..............................................................................:.......:..:. 19 Related Bicycle Parking Activities...................................................... 19 3. Other Support Facilities ..................................................................................... 20 Mapsand Signs..................................................................................................................................20 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®R , -2 - 1 i Litin ........................ ........................................21 Showersand Changing Facilities.......................................................................................................21 4. Education and Promotion..................................................................................21 5. Funding Bicycle Programs................................................................................22 6. Administration....................................................................................................23 References ....23 Appendices .............................................................................................................25 Appendix A: SLO Bicycle Commuters & Potential Impact of Plan Implementation...............................................................26 Appendix B: Existing & Proposed Land Use Development Patterns....................27 History and Existing Development Pattern.......................................................................................27 ProposedSettlement Pattern. ........................ .... .... ................................................................27 Appendix C: Description of Existing & Proposed Bikeways (February 2007) ....28 Appendix D: Existing & Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities.........29 Evolutionof Current Standards.........................................................................................................29 Additional Guidance for Bike Rack Installations..............................................................................29 Inventorying Existing Conditions and Needed Improvements..........................................................30 Appendix E: Existing & Proposed Bicycle Parking at Transportation Hubs........ 31 Appendix F: Existing & Proposed Changing and Storage Facilities..................... 33 Appendix G: Bicycle Safety & Education Programs............................................ 34 Appendix H. Citizen & Community Involvement in Plan Development.............. 35 Backund....................:...................................................................................................................35 Public Input..................................... Appendix I: Relationship to Other Adopted Plans................................................. 36 SpecificArea Plans.........................,.........................................................._.....................................-36 Appendix J: Proposed Bikeway Projects ..............................................................40 SettingPriorities................................................................................................................................40 Project Priority Criteria...................................... RankingSystem............................................. ...........................................42 Financial Planning...........................: NewBikeways Cost............................................................................. .............................................42 Class II and Miscellaneous Projects 43 BicycleBoulevards............................................................................................................................43 Pavement Maintenance Areas Plan...................:........,........ :...............,.............................................44 Appendix K: Past Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities (1995 to 2007) .................45 Appendix L: Bikeway Surface Quality Maintenance Standards ...........................47 SurfaceQuality............................... ......................................47. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®® - 3- awl r 1 1 1 Appendix M: Bikeway Design Standards..............................................................48 1 Appendix N: Standard Mitigation For Class I Bikeways Adjoining Creeks.........49 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®e® 1 _4_ ago1 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure#1A: Map: San Luis Obispo Land Use Settlement Patterns Figure#1B: Map: Special Planning Areas Figure#2A: Map: Bicycle Transportation Plan—Existing Bikeways Figure#2B: Map: Bicycle Transportation Plan—Proposed Bikeways Figure#2C: Map: Bicycle Transportation Plan—Existing and Proposed Bikeways Figure#3: End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities Figure#4: Bicycle Transportation Parking and Changing Facilities San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®® - 5 - �® ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following individuals and groups were Public Works Department involved in the research,preparation,review or adoption of this Plan. Jay Walter Administration Timothy Bochum Administration City Council Peggy Mandeville Project Manager Mary Andrews GIS Information David R.Romero Mayor Adam Fukushima Technical Support Paul Brown Jake Hudson Technical Support Andrew Carter Chris Overby Technical Support Christine Mulholland Bryan Wheeler Technical Support Allen K. Settle Planning Commission Special thanks... Andrea Miller Chair Past BAC members: John Ashbaugh Darren Brown,Mark Grayson,Kristen Kent, Amanda Brodie Mary Lou Johnson,Dixon Moore,Chris Overby, Carlyn Christianson Phil Reimer. Diane Gould-Wells Jason McCoy Past sta,$members: Michelle Sindorf,Terry Charles Stevenson Sanville. Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC) San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition Kevin Christian Chair Kevin Christian(for exceptional database work) Jean Anderson Tim Gillham Trevor Keith Ben Lerner Glen Matteson Tom Nuckols •6 --- - -- --- --- --- --.tet• �_ I 1 1 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®e® I INTRODUCTION As San Luis Obispo grows there will be pressure A SLO Vision of the Future for it to expand into surrounding pastoral valleys. Maintaining a compact urban form is one way of By 2026,all San Luis Obispo residents shall have combating sprawl and preserving open space and access to a safe and well maintained network of agricultural lands. interconnected bikeways linking all important origins and destinations. Compact communities allow residents and visitors Where bicyclists share streets with motorists, to travel between in-town destinations in the sufficient space will be reserved for their safe minimum amount of time,covering the minimum passage. And once at their destinations,bicyclists distance. However,if all residents and visitors use will find convenient and secure places to park. private motor vehicles to reach these destinations, traffic congestion,noise levels and air pollution will Children learn how to safely ride bicycles and can increase and more and more land will be needed to continue to ride as they become adults. Bicycling accommodate motor vehicles. becomes one important element of the City's economy,with safe connections provided for Since 1982, San Luis Obispo's long-range plans tourists to important regional destinations such as have promoted the use of modes of transportation beaches or inland parks. And for tourists and other than private motor vehicles. The 1994 residents alike,the careful location and design of General Plan Circulation Element includes specific off-street paths(such as the Railroad Safety Trail objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea frail)allow them to these other modes-with bicycling being a very safely appreciate unique community features. _ important transportation choice. Bicycling in San Luis Obispo has many advantages: r •_ the weather is good,trip distances and times are j. short,the cost of purchasing and maintaining a bicycle is modest,connections between origins and destinations can be direct and c _ convenient,and bicycling is healthful-one way of _ combating the negative effects of a sedentary life • style. Ar But not all bicyclists are equal. For children, i J seniors and novice riders,concerns for safety and avoiding fast moving traffic are paramount. More- ;. �' `,/1 ;,; - . ' "-4 experienced riders have a higher tolerance for riding in traffic,yet still need and appreciate Source:City of Santa Barbara Bicycle Master Plan separation from cars and trucks,especially where traffic is moving much faster than they are.The History of Bicycle Plannins in SLO - challenge here in San Luis Obispo is to provide safe,relatively conflict-free spaces that meet the In April 1985,the City of San Luis Obispo adopted _ needs of both novice and skilled bicyclists. its fust bicycle plan. The Bicycle Facilities Plan identified a network of on-street bikeways extending throughout the community-mostly along arterial and collector roads. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®e® -7 - ®� P 1 In October 1993,the City adopted a Bicycle jurisdiction but within San Luis Obispo's Transportation Plan. The second-generation Urban Reserve—the anticipated outward limit ' document expanded the scope of bicycle planning of City growth. in San Luis Obispo by calling for amore complete network of both on-and off-street bikeways,and by Compliance establishing standards for bicycle parking.In May 2002 the Plan was amended a third time to 1 incorporate technical information required to This Plan includes information required by Section comply with the California Streets and Highways 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Code. Code in 2007,this fourth generation of.the Bicycle This Plan has been submitted to the California Transportation Plan represents a comprehensive Department of Transportation's Bicycle Unit and update of the City's bicycle program. Standards for has been certified as being in compliance with bicycle facilities have been revised,new facilities applicable codes. ' identified and prioritized,and the successful experiences of other bicycle-friendly communities Bikeway standards included in this Plan comply ' with or exceed those in Chapter 1000 of the have been incorporated when they address San Luis Obispo's needs. Highway Design Manual(Fifth Edition)published by the California Department of Transportation. The San Luis Obispo Public Works Department and the Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC)prepared This Plan was prepared and adopted in compliance this fourth generation plan. For more information, with the California Environmental Quality Act contact the Department at(805)781-7210. This (CEQA)and its guidelines. Copies of its Mitigated Plan can also be viewed on the City's website: Negative Declaration are available from the Public www.sloci o ublicworim/documents. Works Department upon request. � ty- �p Application Related Plans In 1994,the City adopted its General Plan The provisions of this Plan apply to the Circulation Element. A goal of the Circulation planning, development and maintenance of Element is to increase the use of bicycles and bicycle facilities and activities within the reduce the use of single-occupant co orate limits of San Luis Obispo. In nareco motor vehicles. corporate sp _... The provisions of this Plan are consistent with the -_-. goals and objectives of the Circulation Element. This Plan supports the policies and standards of the General Plan Conservation&Open Space Element(2006)and the creek setback provisions of t the Zoning Regulations(2007)by including 1 t specific policies and standards for locating and ' - designing bikeways in sensitive areas adjoining ' creeks or across open space areas. This Plan supports the vision of the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element(2001),to expand recreation paths and trails to link recreation ' An important destination for 6icyclrsts ojat!ages facilities throughout the community.. This Plan supports the goals,objectives and actions addition,this Plan represents the City's official of the Clean.Air Plan(1998)adopted by the 1 policy for the design and development of County Board of Supervisors. Since fifty percent of ' bikeways in adjoining territory under County . California's air pollution comes from motor ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®®® vehicles,implementing this plan will help achieve Bicycle Boulevard—Is a shared roadway(bicycles the Clean Air Plan's goals. and motor vehicles share the space without marked bike lanes)where the through movement of This Plan complements the County Bikeways Plan bicycles is given priority over motor vehicle travel - (2005 Update)adopted by the Board of on a local street. _ Supervisors. Special effort was made to design linkages between City and County bikeways, Bicycle Central—Is a consolidated sheltered - especially those that provide access to important storage area for employee bicycles,integrated into regional destinations. the design of job sites,and may be combined with showers and bicycle repair and support facilities. This Plan is consistent with the Preliminary Alignment Plans adopted by the City Council in Bicycle Commuter—Is a person making a trip by 2001 and 2002 for the Railroad Safety Trail and bicycle,primarily for transportation purposes,and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail,key elements of does not include a trip primarily for physical the planned bikeway network. exercise or recreation. This Plan supports and is supported by provisions Bicycle Facilities-Are any physical feature that of A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's serves the needs of bicyclists,including bike lanes _ Center(revised 1"7),which states that the City and paths,bicycle racks and lockers, signs, _ should"provide more facilities that encourage and pavement markings and symbols,places to post enhance the use of bicycles." information,lighting,and traffic controls. Structure l This Plan presents goals,objectives,polices, actions,and standards. Each of these terms is r defined below: Goals are broad statements of intent. Objectives are specific endeavors that support the achievement of goals. k` t Policies are principles that guide to implementation of this Plan and x ? other actions associated with bicycling. Actions are specific steps needed to _ t. implement this Plan. Standards describe how a particular facility or , activity should be provided, -- i located,or designed. Glossary Bicycle parking at the popular downtown center. As used in this document,these terms have the Chanuelization—Is the separation or regulation of following meanings: conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of Bicycle Advisory Committee-Provides oversight travel by use of pavement markings,raised islands, and policy direction on matters related to bicycle or other suitable means,to facilitate the safe and transportation in San Luis Obispo and its orderly conduct of motorists,bicyclists,and relationship to bicycling outside the City. pedestrians' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®e® 1 1 Bikeways—Are bike lanes,paths, streets or routes a curb lane width too narrow for motorists and 1 that provide for bicycle travel. (A description of cyclists to safely travel side by side within the lane. bikeway design standards is located in the City's Engineering Standards) Short-Term Bike Parking—Is parking provided to accommodate visitors and customers,who are Class I Bikeway(Bike Path)-Provides a right-of- parking for less than four hours. Bicycle racks way reserved for bicycles and pedestrians that is meeting City standards satisfy this need. completely separated from streets. Showers—Are bathing stalls accompanied by Class II Bikeway(Bike Lane)-Provides a striped clothing lockers and changing areas reserved for lane for one-way bicycle travel on a street or each gender at a work site. highway. In San Luis Obispo: Specific Planning Areas—Are lands surrounding Class IIA Bikeways are located on the or within San Luis Obispo where the City has outside of curb parking bays. adopted,or intends to adopt,a specific plan,district ' plan,enhancement plan, area plan,route plan,or ' Class IIB Bikeways are located at the edge alignment plan to guide its use. of the roadway where no vehicle parking ' exists and next to a curb where present. Class M Bikeways(Bike Routes)-Are lightly traveled streets that provide alternative routes for recreational riders,and in some cases commuters. 1 Commercial Core-Includes the Downtown ' Commercial(CD)Zoning District in downtown San Luis Obispo. Downtown Planning Area-Includes the commercial core and surrounding neighborhoods as shown in the General Plan Land Use Element. ` x Long-Term Bike Parking—Is bicycle parking meant to accommodate employees, students, Example ofLong-Term,Locker-rype Bike parking residents,commuters,and others expected to park 1 on a regular basis for more than four hours. This parking is to be provided in a secure,weather- protected manner and location. Long-term parking type will be a bicycle locker,a locked room with ' standard racks and access limited to bicyclists only, ' or standard racks in a monitored location. - 1 Multi-Tenant Work Sites-Consist of a structure, or group of structures,on one worksite where more ' than one employer conducts business. ' Shared-Lane Markings-Otherwise known ast . ' Sharrows,shared-lane markings are pavement ti legends intended to improve the positioning of ' bicyclists on roadways with regular bicycle use and ' Example of Shared Lane Marling,or Sharrow" San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®® 1 3. Sponsor partnership programs that provide bicycle parking for land uses that lack needed facilities. 4. Require new development to provide bikeways and bicycle parking consistent with adopted City plans and standards. 5. Contribute to bicycle safety,promotion and education activities in cooperation with ® other organizations that share a common vision and purpose. 6. Provide guidelines and technical assistance BICYCLING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES to agencies,property owners,designers and developers for designing and locating Program Goals bicycle facilities. I. Increase the percentage of all trips made by 7. Cooperate with the County, State, San Luis bicycle within San Luis Obispo. Obispo Council of Governments,and Cal Poly in the planning and design of bicycle 2. Establish and maintain an integrated system facilities such as the Bob Jones City to Sea ofbikeways and parking facilities that Bike Trail and the Railroad Safety Trail. enables safe and convenient bicycling. g. Secure and earmark sufficient fiords to 3. Advocate bicycling as a way of preserving implement this plan. .. - clean air,reducing traffic congestion and _ 9. Improve bicycle circulation by identifying noise,conserving land and energy - resources,and promoting good health. and addressing barriers to bicycling. 4. Develop financial partnerships with other organizations when the resultant bicycle facilities or activities provide significant 1.BIKEWAYS benefits to San Luis Obispo residents. - General Policies Program Objectives 1.1 All public streets shall be designed and I. By 2017,complete a network of Class 11 maintained to accommodate bicyclists. and III Bikeways and related improvements ----- within the City Limits. 1.2 Bikeways shall be established at locations shown on Figure#2B: Existing&Proposed 2. By 2027,complete a network of Class I Bikeways. Where a bikeway is located Bikeways that are located outside of within a Specific Planning Area,its specific planning areas. Construct Class I location shall be as shown by the Specific see Bikeways within Specific Planning Areas .. Plan( APPendix I for affected areas . ).. consistent with the'phasing called for by ing iAfter receivnput from the Bicycle each plan. Advisory Committee,the Public Works Director may approve changes in the location and/or designation of bikeways to reduce environmental impacts,better serve San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®®® - 11 - awl 1 the needs of bicyclists,or provide a 1.10 The number of bicycle-pedestrian bridges bikeway connection through a new over creeks shall be minimized. Bridges ' development. shall: a)Be of a"clear span"design 1.3 All bikeways shall meet or exceed b)To the greatest extent possible,be minimum standards set forth in the located to avoid removal of native trees California Highway Design Manual(Fifth and streamside habitat or impacts to 1 Edition). important aquatic habitat areas e)Minimize grading of creek banks or 1.4 Annexation,planning and development changes to the channel alignment activities,and street reconstruction or d)Include a smooth riding surface to reconfiguration projects shall provide minimize noise ' bikeways as prescribed by this plan. 1.5 All new developments/subdivisions shall be i `c`' ' 1< f designed with bicycle use as an equal and i entea WAIT— viable option for transportation to,from, i vcttvo Ptarts t t and within a development.Access shall ;ul Fpt�g ` •t 1 include bicycle routes to schools serving s to Pro aet — ' the community,Class II bike lanes(or €"*eek Habitat Class I bike paths),and approved bicyclercH parking as referenced in the Plan's short- ' term bike parking standards. 1 1.6 The location,design and installation of *ti bikeways shall be coordinated with ,6Omni . .a..e m R a 0 ei .f:a]n,e Waal ' Suggested Routes to School programs in �� sn Rwtft MW residential neighborhoods. Illustration of Policy 1.7:Bikeway outside Creek Setback Class I Bikeways Adioh ine Creeks ' 1.7 Class I Bikeways shall be located outside of creek setbacks except where otherwise allowed or as provided for in the ' Conservation&Open Space Element. ' 1.8 Where setback encroachments cannot be ' avoided,their extent shall be minimized and existing riparian vegetation shall be reinforced with native plants to create landscaped buffers between the bikeway and the riparian canopy. (Other mitigation measures are described in Appendix M.) ' 1.9 Bikeway encroachments into the creek 1 setback shall be subject to the exception process of the Creek Setback Regulations contained in the Municipal Code. 1 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®e® - 12 - 1 Credo Setback 1.13 When existing creeks are aea.avai ror r�eay I a of Crack Corridor widened or when new flood control channels are constructed, I Class I Bikeways should be 0.0 installed at the same time or,at a their rights-of-way Ylre 7►a9 e! shall be reserved and maintained I as clear space to enable their eventual installation. 1--i fi- 4 asr "I 1.14 long parallel flood control W n otl ,,,e,,; channels,Class I Bikeways and service roads may share the same alignment. The structural design Illustration of Policy 1.8:Bikeway within Creek Setback of these facilities shall be sufficient to support maintenance vehicles. Class I Bikeways & Flood Control Channels Class I Bikeways on Agricultural Land 1.11 Where an existing creek channel is widened 1.15 Bikeways that cross or border agricultural to establish a new top of bank,Class I land should: Bikeways shall be located as prescribed by Standard 1.6. a)Use existing service roads where shared use is compatible with agricultural and 1.12 Where parallel flood control channels are bicycling operations constructed, Class I Bikeways may be b)Be fenced and signed to discourage located within the riparian canopy trespassing onto adjoining areas established by the new flood control c)Avoid dividing properties in a way that channel,parallel to the channel side that is unduly complicates agricultural farthest from the parent creek operations Illustration of Policy 1.11:Class I Bikeways and Flood Control Channels db 'I I-H5. -- L San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) - 13 - Class I Bikeways.Near Laguna Lake 1 1.16 Bikeways located near Laguna Lake, 1.19 Channelization should be provided at ' should: signalized intersections along streets a)Be located beyond and adequately that have Class H Bikeways and where buffered from wetland habitat dedicated right- or left turn lanes are b)Not alter the hydrological dynamics of provided-. The City will evaluate ' the wetland existing intersections, consider c)Be closed when flood hazards exist constraints to achieving this standard, ' d)Be preceded by a census of bird life in and program improvements as adjoining areas. Bird populations should be periodically monitored,and remedial appropriate. 1 action taken,as needed Class III Bikeways Class II Bikeways 1 1.20 Class III Bikeways should be located along 1.17 In the long-term,all arterial streets and streets that meet the following criteria: ' State.Highways(except Route 101)should a) include Class II Bikeways. Motor vehicle traffic is less than 10,000 ' vehicles per day ' 1.18 The preferred location of Class 11 Bikeways; b)The 85th percentile speed of traffic is . is at the edge of the road,adjacent to a curb. less than 35 mph However,.in.the Downtown Planning Area c)Travel lanes are a minimum of 12 ft. where more than 50%of the curb area is wide used by motor vehicle parking during the d)The route provides a connection between day or night(and off-street parking is not Class II Bikeways,or a low-volume available)bike lanes should be located motor vehicle route,parallel to a Class II ' along the outside of parking bays. Bikeway FPD. ffL 1.21 Class III Bikeways shall include"BikeRoute"signage when the route provides a connection between Class II Bikeways or a connection to a Class I Bikeway. 1.22 Along Class lII Bikeways traffic lanes may MICnt FxTH be narrowed to 10 ft. and edge stripes or-HR)" installed to reduce vehicle speed. ' DCYcusr Bicycle Boulevards ji PARKING AREA BECOME5 123 Figure#2C identifies approved and RIGHT-TURN-ONLY LANE proposed bicycle boulevards. Prior to one installation,the Bicycle Advisory 17149ratwn of Policy 1.18 Committee and the Architectural Review ' Source:City of Davis Comprehensive Bicycle Plan(May Commission must approve the design of ' 2001) bicycle boulevards. ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) - 14- ®�®� 1 1 1.24 Bicycle Boulevards shall: a)Be located along local or collector streets that provide for through bike connections to important destinations Other Related Activities b)Be established only after residents or businesses have been provided sufficient 1.25 Through the City's"Racks with Plaques" opportunity to participate in the bicycle rack donation program,the Cit development and review of the design Y c)Be considered and coordinated with any shall improve the provision of short-term proposal to adopt a Neighborhood Traffic public bicycle parking. Management Plan d)Where necessary,include traffic calming 1.26 City and regional transit vehicles shall devices that reduce the differential continue to provide nicks for the transport between motor vehicle and bicycle speeds of bicycles and increase capacity as demand e)Avoid diverting a significant amount of increases and rack design improves. motor ffic to other residential 1.27 Neighborhood traffic mangesee ,const with adoppent projects Neighborhood Traffic Management (traffic calming) shall be designed to safely Guidelines accommodate bicyclists. 1.28 New or modified traffic signals along designated Class II or III Bikeways shall include detection for bicycles.Video ® detection is the preferred system If in- pavement detection is used,stencil — e°i°0xRum °1b" markings shall be applied to the road surface that identifies optimum spots for Taft chch aft w bicyclists to queue. I : 1.29 Where cul-de-sacs are used in subdivisions, pedestrian/bikeway connections shall be provided to through streets. Where I Porifwalls are employed,ed,breaks shall �. be provided at safe locations to enable pedestrian and bicycle circulation to adjoining areas or public streets: -,----- to 1:30 Reconstruction of"at grade„railroad ee�m�wa crossings by the Union Pacific Railroad or others shall include the installation of concreteanels on the I p approaches and between the tracks. pmhN�n c. I bW4CIeflmft Ib - ' 11.31 When installing new drainage inlets or replacing old ones,grates should be kept out of Class II Bikeways. aid. °mM 1.32 The City's Subdivision Regulations shall be revised to include cross-sections for streets Illustration of o "Bicycle Boulevard"and candidate facilities that include Class II Bikeways. Source.Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan(1995) San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) Rod - 15- i)Poor street repairs(uneven surfaces) 'j 1.37 Class II Bikeways;along arterial streets and highways shall be swept on a routine basis to remove road debris and litter. . = 1.38 When a street with Class II Bikeways is 1 repaved,smooth surfaced asphalt must be used. The asphalt pavement within a bike ' lane must be installed without seams or creases. Illustration of Policy 1.31 1.39 Traffic Control Plans prepared for work ' Source:Madison Urban Area Bicycle Transportation Plan within the street right-of-way shall address bicycles during construction. 1.33 Laws against motorists illegally occupying ' is Class II Bikeways shall be strictly enforced. 1.40 Before a street with Class II Bikeways slurry sealed,pavement deficiencies such as Maintenance,Monitoring& Construction severe cracking and potholes shall be ' repaired.Existing surface elevation differences between the edge of asphalt and 1.34 The pavement surface of bikeways shall be the concrete gutter shall be made flush. ' smooth and free of potholes,and shall be Streets with bikeways shall only receive a maintained consistent with Section 1003.6 Type I or Type II slurry seal. Chip seals are 1 (2)and Table 1003.6 of the Caltrans not to be used on streets with bikeways. ' Highway Design Manual(see Appendix L ' for details). 1.41 As part of the City's Annual Traffic Safety 1.35- The Ci will establish an Basil accessible the City Traffic Engineer will City y review bicycle incident reports and will reporting system to aid the reporting of take remedial action when the condition or maintenance problems. Once problems are design of the bikeway is judged to be a 1 reported,the corrective maintenance must contributing factor.- be actor.be undertaken within a reasonable time. ' 1 1.36 Transportation staff will inspect bikeways Implementation Priorities annually. As problems are discovered,they will be prioritized for repair by City crews. 1.42 All bikeway projects shall Pursuant to Appendix J of this plan hprioritized ' Candidate problems include,but are not ' limited to 1.43 The City may accelerate the ' a)Potholes implementation of lower priority projects b)..gator„cracker when opportunities to establish funding ' c)Longitudinal&transverse cracks Peps,participation by property ' d)Drop-offs or steps in the pavement owners,or other special circumstances are surfiLce present. e)Hazardous drainage grates fj Sunken or raised utility trenches or Special Design Provisions covers 1 g)Encroaching vegetation 1.44 On streets where bike lanes are not h)Faded or missing bike lane striping, provided and where curb lanes are too pavement symbols or signs narrow for motorists and cyclists to safely 1 travel side by side within the lane,the City, San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®e® - 16 1 1 with input from the Bicycle Advisory Committee,may install shared lane markings(also known as"Sharrows')to improve the positioning of bicyclists on 2. BICYCLE PARKING& STORAGE roadways with regular bicycle use. General Policies - 1.45 Where vehicle travel lanes cross bikeways or in other potential conflict areas,the City 2.1 The City shall maintain bicycle parking may test the use of contrasting colored requirements as part of the Zoning Chapter pavement or other design treatments to alert of its Municipal Code(reference MC drivers to this interaction. 17.016.060). 1.46 New bicycle and pedestrian bridges along 2.2 As stipulated by the Zoning Regulations, the Railroad Safety Trail should generally short-and long-term bicycle parking shall = be separate from existing bridges. be provided whenever a new structure is Lnctosed Lxis:ing Haim,, erected or enlarged or whenever a new use Rikc Br Wcge r is established which requires a total of 10 - more vehicle parking spaces. 'tk ,i ' f3� # .. i .•�r• 2.3 The City's Community Design Guidelines �P shall contain illustrations of how bicycle parking should be installed and oriented as "t. t part of new development projects. 2.4 The Bicycle Advisory Committee shall review and provide recommendations on JohnsKi Averueproposed updates to the City's Zoning Regulations affecting bicycle parking. _ 2.5 The City's 2003 Zoning Regulations shall Illustration ofStandard 1.46 be amended to include a provision for bicycle parking where there is a need and 1.47 Class I Bikeways along the railroad should for high demand destinations where include appropriate setbacks and fencing to existing City bicycle parking requirements ensure safe and compatible operations with may not be sufficient. Locations will be active rail lines. identified by staff and through the City Racks with Plaques bicycle rack donation program. 2.6 Should grant funds become available,the —a High Existing Train Trucks 5eeurity Fence City shall offer racks or lockers for high rk need locations to businesses outside the Trail ■ downtown core if they agree to install and maintain them- Short-Term hemShort-Term Bicycle Parking Standards 5.5 m. 7.5 m. (18 R) (25 ft.) 2.7 Bicycle racks shall: a) Stand a minimum of 30 in.(750mm) IUustration ojStandard 1.47 fromound level and gr support bikes in a San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®e - 17 - �� r stable position by providing at least two 1 vertical contact points for the bicycle's frame. Racks should be coated with,or j constructed' of,a durable material that I prevents rust or corrosion b)Allow the frame and both wheels(one wheel removed from the flame)to be - locked to the rack using common locking ' devices such as a standard-sized"U"lock t- - c)Be installed with mounting brackets on a concrete surface with access provided by - r clear aisles at least five feet wide d)Be installed at highly visible locations that are as close to the main entrance of j r the destination as possible,at least as convenient as the most convenient automobile parking space available to the ! general public /,a e)Be distributed to serve all tenants/visitors L on sites that contain more than one Typical Inverted "U"Type Bike Racy Per 1 structure or building entry Standard 2.8 1 f)Be visible from the interior of the destination g)Be placed where vehicles will not damage them h)Be located where clear and safe pedestrian circulation is ensured i)Be illuminated at night to the extent that r the destination supports nighttime activity j)Be sheltered,when shelter can be ' attractively integrated with the project's architecture. f 2.8 Inverted"U'racks or Peak Racks (www.peakracks.com)shall be used to _- meet-the City's short-term parking requirement. Racks shall be installed pursuant to the City's Community Design Guidelines and the manufacturer's r specifications for placement and clearance Typical "Peak"Type Bike Racy Per from obstructions Standard 2.8 r 1 Bone-Tema Bicycle Parkima Standards ' 2.9 Bicycle lockers,lockable rooms reserved 1 for bicycle storage,and Bicycle Centrals ' shall be used to satisfy the need for long- term bike parking. ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) ®�® - 18 - ®� 1 r t Mh sID a)Have a*minimum dimension of 11 ft. as'-+2aaem+nood•aene*lmmp ( (unless bicycles are stored vertically)to accommodate a 6-ft.-long bike plus 5 ft. of aisle space outside of the doorway area - b)Include means to organize bike storage �M c)Be located near or at the employee street level entry and arranged in a way that I enables convenient ingress and egress for people with bicycles s w d)Exclude other routine indoor activities - 1 189 2aan ' and be reserved for bicycle storage MAO= t��l�Ta yr D0W Ws&h.� 6&00 a y g 2.12 The City encourages the development of Bicycle Centrals at employment centers and Typical 2-door bicycle locker w/clearances, locations where people gather. per Standard 2.9 _ Bicycle Parking Maintenance Standards 2.10 Bicycle lockers shall: 2.13 Bicycle racks located within public rights- of-way shall be inspected annually and a)Be located at least as conveniently as the repairs undertaken.Defects that warrant most convenient automobile parking repair include racks that have been space and installed at highly visible damaged,are missing anchor bolts or are _ locations that are as close to the main missing protective surface covering. employee entrance as possible b)In the commercial core,be provided in 2.14 In the commercial core,bicycle racks shall parking structures,surface parldng lots, be colored forest green consistent with City or incorporated into new buildings and Council Resolution#9278 (2002 Series). managed to enable safe and convenient access by downtown employees and Related Bicycle Parking Activities residents c)To the greatest extent possible,be 2.15 The City shall promote and support integrated into a project's overall enhanced bicycle parking services(e.g. architecture and site design themes bike valet)at community events such as d)Be constructed of durable materials and Thursday night's Farmers'Market and the be waterproof. Fiberboard or high- Tour of California when over 100 attendees density foam walls or dividers should be are expected. avoided as construction materials e)Be installed on,and securely attached to a pad with a cross slope between one and two percent. Concrete is the preferred pad material f)Employ secure locking mechanisms that make it easy for the intended users to access them 2.11 When interior locked rooms are used to provide long-tern bicycle storage,these rooms shall: San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®©® - 19 - 1 stations,bus terminals,and park-and-ride facilities),and at public parks,plazas or other recreation facilities. 1118 •.'Zr�r s 2.18 Development plans submitted for consideration by the Architectural Review - Commission,Planning Commission,or Community Development Director shall include dimensioned drawings that clearly ' describe and depict the location, orientation,number,type,and storage "y capacity of long-and short-term bicycle parking facilities. 2.19 As funding becomes available,the City shall institute an ongoing program of working cooperatively with property owners to install bike parking on legally Example of Policy 2.15:Bike Valet at Far mens'Market nonconforming sites, consistent with the in Downtown San Luis Obispo.(Photo courtesy of following priorities: Robert Davis) First Priority:retail shopping areas,major office complexes,entertainment centers, and locations requested by the general public,Bicycle Advisory Committee -'� (BAC),and staff that lack bike parking - Second Priority:manufacturing and service commercial businesses with 50 or more employees that lack bike parking Third Priority:retail shopping areas,major office complexes,and entertainment centers,where parking is poorly designed or located Fourth Priority:multi-family housing - complexes that lack bike parking (See.Appendix D for application of these priorities) Example of Standard 2.16:Racks with Plaques donated bicycle rack 1 2.16 City shall continue to promote and manage 3. OTHER SUPPORT.FACILITIES its Racks with Plaques bicycle rack donation program which provides short- Maps and Signs term public bicycle parking at public 1 facilities and throughout the downtown area ' at no cost to the City 3.1: The City shall maintain and make available a Bike Map for the City. 1 2.17 Bicycle parking shall be provided where 3.2 The City shall install signs and pavement ' direct connections between surface modes markings along Class I and II Bikeways, of transportation are made(e.g.train ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®®® -20 - 1 consistent with Caltrans standards or those contained in adopted Specific Plans(see 3.9 Showers and changing facilities at public Appendix n. recreation buildings(such as the Recreation Center on Santa Rosa Street)should be 3.3 Along collector or available for use by commuting or touring - arterial streets where bicyclists. there are gaps in the Class lI Bikeway Lisa' 3.10 Work sites,including multi-tenant work network,Share the sites,with fifty(50)or more employees Road signs should be shall provide showers and clothing lockers installed,using as follows: existing sign or SHA. ETHE streetlight poles ROAD wherever possible. #Employees Wper20 Shower Ermnple of Standard 3.3 Stalls 50-199 2 200+ 4 3.4 Directional signs should be installed where - bikeways intersect,turn,or terminate. 3.11 Full-length and well-ventilated clothing Li tin lockers are the preferred type of facility for storing personal gear and bicycling 3.5 Lighting should illuminate the edge of equipment. pavement along all Class lI Bikeways and Class I Bikeways. 3.12 The City may require a particular land use to provide more than the minimum number 3.6 Lighting for all bikeways along the railroad of showers or lockers noted above when it shall be consistent with City plans,located determines that the use will generate higher overhead(to reduce vandalism),generally demand for these facilities. not be more than 16 ft.(5 m)high,direct light downward,have bulbs well recessed -- to avoid direct glare,and comply with City regulations. 3.7 Lighting for Class I Bikeways along creeks shall be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not installed at locations 4. EDUCATION AND PROMOTION where potential environmental impacts cannot be mitigated. The City will: 4.1 Consider hiring a bicycle coordinator to Showers and Chanzina Facilities help manage bicycle capital projects, prepare grant applications,review 3.8 The City will explore the feasibility of development projects to ensure consistency establishing an employer-supported with bicycle facility standards,and program where commuting or touring coordinate City-sponsored bicycle bicyclists can shower,change and possibly promotion and education activities. store their bicycles at athletic and fitness clubs and gymnasiums in the San Luis 4.2 Prepare and distribute Request for Obispo area Proposals to organizations that can San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -21 - P establish and sustain City-fimded bicycle c)Planning,engineering,and promotion and educational activities that environmental studies for bicycle capital benefit San Luis Obispo's residents, projects. workforce, and visitors. d)bicycle promotional activities and materials. 4.3 Continue to work with the San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District to create 5.2 Continue to include major bicycle capital and support"Suggested Routes to School projects, including the Railroad Safety ' Plans"and programs for all elementary Trail,in its Transportation Impact Fee schools in San Luis Obispo. Work with the (TIF)program. San Luis Obispo's Junior and Senior High Schools to encourage the use of bicycles. 5.3 Require that new development contribute its fair share to support the costs of bicycle 4.4 Continue to promote and sponsor programs facilities and programs. and events designed to teach children and adults safe riding methods and the benefits 5.4 Continue to apply for regional, state and of bicycling. federal grants to help pay for bicycle projects and programs. Candidate grant 4.5 Continue to work with the SLO Regional programs include,but are not limited to: Rideshare,the SLO County Bicycle Coalition,the League of American Grantprograin Level Bicyclists and others to support bicycle Air Quality Enhancements Regional promotion and education activities,such as State HilAway Account SHA Regional the annual Bike to Work Week,Bike Regional Transportation Regional Rodeo,bike education classes,after-school Enhancements programs,bike valet and bike helmet Statewide Transportation State giveaway programs. Enhancements 4.6 Continue to provide incentives for Bicycle Transportation Account State TA employees to commute to work by bicycle Safe Routes to School Programs State and encourage local business to do the Community Development Block Federal same. Grants 4.7 Promote and support the use of a"traffic school"option for persons involved in bicycle-related traffic violations. 5.5 Make an effort to establish a financial partnership with Cal Poly University and 5. FUNDING BICYCLE PROGRAMS others to complete the extension of the Railroad Safety Trail to the Cal Poly The City shall: campus. 5.1 Reserve a minimum of two percent(2%)of 5.6 Employ debt-financing strategies for large its Transportation Development Act(TDA) bikeway projects,where their costs are out funds for bicycle projects and programs. of scale with potential funding from ' Candidate activities for use of these funds regional,state or federal grant programs or ' include,but are not limited to: from the City's Capital Improvement Fund. a)Support cost of bicycling safety 5.7 Include small-scale projects,such as ' education. signing and striping,in upcoming City b)Minor capital projects such as bicycle paving projects when appropriate. 1 parking- ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -22 - 1 1 As part of the City's two-year financial planning REFERENCES - process,the Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC) shall: 1. Airport Area Specific Plan,City of San Luis - 5.8 Provide the City Council with a proposal Obispo,August 2005. for annual funding of miscellaneous bicycle facilities that include bicycle racks,lockers, 2. Bicycle Master Plan.City of Portland,Oregon, and minor intersection or segment May 1996. improvements such as striping. 3. Bicycle Master Plan City of Santa.Barbara 5.9 Submit a list of prioritized projects the California,October 1998. Committee recommends for City fimding during the two-year budget cycle. This 4. Bicycle Parking Facilities Guidelines City of funding shall be used for the design and Portland,2002. construction of bicycle facilities that improve bicycle transportation. 5. Bicycle Transportation Plan.City of Santa Cruz California,2004.sp 6.EIDNIINISTRATION 6. Bicycle Transportation Plan:Madison Urban Area and Dane County.Madison Wisconsin, September 2000. 6.1 The City shall update its Bicycle Transportation Plan every four(4)years,to 7. Bicyclist's Manual.Oregon Department of maintain eligibility for State Bicycle Transportation. -_ Transportation Account(BTA)grants,and shall undertake a more comprehensive 8. Blue Bike Lanes for Greater Safety, City of review every eight(8)yam• Portland,1999. 6.2 Any person may file a request for 9. Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail, Preliminary amendment to this Plan with the San Luis Alignment Plan, September 2002. Obispo Public Works Department. Requests must identify all proposed 10. Boulder Transportation Master Plan,Chapter 6 changes(additions,deletions;or Bicycle System Plan.City of Boulder Colorado, modifications to goals,objectives,policies, 1989. activities,standards or maps)and provide a _ rationale for the proposed changes. 11. California Streets and Hiehways Code, Section Amendment requests are subject to the 891.2 City's environmental review process. They will be acted on no more frequently than 12. City of Davis Comprehensive Bicycle Plm semi-annually by the City Council,after Davis Public Works Department,May 2001 review and report by the Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC)and the Planning 13. City of Petaluma Bicycle Plan,October 1999. Commission. The Department may charge applicants a fee to evaluate a proposed 14. County Bikeways Plan County of San Luis amendment. The fee will cover the cost of Obispo,2005. evaluation and process administration by staff. 15. Denver Bicvcle.Master Plan City of Denver Colorado,2001. 16. Greenways Master Plan City of Boulder Colorado,December 2001. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®®©® -23 - '�.� 19. Planning and Development Guidelines,City of 17. Highway Desig Manual(fifth edition), Berkeley,California. ' Chapter 1000,California Department of Transportation. 20. San Francisco's Shared Lane Pavement Marldngs Improving.Bicvcle Safety, San 18. Oregon Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan 1995. Francisco Department of Parlang&Traffic, Febmary 2004.. 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ®©® -24 - , , APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SLO Bicycle Commuters&Impact of Plan Implementation - APPENDIX B: Existing& Proposed Land Use Development Patterns APPENDIX C: Description of Existing&Proposed Bikeways (February 2007). APPENDIX D: Existing&Proposed End-of-Trip Bicycle Parking Facilities APPENDIX E: Existing&Proposed Bicycle Parking at Transportation Hubs APPENDIX F: Existing&Proposed Changing and Storage Facilities APPENDIX G: Bicycle Safety&Education Programs APPENDIX H: Citizen&Community Involvement in Plan Development APPENDIX I: Relationship to Other Adopted Plans APPENDIX J: Proposed Bikeway Projects APPENDIX K: Past Expenditures for Bicycle Facilities(1995 to 2007) APPENDIX L: Bikeway Surface Quality Maintenance Standards APPENDIX M: Bikeway Design Standards APPENDIX N: Standard Mitigation for Class I Bikeways Adjoining Creeks San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -25- APPENDIX A: SLO BICYCLE COMMUTERS & POTENTIAL IMPACT OF PLAN ' IMPLEMENTATION 1 To prepare an estimate of the number of bicycle commuters / within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve, information was taken from: 1 • The 2000 Federal Decennial Census;and 1 • The 2001 Transportation Survey—a random sample of the transportation behaviors of 3,500 households ' in San Luis Obispo. 1 The transportation.survey provided an estimate of the number of adults that ride bicycles at least once a week and the percentage of their trips that were commute trips. The survey's estimate(a percentage of all respondents)was then applied to the number of adult City residents,as reported by the 2000 Federal Census. The result is an estimate of adult bicycle commuters within the City limits in 2001. 1 ' 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 'T,-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 1 types of inducements are central components of this Bicycle Transportation Plan. Therefore,from the survey, ' we can estimate how many additional adult bicycle commuters may 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 SIA 27.2% 2001 Transportatim Survey 1 b. Total number of aduhs in SLA_ 38,011 2000 Federal Census ' c. Adult bike riders in SLA a x b 10,339 — d. P e of bike riders that commute 63.0% 2001 Transportatiori Survey 1 e. -Adult commute bicyclists in SLA c x d 6,514 — £ Umversity students hvmg on Cal Poly 2,800 Cal Poly University Percentage of on students that bicycle commute 23% 2001 Transportation Survey 1 h. Cal Poly resident bike commuters f x 644 — ' L Fxisftg adult bike commuters in SLO's urban reserve Ce+h 7,159 — J. Pmentage of adults that do not ride bilges 72.8% 2001 Traxisportation S IL Non-bike riding adults in SLA x' 27,772 — ' L Pemartage of non-riders respond to M inducements 91.71/6 2001 Transportaticii Survey ' m %of non-riders that respond to bilme plan inducements 54.4% 2001 Transportatim Survey n. Number of potmitial riders x l x m 13,854 o. Pacentage of potential riders who are commuters(d it n) 8,728 — p. Total potentki commute bike commubm 2001 population Ci+o 15 6 — Estimated San Luis Obispo Urban Area Population 49,000 2001 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -26- ogs)a 1 APPENDIX B: EXISTING& PROPOSED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS History and Existing Development.Pattern The community of San Luis Obispo began in 1772 with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa During its first century,a retail and financial district and government center formed around the old mission. Today this area employs more that 6,000 people. Following a traditional expansion pattern,offices and residential neighborhoods now surround the Downtown Core,extend outward and are served by arterial streets, some of which are also State highways. With this outward expansion over the second century came new shopping and employment centers located near the town's periphery. At the close of the 19th century,the Southern Pacific Railroad(now the Union Pacific Railroad)pushed through the eastern side of San Luis Obispo, forming a circulation barrier for community residents but providing a vital link to interstate destinations. In 1901,the California Polytechnic School was founded at the north edge of the City,adjoining the railroad. Today Cal Poly State University employs ahnost 3,000 faculty and staff that _ support 18,000+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 approximately ten square miles,has a total daytime workforce of 34,000,and a resident population of 45,000 living in 20,000 dwellings. Residential neighborhoods have developed - following a more-or-less traditional pattern and often include, schools,churches,retail shopping centers,and neighborhood and community parks. San Luis Obispo is the County seat and includes offices for City,County, State and Federal agencies located in the Downtown Core,on South Higuera Street near Prado Road,and at several other scattered locations. Major employment centers include Cal Poly,the Downtown Core,and light - industrial and office development along Broad and South Higuera Streets. Proposed Settlement Pattern To the north and east,outward growth of San Luis Obispo is limited by topography(e.g. the Santa Lucia - Foothills and Bishop Peak)and by State-owned land(Cal Poly University). To the west,productive agricultural lands and a flood plain surrounding Laguna Lake border Los Osos Valley Road and Foothill Boulevard. These areas are part of a"green belt"proposed for preservation as open space. Most urban growth is slated for areas along the southern edge of the City.The extent of future growth is shown on the accompanying map and includes two new residential neighborhoods(the Margarita and Orcutt Areas), significant expansions of retail commercial uses along Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road,and substantial industrial development north of the County Airport in the Airport Area. Specific Plans have been prepared for these"expansion areas"that incorporate a network of Class I and II bikeways connected to the existing system Full development of land,as envisioned by San Luis Obispo's General Plan,will result in the City occupying about 12 square miles,with a total daytime workforce of 45,700' people,and a resident population of 58,000 people living in 24,000 dwellings by the year 2022. _ 1 Estimate assumes that the proportional relationship between San Luis Obispo's labor force and resident population does not change in the future with full development within the General Plan urban reserve. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -27 - 9 ®rte � / OOOOOCCCO _ � � � CO � I 0 0 IV fT O Vt / S� vCDi SpSp s o, 0� C 7t Ln oaoao i iCD ® 0a 3 © © 3 n m a D a n n n ao v, W D = L1 eD r �p a y n O f"f Q n GfD' = vN+ vNi N v+ O C N < r+ T T r+ N a o ro re r� x a cr a n' ' < x x 7 7 n O L. S e a) D — 2 �D S O! N a `n rt 7 t0 Ln -s C (1 r} N < -0 O cr r y la 0 a '* -0 (D Ln al O N m ? N a 4 ,, M 3 eD K 3 a 0 flJ 0 ceD 3 r NeD curL �^ C eDN w 1 ! • eeo00000C �J00'����0 �1 „� � O v�� 000004 •J- N i •\ U1bi C) y or= d �' - d,M c o >� 1 c0 ,^p IA CA eo Z \ i D� i r Ml CL D fD a ® ® ® ® OOaA � i o oA N o a o 0 = Q D d ; C)n n n w f 13 o ° _ w U3 LA LA Ln a c c W n ® f9 e N D C CUn o, y 3 a7liA a O e 3 a 01 o, vUn -0+ kin a c re Lo ' N n Oil n n n n O —• r OO a of n n of L W v > > N M un IT D n � a V1 r 1 1 1 APPENDIX Q DESCRIPTION OF F+XISMG& PROPOSED BIKEWAYS (FEBRUARY 1 2007 1 1 Class I Bike Paths Separated From Streets. In 1995 the City began to construct a bike path along the 4.5 1 mile stretch of the Union Pacific Railroad that bisects San Luis Obispo known as the Railroad Safety Trail. Class I bike paths have been constructed along 1.5 miles of this corridor—about 113 of its total length. Part of 1 this system includes paths at the south end of town that parallel the east side of the railroad and were constructed 1 as part of housing subdivisions. In this area,an under-track crossing that links neighborhoods separated by the railroad has been installed,using a refurbished arched stone culvert originally built by the Southern Pacific 1 Railroad Along with the development of the Railroad Safety Trail,the City erected a 168-foot-long pedestrian 1 and bicycle bridge over the railroad at Jennifer Street,linking eastern neighborhoods to San Luis Obispo's 1 Downtown Core. 1 Class II Bike Lanes Along Streets. The accompanying map(Figure#2A) shows the location of existing Class 1 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 H bike lanes along all arterial streets and highways 1 (except U.S. 101)since these corridors provide the most direct access to important destinations and are 1 frequently used by commuting bicyclists. San Luis Obispo's bike lanes are designed to comply with standards presented in Chapter 1000 of the Highway 1 Design Manual published by Caltrans. However,the City's standards are somewhat more generous,requiring new bike lanes along heavily trafficked streets to be 6 feet wide. Since the vast majority of existing City streets were not originally designed to accommodate bikeways and land within the community is now almost fully 1 developed,achieving a full 6-foot 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. 1 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(3.9 R)and may warrant improvement given the number and speed of passing motorists. Caltrans has included bike lanes or paved shoulders along State.Routes 1 and 227. 1 1 Class III Brite Routes. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies a number of streets in residential and commercial districts that are used by cyclists to connect to the Class H bike lane network. These streets have 1 been identified by the Plan as`Bike Routes." The City's policy is to install bike route signs along streets that 1 provide important links to the Class II bike lane network. 1 Bicycle Boulevards. The Bill Roalman Bicycle.Boulevard on Morro Street extends from Marsh Street to Santa 1 Barbara Street and includes the closure of the street at its south end and installation of a traffic signal at the 1 Morro-Upham-Santa Barbara intersection. This Plan defines bicycle boulevards as "a shared roadway (bicycles and motor vehicles share the space without marked bike lanes)where the through movement of 1 bicycles is given priority over motor vehicle travel on a local street." 1 1 1 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) 1 -28- ®®® 1 r 0 0 N O^ SOSO S CD �O m O� Z O,y2 ASO i D � Z A a 3 I 9 O i P1� � IIII x (D �irr so m LO a �D X K a G coM. 7 (p O f�D IC f+ a N C� F+ D 3 9 d C rt IA s O ro 0CC00CC� � - -� � � OID004 0 CDo cNn 0505 J ° N �9c ay�d °tiy9 ayo I D � O Z A T D 9 I � F• t o I T O A N N N O 1 I a 0. w La eD � 99 gp d 'o c VoO. � 9 40 co o _� O N R N N M a o a (o a a a 7r rr N v 9 ' a C r} r C d IA 0 Az O co to v i � 001 5 y y X5,9 �d5 o ay 2y9 �y0 I � c a � z a 3 �s 17 D A - I I I LA n r r+ d T LO � fA o, M r a d c° A S O rD er f+ CL fD -n r+ N OV N O rQj+ n . 3 O O O� e a � 1 1 APPENDIX.D: EXISTING&PROPOSED END-OF-TRIP BICYCLE PARMG / FACILITIES 1 1 Evolution of Current Standards 1 / 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 stipulated that both short-and long-term bicycle 1 parking be provided and specified the amount of bicycle parking to be provided-keyed to the number of required motor vehicle spaces required fora particular land use. The 1993 bike plan also included location and 1 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 1 kickstands,among other refinements. 1 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 1 provision for parking by new development. Relevant Circulation Element provisions include: ' • New development should provide bikeways,secure bicycle storage,parking facilities and showers 1 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 1 bicycle parking,and showers(reference Program 3.12,page 15). / In 1999 the City amended its Zoning Regulations to include Table 6.5. The zoning regulations also stipulate 1 that development projects that provide more bicycle and/or motorcycle spaces than required may reduce the required car spaces at the rate of one car space for each five bicycle spaces,up to a 10%reduction. All bicycle / parking that exceeds the required number of spaces shall be apportioned between short-term and long-term bicycle spaces as stipulated by Table 6.5. 1 In 2007,the City updated its Bicycle Transportation Plan.The new plan clarified the distinction between short / term vs. long term bicycle parking,includes the Racks with Plaques bicycle rack donation program,and adds a new provision for bicycle parking at community events such as Farmers'Market. ' In sum,guidance for bicycle parking is currently provided in the following ways: / / Feature- Soiree ' Broad Policy Direction General Plan Circulation Element 1994 Number and Type of Brite Parldng Spaces Zonin Regulations,Table 6.5 of Section 17.16.060(2007) 1 Location and General Design of Bike Bicycle Transportation Plan(2007) ' Racks Community Design Guidelines 2003 Installing Bicycle Racks @ Existing Bicycle Transportation Plan(2007) / Commercial&Institutional Uses ' Installing Bicycle Racks Downtown and at "Racks with Plaques"Bicycle Rack Donation Policy 1 Public Facilities 1 Additional Guidance for Bike Rack Installations 1 The following additional provisions support those identified in this plan and should assist those designing / bicycle parking in deciding where racks should be located. 1 1 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Pian (February 2007) 1 -29- ®®® 1 • 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 comer," or in unsupervised parking structures or garages. • Avoid conflict with pedestrians: Locate racks so that parked bicycles do not block a pedestrian path. Select a bike rack that is of sufficient height to be visible,with no protruding bars that could trip or injure cyclists or pedestrians. • Avoid conflict with motor vehicles: Separate bicycle parking and auto parking and road areas with - space and a physical barrier.This prevents motor vehicles from damaging parked tricycles 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).The closer bicycle parking is to automobile parking,alleys,roads,etc., the better the opportunity for a bike thief. • Access.:The parking area should be convenient to building entrances and street access,but away from normal pedestrian and auto traffic.Avoid locations that require bicycles to travel over stairs.Access for those on tricycles should be near a ramp used by people in wheelchairs. • Security: Surveillance is essential to reduce theft and vandalism For security, locate parking within view of passers-by,retail activity,or office windows. • Lighting: Bicycle parking areas should be well lit for theft protection,personal security and accident prevention. • Weather protection:Whenever possible protect bicycle parking areas from weather.Alternative treatments include using an existing overhang or covered walkway,constructing a canopy or roof= either freestanding or attached to a building. Inventor ving Existinsr Conditions and Needed Imurovements 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. 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 Downtown Core contains the highest concentration of bicycle racks installed by the City. 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,through the City's Racks with Plaques bicycle rack donation program,over 24 racks twith parking for more than 100 bicycles)have been installed at no cost to the City since the program began in March 2005. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) - 30 - ®®® &06 0 p� o ps cNn SOS 1d� CD a 0 's n �Od d O� Q � � c� 0 i • 000000 t l l � l � rn O °i M = O ID T a4 rD O `G T COU y .+ n n 3 X X X d �• 3 r'+D rr r D � O x. La La 0 to Lei NJ p o Y <' a s '" r d 1° fD co . > j a eD r+ r1 �c a • � n ;D n A APPENDIX E: EXISTING& PROPOSED BICYCLE PARIONNG AT TRANSPORTATION RUBS Figure#4 Identifies the location of esisttng 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 fatuities are also noted by type and capacity. Eidsting& Proposed Bicycle Parldn Trans ortation Hubs Existing Proposed Location Type of Capacity Type of Total Capacity Faciti Facility Amtrak Passenger Rail 4 inverted"U" 8 bicycles Retain Existing 8 bicycles Terminal: 1011 Railroad bike racks Avenue Greyhound Bus Station None NA Install 2 Inverted 4 bicycles 146 South Street I'V'bike racks CCAT Bus Transfer 1 `heave"bike 6bicycles Peak Rack 12 bicycles Center 1050 Monterey rack Street Downtown Transit 4 inverted'IP' 8 bicycles Retain Existing 8 bicycles Center:990 Palm Street bike racks SLO County Airport: None NA Install2 Inverted 4 bicycles 835 Airport Drive "U"bike racks San Luis Obispo Transit(SLO Transit)operates a daily fixed route transit service within San Luis Obispo's urban reserve,serving major employment centers and all residential neighborhoods. Each SLO Transit bus includes a front-mounted bicycle rack that can carry two (2)bicycles. As growth occurs,the SLO Transit system will be expanded into new areas along the southern edge of the community. The Airport Area Specific Plan identifies a proposed transit routing strategy. All buses serving new growth areas will be equipped with on-board bicycle ' racks. ' In 2002 the City improved its Downtown Transit Center located at 990 Palm Street. The improvements included 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 a four-route regional transit system that serves all urban quadrants of San Luis Obispo County,with its major hub in the Downtown 1 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. In the near future,new racks will be installed on CCAT ' buses that will provide a capacity of six(6)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 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) - 31 - commute trips. San Luis Obispo is served by AMTRAK passenger rail service: the Coast Starlight and the Pacific Surfliner. Bicycles can be accommodated on the Coast 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 Pacific Surfliner,bicycles can be directly"loaded onto the passenger cars; at least one train per day features bike racks on passenger cars. l� r i i San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -32 - ®e® 0 0 N O CT Ln OP OS SOS �1dr CD CD p O Z �j dy yy9 ASO I D D a 3 p D 9 - t 1 - � ® S �v go n n n w n v+ w yin r'1 Q c a - m rD < 3 c ,W D 7r �, m x a Cfl S < N 7 In N A D T � N aA O � `* - O C Cl OJ @ -p v r a -1 o. n, f"f /(D W � f"f 7 D �_ (/1 O APPENDIX F: EXISTING& 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 clothes 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. r 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 wan-anted 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 clothes or equipment and may be remote from long-term bicycle parldng. 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 7s 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. In coordination with the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District,the City has established standards for lockers and showers at employment sites throughout San Luis Obispo. These standards are shown as Policy 3.8-3.12. 1 1 1 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -33 - ®®® APPENDIX G: BICYCLE SAFETY & EDUCATION PROGRAMS Existing Programs - The following bicycle education programs are provided either by the City or other agencies: • Annual Bicycle Safety Rodeo: Since 1998,the Police Department has sponsored an annual safety rodeo during fall. 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 attracts over 200 children. • Safety Assemblies: The City Police Department receives 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.Additionally,the San Luis Obispo County Regional _ Rideshare hosts safety assemblies as part of an after school program at area schools. _ • Bike to School Art Contest: Elementary school children are asked to provide a drawing _ of biking as it relates to health,environment or to depict safe bicycle riding practices. Cash prizes are awarded at various grade levels. - • University and High School Student Bike Rally: A"bike day"is declared on the Cal Poly University and San Luis High School campuses and students are encouraged to leave cars at home,with prizes distributed to all participants. • Bike Mouth:People working in San Luis Obispo who ride their bike receive prizes and information about safe riding practices. • Public Service/Mass Marketing Campaign: An electronic and print media campaign - to promote safe bicycling. • Adult Bicycle Education Classes: Provided periodically to teach adults legal,safe,and confident bicycle riding skills. 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. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) - 34 - p® P ' APPENDIX H. CITIZEN&.COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PLAN 1 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,as was completed in the spring of 2002. On May 7,2002,the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the Plan,which was submitted to Caltrans Bicycle Facility Unit and subsequently certified as meeting the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code. The Bicycle Advisory Committee embarked on a second phase of updating the bicycle plan,this time focusing on policy and design elements and standards. The committee reviewed an administrative draft of the revised plan in November of 2006. A Public Review Draft was published and distributed to interested agencies and organizations in February 2007. Also in December 2006,the Community Development Director reviewed the Plan for its environmental impact potential. The Director recommended that a mitigated negative declaration be granted. Public Input ' The Bicycle Advisory Committee spent.over 20 public meetings updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan over a 3-year period.The public review draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan was then reviewed at public meetings with the Bicycle Advisory Committee,the Planning Commission,and the City Council. Copies of the draft plan were available for review at the City's Public Works offices and on the City's web page(www.slocity.org). 1 1 1 1 1 1 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) - 35 - CEO) APPENDIX I: RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ADOPTED 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#2C: (Existing and Proposed Bikeways)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#1B and described below. • 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. • 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. • Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bilce Trail Route Plan establishes the alignment for Class I bikeways along San Luis Obispo Creek from Madonna Road to Los Osos Valley Road _ and along Pref nno Creek from Madonna Road to the east end of Calle Joaquin. • Mid-lliguera 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. • 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 H bikeways are shown on bordering and bisecting = arterial streets. • Margarita Area Specific Plan 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 H bikeways along principal neighborhood streets and along Prado Road and Broad Street. • Airport Area Specific Plan 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. • 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 creek areas and Class lI bikeways along bordering arterials streets and collector streets within the neighborhood. When this Bicycle Transportation Plan update was ranspo p 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 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -36- �® r r r r consistencywith the resultant adopted Specific Plan. In general,changing the alignment or type r of bikeway prescribed by an adopted specific planning or area plan may require an amendment to r Figures#1 A and 1 B of this plan. r County Bikeway Plan:In September 1994,the County of San Luis Obispo adopted a County r Bikeways Plan,this plan was updated in 1996 and again in 2005. This plan prescribes bikeways throughout the County including Class II bikeways along major road corridors leading into the r City(e.g. Orcutt Road, SR 227, South Higuera Street,Los Osos Valley Road,O'Connor Lane, r 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 r similarly classified bikeways within San Luis Obispo. r Regional Transportation Pian(RTP):The 2001 San Luis Obispo County Regional r Transportation Plan adopted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments includes provisions r for non-motorized transportation. The RTP identifies a variety of Class R bikeways along major r 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). r 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 r system of Class I/H bikeways along Tank Farm Road,Prado Road and Buckley Roads while the RTP only shows Class II bikeways along these corridors. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 1 1 1 1 _ _ 1 San Luis Obispo Bicycletransportation Plan(February 2007) 1 f Cal Poly State University' � M1 Status of Project Construction Complete z r ` I City Funding Earmarked for ' X Lend Acquisition&Plans i Cerro San T - rX. Preliminary Engineering& end Environmental Documents i �J �Di t Conceptual Planning Complete gang ! MargadtdAren Orwtt Ares Railroad Safety Trail Route Plan --taThe Railroad Safety Trail Total Length Within City of San Luis Obispo 4.5 NMes Total Length Completed(February 2007) 1.6 Miles (Percentage of Total) (33%) Segments where Preliminary Engineering has been 1.6 miles funded Segments Where Conceptual Planning'is Complete 2.9 miles - San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) 38- ®®® Alignment of the Adopted Bob Jones City-to ca Bike Trail R'ithin San_Luis Obispo Laguna Lake Park Trail Alignment '•i � WateWaterr -Treatment Plant Cal Iran 8 : 4 JEBob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Route Plan 1 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ' - 39 - APPENDIx J: PROPOSED BIKEWAY PROJECTS Projects listed in the City of San Luis Obispo's Bicycle Transportation Plan have been established with community input,Bicycle Advisory Committee(BAC)and,staff input, and incorporation of the previous City of San Luis Obispo City Bicycle Transportation Plans.The plan contains over 50 projects,with the Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail considered the projects with the highest priority. A listing of all the projects is at the end of this appendix. Each project is listed with a description of its location and priority.In addition,the listings include an intent statement to clarify the basis for the project.For evaluation purposes,each project lists the type of facility(e.g. Class H bike path),elementary school zone,city road re-pavement schedule section,estimated cost,length,and an overall priority ranking.Further relevant information unique to the project(specific data or _ history)is listed in the notes section.For easier geographical reference,the projects have been sorted according to the pavement maintenance areas plan(see map at the end of this appendix). An electronic spreadsheet version containing all of the projects is available through the City. The electronic spreadsheet may be sorted by certain project characteristics.An example for use is when routine street maintenance occurs,.staffwould sort by"pave section"to determine which projects should be considered in that area.Another example might be if funding became available ,for a new Class I path,sorting by Bicycle path"class"and overall rank would yield the highest priority project that fits that particular criterion. Projects and their priorities should be reviewed by the BAC at least every two years in conjunction with the City's budget planning cycle. Specific projects should also be reviewed by the BAC when new or special circumstances arise pertaining to an individual project. .Setting Priorities Prioritizing bikeway projects in the City of San Luis Obispo involves a number of variables that r include,but are not limited to,the following: -- .- Bikeway projects are accomglished:&om avariety of funding sources and combinations \ of funding sources. Every bikeway project does not compete for funding with all other bikeway projects. • Many bikeway projects are undertaken concurrent with a larger project such as a street reconstruction or widening.The priority of the larger project often determines when a - bikeway project will be accomplished. - • Bikeway projects can be closely linked to,or a result of,'development.Therefore,the funding and construction of such projects is dependent upon the funding and construction timing of the new development. It is difficult to predict.accurately the timing for these projects due to the many uncertainties inherent to the development process. _ • Occasionally,the identification,and subsequent accomplishment of a project occurs so quickly(ie.due to safety concerns or funding grants),that the project may not be listed or given a high priority. - San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -40 - ®®® P ' A priority ranking system has been established to ensure understanding and relevance of the various bicycle projects.The end result is a general classification of the project as a 151,2°,or 3`d priority.To arrive at this classification a set of defined categories is used and each BAC member individually ranks projects by category. An overall average rank is calculated and used to group 1 projects into the three general classifications. It should be noted that the calculated average value ' is not used as the absolute priority due to the relative subjectivity of comparing divergent projects. (Note that each project lists the individual criteria ranking,which is maintained for historical purposes.) Project Priority Criteria ' The following table lists the ten criteria that have been established as a means to compare the 1 projects.The selected criteria address known grant fiord requirements and provide continuity to the criteria of past plans. ' Facilitates The State of California defines bicycle commuting as"a trip by bicycle Commuting primarily for transportation purposes"(California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.3).Will the project be used for,be an aid to,or increase bicycle commuting? Facilitates Safety Does the project enhance overall safety in the transportation network? (All forms—bicycles,motor vehicle and pedestrian should be considered. Facilitates Will the project enhance or contribute to an increased use of 1 Recreational riding Recreational cycling? Eases/Facilitates Does the project improve traffic flow considering all users:motor ' Traffic Flow vehicles,pedestrians,and bicycles? Educates Does the project educate all travelers? Educational efforts can include a large range of projects,from specific education classes to street signage ' or proper lane placement markings. (e.g.,chevron markings in a shared lane Encourages Bicycle Does the project provide specific advantages to using a bicycle as the ' Use transportation choice?(i.e.parking advantage or travel time to ' destination Implementation Is it feasible to expect implementation within 1-3 years(based on known available ftinding or other variables)? Links access/provides Will the project improve continuity with existing or other proposed bike convenience routes?Does the project fill avoid such as a lane designation? Facilitates bicycle Does the project directly contribute to safer bike routes to school? transportation to ' Schools Provides Regional Does the project provide uriprove continuity with existing bike routes 1 Connectivity that connect to major destinations outside of San Luis Obispo(e.g. ' Cuesta College,Avila Beach)? ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) ' -41 - �®® Ranlana System Each BAC member individually ranks projects by category system(0=no relevance, 1 =very low relevance,2=medium relevance,3=moderately high relevance,4=high relevance, 5= _ very high relevance).The average total of assigned points establishes the project's general priority using the following breakdown. I'priority=31 -50 2°d priority= 16-30 3rd priority=0- 15 Financial Planning Bikeways in San Luis Obispo may be funded from the full range of financial resources available to the city.These resources include the General Fund,Transportation Impact fees,mitigation fees,and cost participation by other entities.In addition,bikeway projects may be eligible for Regional, State or Federal funding when a bikeway project meets the appropriate program _ criteria New Bikeways Cost 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—Note: Project costs are estimates,based on a 20%increase in costs for 2007 over 2002. Proposed New Major Class I Bikeways Corridor Location Len mi Total$ Cost Railroad Safety Trail Cal Poly to South City limits 5.59 26,010,907_ Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail Marsh St.to Octagonal Barn, 4.48 10,432,724 Madonna Rd.to Calle Joaquin GRAND TOTALS 10.07 mi 27,054,131 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 11 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -42 - ®®® r 1 1 1 1 bikeways will be installed as a condition of new residential subdivisions. If the City chooses to 1 accelerate their implementation,additional City costs will be incurred. 1 Class II and Miscellaneous Proiects 1 1 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 1 linkages through:the Occutt Area between Orcutt and Tank Farm Roads;the Margarita Area 1 between South Higuera.Street and Broad Street;along Buckley Road between Vachell Lane and 1 Broad Street,and through the Dalidio Property between Madonna Road and U.S.101. 1 Numerous other small projects are necessary to overcome barriers created by major highways and 1 arterial.streets,creeks,the Union Pacific Railroad,and in some cases topography. Fach project can be implemented individually and have a positive effect on bicycle and pedestrian circulation. 1 More than a few of these miscellaneous projects utilize a non-standard design 1 / Bicycle Bonlevards 1 / The City has developed Monro Street south of the downtown as a bicycle boulevard. This Plan defines a bicycle boulevard as "a shared roadway (bicycles and motor vehicles share the space without marked bike lanes)where the through movement of bicycles is given priority over motor 1 vehicle travel on a local street."The Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard on Morro Street;the City's / first such facility, extends from Marsh Street to Santa Barbara Street and includes the closure of the street at its south end and installation of a traffic signal at the Monro-Upham-Santa Barbara / intersection. / / / / / / 1 1 / 1 / / / San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) 1 -43 - ®®® Pavement Maintenance Areas Plan PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE AREAS PLAN 7nz:; 2. IN total A' 4 For easier geographical reference, bikeway projects have been sorted according to pavement maintenance areas. San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) -44- Pavement Pavement Area 4 Pavement Area 3 Area 2 Pavement Area 1 (n (nTr22W W (n -003W W co DDDDDD A orn lcncn ;a3rTnWv 0 o °a o ° - v C - v n n n n n n 0) - o a 0 01 0 rD O C C n r rt rt t0 'G `G 0) Cr K a C (O nT. OJ co ? w N r T n C C \ 0 7 0 0 N lD O �+ f+ a " � O rT•r ry L N pj O rt ."U r r O rWr r�•r n rt U) 03 OO '�'' CD = d � r�-r `� N n a � D � � N � a� W x -0 z to Ln (ten —nr X 01 m a a 77 ° �. W p n < n m W C tD rnrn �r S N, W I O3i N (n n N C7 t0 N Q N rD O 77 0 r r W rD lD n z O c0 (0n '."' W r=r (011 rOto Mi• ^ O W n CO O N CL N O a N 03 d n O N O N O 3 v W < O at < W n OJ m C W (n o W T In °i. y 3 m m .. a. rtOD C (n a (n W ^ 3 Wan CL U:) W n a n o, T 0 n u' m 3 m 0 0 2 a� = N O !D W F'` N N CD W 0 O O � O �' to CO N N LO O Vi i O Fj In O N .0-. V 3 001 N 3 r-i A v 0_ V a n i-•� CO tD r* . H . . . M . . . . . . . . O W W iii O � W W �""i i�r.. 0 W W = (V W W W OD -I a a a S �. .. Q T (n (n (n -n m co Ln _n -n z (n In '--I T z (n LO (n In T (n N (n (n (n :; M M M ; Mm CD ; � D S rD m ; D m Mm m ; m M MrD MAr 07 (n n n n cn n n n (n (n n n N n n n n (n n n n n n %pr r* O O O ^ 0 0 O T T O_ O O a '* O O O O ^' 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CL a CL a a 0. a a a a s o. a o. a o. CL = 222 W S S 22 M = r, = r222222 2 2 (n V) 222 W 22222 DDDD 'oDD DD "" DxDxDDDDDD D D DDD -0DDDDDSchoolZone 2 W (n (n 2 (n D -0 3 D 2nd School Zone (D WU 3rd School Zone fD 4th School Zone D ? A A ? 4 W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N N N Pavement Area 0) I tp tD rn 0 to w N 4 N 2nd Pavement V rn w 3rd Pavement ..� CO 4th Pavement N z µ z z Z NV (nw NJ DOrnr �A � wtn D DN w DO4rrn 4e O0 0 n N In O W V CO 4 Ln N V O V In M -D, 00 ngt/j(P W W O1 M to O O 0) W (-` Mto O tD V V W �P ? V Ln V W tD O N W W W to0r4 V COO ? tr10O � tONlnr V NO M VOrr0 Net) D ( D F+ f. r r cost CO 0 [�-Er 4A, +P, rn wNmoOHi W A In N iR -Y" to ifs w W ti N N 4 {+ " -Eq O O1 N O O W V " 0 0 n W O O O CO CO V O O -C, O O N t0 O O W 0 0 0 V 4 O O T O W O t0 O A 0 O t0 O O r N -LR N OD 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O f+ Q O O V .P r O VT O W O O r A O 0) O 00000000 O 0 V N O V ? N r 0 0 N A 4 W W N N A A 4 -N w w 4 4 W A N ? W A ? ? ? to ? ? 4 4 4 4 ? W Cpm V OAL'nCO V N U'tf+ V tnCON � NO � 0ON0 .A tnNN O V Otntnotn V V �Utn9 r o W V M t0 V A r V Ot t0 4 0 O W M t0 O W V 0 iD O r O V V O V r � IV W N W W N N N A W W W A A A W A W A N W W W W 4 ? 4 4 4 W to 4 -P Sd,rety LrI A to A V C7 V CO O N V .P O � �-L N A F+ V CO V V V O W V O O :01 6 O : V w V w r M r M O w r w 0 A A ? W A r M r r r Ot w r+ 0 0 W M O W W LA WNN4NN W W W NwwPI) wNW 4 W to 4 4 w tnww444w W W Recre oornrn � oo C � 0WN j4rnIrnwIW'ri 0 rnrnw 0 o � wrnrnrn at�Ona; N w -N W N W N W N w 4 N W N N W W W W N N N W w W 4 W W W 4 4 A Traw• X444 W 0 W w � tNO rIj LDDw � � VtNDQ MA V V kDD 400) V OOi 1N0 w Q4 � w0 CF/O('V 00 0000 rO r r0r 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 O 000 0i-+ 00000 N µ 4%ft, r LrI NO N V O Un A W N O 0 OA i-` :A• N N O O OO V �+ N �+ 4 V tes A V W to O tD r0 V w M tD O Ot A O w ? w w 4 A 4 t0 O O M N ALD 4 W r %(jMwrn .("ir"i � � rnrnornrnvw . 61 b a "J0 � 4 ZJ � � Ij w � Iliirn � � v a %No �ncp4rd9es w -j44ww0 .�jkDDaw04' Lq j0M 0o j0 rn rno4 wa � wtDrn aw � I�p/e�eotdt;° n 4 W W W W W N A W W W A A .p. W W W W W A W W W W •Q to 4 to A .p .0. W W CirykS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A V O O O r LrI A CO V W V N O N N V CO N (n V V CO � 0 O to O C7 N V N to W 1" O O Ot A V W M F+ M F+ 0 0 0 w N 0) t0 V F+ O) W V O V O M W tD V W W W W (-+ N N -D, A W A 4 W Into4At+ 4 W N N Nto 4 4 N W W N W NF+ SChp N r O V O V V to 00 W O ? to O O CO V W (JI NCO V V O W O V CO A CD O N N °/S 4A01- O H N V T0O W V 000� N0t V w Ot �' �' 0 W 0 �-` MwO 0w 0 Ni� NP� N 0 0 F. 0 W F-r N N r O r O A O N W W N N to .A 4 N N W N N W Rea. dV to N OO N O ON N µ VNO7 • / t0tDJPrWOtr MOtwwwt0 A. 4w0r V t0 O 00t0 OOCAm Ili Ot0W V V MOtntn0lD Ol0lDlDtDtDl0000 .W 10 C7 f+ 000 l0tn4w WNNIw-` µ Pro. e O V f+ V V (n Oo O CO V ? N N O V to to 0 0 O to N N r CO N O O O O N Ct R 0r4r (-+ V M 0O� W %D00 V 4 .400 0 V t04 V O) 0000) Ot0A ank " - �. �. - � �.- _ - - - � -.- �. _. __ rte. ,•� Pavement Pavement. 'Pavement Ravement ` Area 8.; Area 7, Area_6 iArea.5, W = S n -12 -n -nC1n r rrr -1 (x -0 r' M W 0 0 0 m m m w 0 01 a( 0 x A f(D �' �- of � O O c to t0 c lay Ln W 7 7 0 0) m - - X X d d al T N 7 0 to 0. n � � CL 0 0 3 r r r � (M Q) m rt ami n n � � 0�. o3, o�i o. 7•� � 3T � am w 0 „ c c _a m m fD n — ,Y "• (n W �. f1 c. W W W fD (n (D fD n 0 -. f1 N N � 0 0 (/� 7c 77 7 C N c 77 CL r n W at 0 a i m W m o=, r) E m 0 d v — a) a 3 r W fD —of W — y (1) � a v n d o a C r , 0 < 0 r) WD �' sa Ln j � m a �. - � � 0 �- n fD N fD 3 3 3 iO (0n 0 0 o LO) Lo U1 (n N ^ (n fD (n �. 3 3 O (n 3 E5* o t+ r r. tD N n OD 00 00 i fD (n 0 nWD .0N^ Yw 3 p G) 0 0 X i 0 3 fD N rnn O r aJ (n (n r O fD (n -n (n VI m (n (n (n (n (n -n -nT � T (n -n -n fD ; fD N N fD fD fD fD fD ; -z ; S fD ; =; 0 rNr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rN•r rt rwr C rN•r 0 rNr rV•r 0 c > > 0000 0 a 0 CL a c. a s 0. a a. 0 . 0. co W co W W0700W00 (n (n (n (n r2 (n (n (nr v v v v v v 3 3 3 3 D 3 3 3 p D D D 00 co o V V V V V V rn 01 0t 0) to to In to to to o o N N N Ul U'1 t j N O W o U9 o to t0 N to to In V W to N W W V to 4 o V V t0 W W �o to W O N 0 0 0 W O V O O c0 o W O O W W O• 3 3 Ln to to t+ to H r .6-, V{F} �+ t0 m m {ft 0) O 01 fit 0) {R O to W W t0 N W N to W t0 0) N m ? O A .P t+ o t0 m O G O O N O t0 W Ln Ol OC� N A m o O O O O O In O W o OA O -Vt O O O N O o o O O O O N O r O O N O O O t0 O V O coo O 0 0 0 0 r r 0 0 W r r O N N N o o N O V N f+ N N t0 t0 N N O O r W N W N N O r O N o r 'N :A, N A O O t0 Ot ? t0 W •A W N W F✓ 4 t+ N W 4 t+ N (n O Un .P o In V O o O V O V W ON V r 0 M O r N O O N W r N N r CO r O to 4 to N V N to T 4 O V W V t0 r t0 V O O W O O O O r 0 0 O r 0 0 4 N O N N O O B O O W t0 O t0 l0 O t+ t+ t+ t+ t+ t+ W N N t,L A N A t+ 4 A N A O V W %0 W A W W t0 W O r O O r o x 0 0 0 0 0 V r pr Orrtntn V t+ N W A O 4 m4 V V t+ N N r N r N N r N N N NOO 00 A N A .4O t0 t0 O O m W W W w o O OOr � Nt-` 0N W to (-+ :N O o 'r :N O N t•L V ? W O ON 4 W O l0 A W N N O t•L O r O O O to co A to O A V .p o A V O) W V O W t•L W m W t+ r r r r t+ 1-& r 1-4 N ON to N O t0 V V M V 0) t+ O r .P V 00 A ? O N O ? W r O) W W 0 0 1 Project: Buena Vista / 101 Bridge Widening Description: Widen Buena Vista from Loomis St. to Monterey St. to include class II bike lanes on both sides. Intent: Provides an adequate connection between proposed class II on Monterey and neighborhoods in the NE section of town. Class: II School zone: HA Pave section: 1 Length (Meters) Est. Cost Priority Second 1 � � O c w 4 w� o° O1. 1 Kevin 21 3 21 4 01 0 0 31 2 01 16 2 Jean 21 2 2 3 01 2 0 3 2 01 16 3 Ben 31 4 3 4 2 3 1 31 3 11 27 4 Glen 11 4 4 3 0 3 0 2 2 21 21 5 Trevor 1 3 2 . 5 0 1„ 0 2 2 0 16 6Tom 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 11 1 7Tim 2 �4 3 _4 0 1 . 0 2 2 0 18 avg. SCOR 1.71 3.14 2.57 3.57 0.29 1.4.3 0.14 2.43 2.14 0.43 17.86 ' Notes: This includes the widening of the bridge over 101 which will ' require Cal Trans approval. Relationship to the Monterey Street Class II project (formerly known as Mis-28). 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BV101X 1 Project: Cuesta Park Under crossing (Mis-23) i Description: Path Under US 101 from San Luis Drive to Cuesta Park. � Intent: To allow pedestrian and bicyclist access under the freeway to Loomis Street and Cuesta Park. Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 1 8 Length (Feet) 821 Est. Cost $120,000 Priority Second cm mor � w %° .4°`' F FF �0Aw ° A AP 40 1 Kevin 1 11 31 1 01 4 - 01 11 1 OF 12 2 Jean 1 3 . 3 2 0 _ 3 0 2 1 2 17 f 3 Ben 2 3 4 2 0 4 01 4 2 2 23 4 Glen 1 3 4 1 0 3 1 3 1 3 20 - 5 Trevor 1 3 5 1 0 3 0 3 2 2 20 _ 6 Tom 11 2 3 - 11- -. -0 2 0 2 2 2 15 7 Tim 1 1 `4 11 0 4 _.0 - 2 1 1 15 avg. SCOR —1.1412.2913.7111.29 0.00 3.29 0.14 2.43 1.43 1.71 17:43 - Notes: Will require CalTrans, Fish and Game and Corps of Engineers approval. This project was formerly known as Mis 23 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated - with this project are noted as 50% City, 50% Recreation grant. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis23 Project: Flora/Fixlini Bike Blvd. Description: Create a Bike Blvd. along Fixlini from Lizzie, through County property to connect with.Flora, along the length of Flora and terminating at Southwood Dr. Intent• To provide a low traffic impact north/south through route.for bicyclists that serves the Johnson Ave. neighborhoods through to San Luis High and upper Monterey Street area. Class: BB School zone: HA SI Pave section: 1 2 Length (Feet) 61,101 Est. Cost $67,111 Priority Second �44 v� m om �m a� c F� c v a,°' O 1 Kevin 41 3 41 3 01 2 0 3 4 21 25 2 Jean 4 4 41 3 01 3 1 4 4 2 29 3Ben 2 2 2 - 2 - 21 3 1 3 4 _ 2 23 4 Glen 4 4 3 - 4 0 4 3 - 3 4 . 2 31 5 Trevor 4 4 2 4 0 3 3 3 4 2 29 6 Tom 3 3 2 -2 --- 0 3 0 2 2 2 19 7 Tim 4 4 3 4 0 2 01 31 4 0 24 avg. SCOR 3.57 3.43 2.86 3:14 0.29 2.8611.1413.0013.711 1.71125-.711' Notes: Connects to proposed Ella/George Bicycle Blvds: Cut through traffic to the High School must be addressed before the Bicycle Blvd can be put in place. Includes a section listed in the previous Bike Plan as "Mis 9". City of sLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Johnson and San Luis Drive use. as twentieth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total ' count of 33. City Bicycle Collision data for 2004 shows the intersection of Johnson Ave. at Lizzie St. as fifth highest with . 1 three collisions. (Data reference included here as this project may impact use at the mentioned intersections). MasterProjects 3/5/2007 FloraFixliniBB Flora/Fixiini Class 1 (MIS-9) Create a class I bikeway, MUP (multi use path) from north end of Flora, across County and church property to Fixlini. Creates a link between the neighborhoods. south of Bishop and east of Johnson serving the Adult School, High School, and neighborhoods of San Luis Drive and East of Johnson without having to take the.more heavily trafficked Johnson Ave. I HA SI 1 2 345 $283,695 �0) o� Zo Q 10 0 0 See overall:,Project Rank o c 0 0 0 -- r This segment is pivotal to the Flora/Fixlini Bicycle Blvd. This project will require County and private property owner approval. A bridge maybe needed to span a small creek. This project was formerly known as Mis 9 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated r May 7, 2002. Estimated costs listed are from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown L responsibility is: City = 100%. Notes from that plan state, "Consider, Safe Routes to School Funding". i^ MasterProjects 3/5/2007 FloraFixliniBB 1 1 1 1 1 Project 1 Section: Fixiini Bike Blvd. 1 1 Section Create a Bike Blvd. along Fixlini, from Lizzie to 2004 easter 1 Description: terminus. 1 To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for / Section bicyclists that serves the Johnson Ave. neighborhoods through 1 Intent: to San Luis High and upper Monterey Street area. 1 Class: BS 1 School Zone: HA 1 Pave Section, 1 1 1 Length (Meter. 1 Est. Cost 1 1 -47 a°) 4? m V / qjCo a0 0 j See overall Project Rank 'o 1 0 1 0 1 - 1 1 Section Connects to proposed Bicycle Blvds. Cut through traffic to the 1 Notes: High School must be addressed before the Bicycle Blvd can be 1 put in place. Connects to Flora/Fixlini Class I section of the 1 overall BB. / 1 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 FloraFixliniBB 1 Flora Bike Blvd. Create a Bike Blvd. along Flora, from Bishop to Southwood. To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves the neighborhoods North of Johnson Ave., through to both the proposed Ella St. BB East/West downtown and San Luis High/upper Monterey Street areas. BB SI 2 L o� J m o qAzz y c r�.� �m o °o o� �IT ` m J t��-: ,�F�_ 1- ::. �j�_ ��'�.. -0 0 0 L 0 See overall Project Rank 0 0 07 -7 ' .a Will require traffic calming to reduce existing speeds. Connects with proposed Flora/Fixlini Class I (Mis 9 from bike plan dated May 7, 2002) and proposed Ella/Ruth/George Bicycle Blvd..Also has a relationship to proposed Sequoia BB. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 FloraFixliniBB ' Sequoia Bike Blvd. Create a Bike Blvd. Along Sequoia, from Southwood to the southern City limits. To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves the neighborhoods North of Johnson Ave., connecting via the proposed Flora st. BB, through to both the proposed Ella St. BB East/West downtown and San Luis BB SI 1 1 2 oc mo' V ti m h 0 0 See overall Project Rank ° o ' Connects with the proposed Flora st. BB, the proposed Flora%Fixlini Class I (Mis 9 from bike plan dated May 7, 2002).and proposed Ella/Ruth/George Bicycle Blvd. An easement exists for the continuation of Sequoia to Tiburon Road if the area is annexed to the city. This project could connect to Tiburon which opens up further neighborhoods for commuting this route and links to regional bicycling routes on Orcutt. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 FloraFixliniBB 1 Project: Leff St. Bicycle Blvd. Description: Create a Bike Blvd. along Leff St, from Beach to Toro streets. intent: To provide a low traffic impact East/West through route for bicyclists that serves the downtown neighborhoods south of the downtown core. Class: BB School zone: HA Pave section: 1 4 Length (Feet) 11090 Est. Cost $508,448 Priority Second Q C� O qy C V �O 1 Kevin 2 21 2 21 0 1 01 3 31 01 15 2 Jean 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 3 11 16 3 Ben 2 2 1 1 2 3 1, 2 2 01 16 4 Glen 2 3 2 3 0 3 3 2 2 11 21 5 Trevor 2 3 2 3 0 3 3 2 2 6 Tom L 4 3 4 3 5_ 0 4 4 2 - 33 7Tim 3 2 2 0 - 2 0 3 3 0 17 avg. SCOR 2771F2.00 2.43 0.71 2.711 2.71 0.71 19:86 Notes: Connects with proposed King / Beach Bicycle Blvd. and proposed Casa to Toro St. Bicycle Blvd. A signal, or other device, will be - required at Broad and at Osos streets. City of SLO Bicycle Count . Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Osos and Leff use as fifteenth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 53. Counts_ for the intersection of Morro and Leff Were = seventeenth out of 24 locations, with a total of 46.. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 LeffBB 1 Project: Monterey Street Class II (Mis-28) Description: Install Class II bike lanes on Monterey Street from Santa Rosa to U.S. 101. Intent: To provide room for bicycles and motor vehicles to use the lanes at the same time. Class: II School zone: HA Pave section: 1 Length (Feet) 41037 Est. Cost $8,074 Priority. Second m a we •C� C� 3 �y .gym \�F oo `oc 40 i Kevin 31 31 21 3 11 0 01 51 2 21 21 2 Jean 31 31 31 3 0 2 1 5 2 4 - 26 3 Ben 4 5 41 4 3 5 3 4 5 2 39 4 Glen 3 5 31 4 0 4 1 4 4 2 30 5 Trevor 4 5 4 4 2 5 2 5 5 2 38 6 Tom3 3 3 _ 3 0 3 1 3 3 1 231 . 7Tim 3 4 3 51 1 11 0 . . 4 4 3 . 28 avg. SCO 329 4.00 3.14 3311 1.00 2.86 1.14 4:29 .3.57 2.29 29.29 Notes: This could be provided by removal of curb parking on one side of the street. Class II lanes on both side are preferred. If only one side is possible then it should be on the North bound side with "shared lane" marking for South bound. An interim solution would be the use of "shared lane" markers for both directions. Additional note, has a relationship to BV101X (Buena Vista / 101 crossing 1 widening project.) City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of California and Monterey use as eighth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 81. This project was formerly known as Mis 28 in the.Bicycle ' Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the costs associated ' with this project are noted as 100% city. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis28 1 r _ Project: Railroad Bicycle Path (RBP) Description: A Class I bicycle facility paralleling the Railroad tracks from the Northern to the Southern City Limit. Intent: The intent of this project is to create the major North/South Bicycle thoroughfare for the city serving all downtown neighborhoods and businesses, Cal Poly, four of five area elementary schools and all the = Broad Street corridor neighborhoods and businesses. - Class: I i� School zone: SP HA SI LR Pave - section: i 2 3 8 Length (Feet) 30,476 r� Est. Cost $26,010,907 Priority First c �0 � i C yqj A 0 - .? � 4? AO = 1 Kevin 5 51 51 3 0 51 11 4 51 5 38 2 Jean 5 4 5 3 0 4 1 4 . 5 . 5 36 3 Ben 5 5 S 3 0 5 2 5 5 5 40 4 Glen 5 5 5 4 0 5 1 5 4 5 39 5 Trevor 5 5 5 4 0 5 1 5 5 5 40 6 Tom 5 5 5 51 01 5 3 5 5 5 J437 Tim 511 5 5 3 0 5 1 . 5 5 5 avg. SCOR 5.00 4.86 5:00 3.57 0.00 4.86 .1.43 4.71 4.86 5.00 :39 Notes: The overall project consists of nineteen component pieces. The previous Bicycle Transportation Plan, dated May 7th 2002, listed these as - individual projects "RBP 1 - 19".The viewpoint taken now is that it is one large project with integral pieces. Each project piece has been preserved in this plan as it was written in the May 7th, 2002 plan so that they can be treated (funded and implemented) individually. But they have not been individually ranked: Only the overall project, listed here, has been ranked. Cost estimates reflect.a 20% price increase from the 2002 Bike Plan. r RRProjects 3/5/2007 RBPmain 1 Project: "RBPl" Path along west side of RR from Marsh to the north end of AMTRAK Station parking lot. Includes a 131ft bridge over San Luis Creek, a Description: 99ft bridge over Johnson Ave, a 361ft pier-supported decking s/o Toro St., and an entry plaza at north end of parking lot. Project would include local access from Toro, Johnson, Buchon and Pismo Streets. Intent: see main project 10 Class: I 111 School zone: HA 0 Pave. section: 1 Length (Feet) 2,625 Est. Cost $31046,206 Priority NA w 4 c°i 0 o0 AIT rm v As 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE_ Notes: Estimated cost listed reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle ' Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $2,132,344 (70%), Grant - $913,862 (30%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Grant. ' application submitted. 1 1 1 Project: "RBP2" Path along.east side of RR from Foothill to Hathaway. Extend path west of palm trees. Improve pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Description: California Blvd. at Hathaway St. Intent: see main project Class: I - School zone: HA Pave section: 8 Length (Feet) 1,204 Est. Cost Priority NA C� 0 Qo �o D y �° � :�% k ,tea•" Ca F o° 2m� V°F �m dim baa �c ��4 v sic, moo, 40 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor L 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Project funded. . i i. i-- Project: "RBP3" Path along NORTH side of Orcutt from RBP to Laurel Lane. Widen the Orcutt Rd. ROW and extend the path in back of.sidewalk Description: eastward to connect with signalized intersection @ Orcutt. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA SI Pave section: 2 3 Length (Feet) 181 Est. Cost $154,110 Priority NA o cm �° a � o'vQjF� v oo .�0� AF qj 1 Kevin Z Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 1 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Ti m avg. SCORE Notes: Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City,.100%. An effort should be made to try and combine with Orcutt Road at grade crossing project. 1 1 Project: 11RBP4" Trail along north side of creek from RBP east to north end of Description: Southwood Drive. Intent: see main project r. Class: I Schoolzone; SI Pave section: 2 Length (Feet) 962 Est. Cost $420,000 + Priority NA o "` C°i A ZI 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE -- Notes: Will occupy part of the School District's Corporation Yard and require relocation of fencing. Eligible for Safe Routes to School grant. Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase.from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Grants, 100%. Grant TE (Transportation Enhancement). P r r r r Project: "REPS" Path along east side of RR from Laurel Ln. to Tank Farm Road. Includes a 82ft.bridge over small creek in the Orcutt Area. Part of Description: alignment may use existing Bullock Lane right-of-way. Intent: see main project r Class: I School zone: HA SI ' Pave section: 2 3 ' Length (Feet) 5,447 r Est. Cost $1,288,676 Priority NA m o ` co m o Q1 45� tiF v �` dao' 40 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5-Trevor 6:Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Assumes that property owners grant land. Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $902,073 (70%), Grant - $386,603 (30%). Grant fund source'= TE (Transportation . r Enhancement) or BTA (Bicycle Transportation Act). May be deferred and implemented by Orcutt Area Development. r r r r r r r r r Project: "RBP6" Path from Hathaway Avenue to Marsh Street. Includes a 197ft bridge over US 101 and pier-supported decking along the east side of the Description: railroad between U.S. 101 and Palm Street. Will require a 105ft bridge over Monterey St. and a 213ft segment of pier-supported decking s/o Monterey. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA SP Pave section: 1 8 Length (Feet) 11100 Est. Cost $7,663,884 Priority NA m ° C, v 2m V° �� ��m Hca �c tiF v �� 1(r 40 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom C 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Estimated cost listed are from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated r' May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $6,897,496 (90%), Grant - $766,388(10%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement) and BTA (Bicycle Transportation Act). r r Project: "RSP7" Description: Path along east side of RR from Foothill Blvd. to campus entrance. ' Extend path in back of palm trees that border the west side of California Blvd. Intent: see main project r Class: I School zone: HA SP Pave section: 8 1 Length (Feet) 525 Est. Cost $185,450 1 Priority NA r qj r � j •o `G\ Q,y 0� � �`1 � y A. -s- 1 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben r 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim r avg. SCORE r r Notes: RR will likely require fencing along west side of tracks to control ' cross-track access. Estimated cost reflects a 20%increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002.The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer, 100%. Currently in Cal r Poly master plan. Cal Poly funded when parking garage is built per CP master plan. 1 r 1 1 r r r - Project: "RBP8" Path on east side of RR from CP campus entrance to sports Description: complex north of Highland Drive. Extend path in back of palm trees to cross Highland Dr. on a 82ft bridge with deck approaches and extend to sports complex entrance. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA SP Pave section: 8 Length (Feet) 3,855 Est. Cost $846,178 Priority NA 4 c m o c AZ 0 J �Z: �o ,per 0 h (' C15 A0. 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer, 100%. Cal Poly funded as part of master plan development. 1 t Project: "R8P9" Bridge over Tank Farm Road along east side of RR. Includes a 197ft bridge over Tank Farm Road and 591ft of elevated decking on the Description: approaches. Intent: see main project Class: I ' School zone: SI LR Pave 1 section: 3 1 Length (Feet) 968 Est. Cost $1,748,824 1 Priority NA 2" a°i 1 005 \°F y o° o� AQ 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes:- Estimated cost reflects a 206/o increase from the Bicycle -- -Transportation Plan dated May 7,-2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $1,224;177 (70%), Grant - $524,647 (30%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement) and BTA (Bicycle Transportation Act). 1 1 - I/ r` Project: "RBP10" Description: Path on west side of RR from Stenner St. to Foothill Blvd. % see main project: Should encourage pedestrians from west of RR Intent:. to use Foothill Blvd. rather than.cross the tracks at Hathaway. Class: I School zone: HA SP Pave section: 8 Length (Feet) 1,706 Est. Cost $478,274 Priority NA c 0 U 40 1 Kevin 2 lean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor -6 .Tom 7, Tim avg. SCORE Notes: May need to be fenced to force access circulation to Foothill.. -_.Estimated cost reflects a 20%o increase from the.Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, 100%. C i_ Project: 11131211. Industrial at RR tracks, Grade separated crossing A grade separation crossing from the end of Industrial to the Description: Railroad Safety Trail see main project: Provide safe connectivity from the Tank Farm and Sacramento area developments through to the Railroad Intent: Safety trail and Orcutt street improvements. This crossing provides a safe connection for both neighborhoods and businesses, and bypasses the need to travel on the higher volume traffic connector - Broad Street (SR 227). Class: I School zone: HA SI Pave section: 3 Length (Feet) 197 Est. Cost $645,178 Priority NA J ��o 0 �� �C q m G1 IT AO 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 54 Glen Trevor See overall Project Rank 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Estimated cost listed reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown ' responsibility is: Developer, 100%. Should be required as part of ' Orcutt Area Specific Plan development since residents east of UPRR will want to access areas west of RR. Relationship exist with the Sacramento Class II's project. 1 J Project: "RBP12" Description: Bridge over Foothill Blvd. just west of California Ave. A 99ft bridge with bottom cord 17ft above grade and 263ft ramps with landings to meet ADA access requirements. Intent: see main project: Class: I School zone: HA SP Pave section: 8 Length (Feet) 518 Est. Cost $2,097,847 Priority NA o J 0� V`o tidy L�O1 Fac 4? Af 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City - $1,048,924 (50%), Developer - $1,048,923 (50%). Target contribution from Cal Poly. ' Project: "RBP13" ' Description: Bridge over RR from Sinsheimer Park to Lawrence Drive. Bridge 1 includes four or five bridge sections and four tower supports. Intent: see main project: Class: I ' School zone: NA SI ' Pave section: 2 3 ' Length (Feet) 821 ' Est. Cost $3,720,000 Priority NA c c 0 c` oo� < ac° Fa cy v 0) mO 1 2 V_ /� v � 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank ' 5 Trevor 6 Tom 1 7 Tim 1 avg. SCORE 1 Notes: Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase.from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City - $3,348,000 (90%), Grant - $372,000 (10%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). 1 1 1 1 1 I I l _ Project: "RBP14" L Description: Bridge over RR at Fairview St. to connect to Penny Lane. Intent: see main project: Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 1 Length (Feet) 148 Est. Cost $230,280 Priority NA - I, c m c . c p 20 C 1Qr �O I Kevin 2,Dean - 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7. Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation.Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Grant - 100%. Grant.fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Should be installed when Fairview is extended through French Hospital property to connect with Lizzie St. Driveway. Project: "RBP15" Description: Path from east end of High St. to the East end of Roundhouse. 1 Intent: see main project: Class: I School zone: HA SI Pave . ' section: 2 4 ' Length (Feet) 738 1 Est. Cost $270,000 Priority NA qY AF O .1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE ' Notes: Emily Street might be used as an interim connection between ' High and Roundhouse. Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May.7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City - $32,400 (12%), Grant.- , $237,600 (88%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project: "RBP16" i Description: Path along west side of RR from Roundhouse to McMillian. Path will connect with bridge at Lawrence Drive (RBP13). Intent: see main project: Class: I School zone: HA SI Pave section: 2 3 4 Length (Feet) 2,,723 - Est. ,723 -Est Cost $864,000 - Priority NA �0C - -4 �0, 0�m �3 -y lb U C6 1 Kevin 2 lean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim - avg. SCORE Notes: Will require extensive soil remediation in roundhouse area depending.on-Iocation:.Estimated cost reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is- City - $2591200 (30%), Grant - $604,800 (70%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Target only for SLOCOG grant funds. ' Project: "RBP17" 1 Description: Path along west side of RR from McMillian to Orcutt: Intent: see main project: 1 Class: I School zone: HA SI ' Pave ' section: 2 3 ' length (Feet) 11722 1 Est. Cost $600,000 ' Priority NA c o 3 0 oIZP ) �C\O Qiy �- GiC 0 40 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 1 4 Glen See overall Project Rank ' 5 Trevor 6 Tom 1 7 Tim - avg. SCORE 1 Notes: May require extension of culverts to allow the BP to cross creeks and still be setback far enough from RR—Estimated cost reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City - $180,000 ' (30%), Grant - $250,000.(70%). Grant fund source = TE ' (Transportation Enhancement). Target only for SLOCOG grant funds. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project: "RBP18" Description: Path on west side of RR from Orcutt to Industrial. Intent: see main project: Class: I School zone: HA SI Pave section: 2 3 Length (Feet) 31,117 Est. Cost $1,080,000 Priority NA co co 4c ej AT 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben - 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: May require extension of culverts for local streams. Would connect with Grade Separated Crossing at Industrial Way (RBP11). Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City - $712,800 (66%), Grant - $367,200 (33%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement) and BTA (Bicycle Transportation Act). 1 Project: "RBP19" ' Path along east side of RR from the Jennifer Street Bridge.to 1 Description: Fairview St. ' Intent: see main project: 1 Class: I School zone: HA SI Pave section: 1 2 4 1 Length (Feet) 1,919 ' Est. Cost $672,000 1 Priority NA 1 c'° oc 1 cam' 3y P.9 c ' co k< " a Fo 4? o Q o° moi'° �aJ �c ,.F� v 'o, eco' �O 1 1 Kevin 2 Jean - 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor ' 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Will require bridging of creek at northeast end of French Hospital property. Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City - $168,000 (25%),'Developer - $168,000 ' (25%), Grant $336,000 (50%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Assumes French Hospital contributes to construction. 1 1 1 i I I,. Project: San Luis Drive / Hwy 101 access (Mis 21) Modify access controls to allow bicycle accessatthe east end of Description: San Luis Drive. San Luis Drive can provide a northbound access route onto U.S. 101 that allows bicyclists to bypass upper Monterey Street. Access controls must allow for emergency vehicles to enter off the freeway. Intent: Provide alternate route for cyclists to access NB US 101. Class: other + School zone: HA Pave section: i Length (Meters) NA Est. Cost $6,000 Priority Second 00 0 Q co' c 0 Q0 c ep 1 Kevin -,1 . 21 21 11 0 2 01 01 0 41 12 2 Jean 1 2 2 - .21 0 1 1 3 0 .4 16 3 Ben 2 2 1 2 0 1 1 3 1 4 17 4 Glen 1 3 .- ;3 3 ' '0 2 1 3 1 3 20 5 Trevor 1 2 3 3 0 _ 1 1 3 1 4 19 6 Tom 1 ---1 --- 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 it 7Tim 1 2 4 2 0 1 0 3 1 4 18 avg. SCOR 1 1-4 2.00 2.57 1.86 0.00 1 43 0.71 2.29 0.573. _T6.14 f _ Notes: City has confirmed CalTrans acceptance for continued access. This project was formerly knowri as Mis 21 in the Bicycle Transportation Pian dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated with this project are noted as 100% City. I MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis21 Project: San Luis High bike lanes (Mis Ila) Description: Install bike channelization for RH and LH turns off Marsh onto California and off California onto San Luis Drive. Improve bike travel through the intersections (at California and Intent: Marsh and California and San Luis Drive). Reduce conflicts with vehicles: Class:. II School zone: HA Pave section: 1 Length (Feet) 50 Est. Cost minimal Priority Second w `- a o\ y Amo, F 6' cm F co F� icy o,°' p = V /• ti . v �J Q A. 1 Kevin 41 21 21 41 11 0 01 21 5 _ 01 20 2 Jean 3 2 ` 2 3 0 . 2 11 3 . 5 1 22 -3 Ben- _, ._ . ,:... : 4 ..2 :.: . 2 :: ..2:-: . 1 : 2 ; 11 : 1 . _ 1 .- 21 4 Glen 3 2 2 3. 1 2 2 2 4 2 23 5 Trevor 3 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 _ 5 _ 1 6 Tom 1 1 1 1__ _0 . 1 _ 1 1 5 1 13 7Tim :-- - 3 = 2 2 2 - 0 1 1 2 5 1 19 avg. SCOR 3.00 1.86 1.86 2.43 0.43 1.43 1.00 1.86 4.861 1.00 19.71 Notes: This project was formerly known as Mis 11 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002: 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mislla r 1� l` Project: San Luis High Bike Lanes (Mis 11b) Description: If the bridge on California St from San Luis Dr to Marsh St is - replaced, it should be widened to accommodate Class II bicycle - lanes. Intent• Improve bike travel through the intersections (at California and Marsh and California and San Luis Drive). Reduce conflicts with vehicles. Class: School zone: HA Pave section: i - Length (Feet) Est. Cost _ Seco Priority nd = o Q Ca O 2y C J �2y I� �y Gl Qr A0, 1 Kevin 41 2 2 41 1J 0 01 2 51 0 20 2 Jean 31 2 2 31 0 2 1 3 5 1 22 3 Ben 4 2 2 2 _ 1 2 1 1 5 1 21 4 Glen 3 2 2 3 1, 2 2 2 4 2 23 5 Trevor -.3 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 5 1 20 6 Tom 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 1 13 7Tim 3 2 2_ 2. 0 1 1 2 5 1 19 avg. SCORE 3.00 1.86 1.86 2.43 0.43 1.43 1.00 1.86 4.86 1.00 ,;19.71: Notes: This project was formerly known as Mis 11 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. C 1 Project: Toro St. Bicycle Blvd. Description: Create a Bike Blvd. along Toro St, from Leff St to Hwy.: 101. ' To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for Intent: bicyclists that serves the uptown neighborhoods east of the 1 downtown core and serves as an alternative to Santa Rosa St. ' Class: BB School zone: HA ' Pave section: i ' Length (Feet) 3,672 Est. Cost $401,392 Priority Second we . L�Chi F �y . 46 �F4 v CY � 40 ' 1 Kevin 2 2 2 2 01 1 011 2 2 0 13 1 2 Jean 2 2 2 2 0 2 '0 2 2 11 15 3 Ben 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 21 4 Glen 3 . 3 2 3 0 3 1 4 3 1 23 5 Trevor 3 3 2 3 0 2 1 3 3 1 21 __6 Tom 2 1 11 1 0 2 0 21 2 1 12 7Tim 2 21 21 21 01 1 0 _ 21 2 1 14 avg. SCORE 2.29 2.14 1.86 2.29 0.29 2.00t-0,571 2.43 _2.29 0.86 17:00 Notes: Connects with proposed Leff St. Bicycle Blvd. Related to the 1 proposed Casa to Toro St. Bicycle Blvd. and proposed grade separated crossing of Hwy. 101 at Toro and Lemon. Overall, the grade separated crossing of the Casa to Toro Bicycle Blvd. (section "A") is key to this project.The Casa to Toro Bicycle Blvd. (A, B and C) becomes more important if the proposed Broad St. BB is not able to be completed. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 ToroBB Project: Ella/Ruth/George Bicycle Blvd. C Description: The project provides a Bicycle Blvd. from the Jennifer St. bridge to the intersection of Ella &Johnson via George& Ruth streets. Intent: To providea low traffic impact East/West through route for bicyclists that serves the downtown core, downtown neighborhoods and Johnson Ave. neighborhoods. Class: BB School zone: SI Pave section: 2 Length (Feet) 2,547 Est. Cost $28,017 - Priority Second m o 0 �-.AZ kp 1 Kevin 4 2 4 2 0 1 0 4 3 0 20 2 Jean 4 3 4 3 0 2 1 4 3 0 24 3 Ben 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 4 3 2 31 4 Glen _ _ ._ ..4 : _ . 4 .3 .:_. .3; 0, 4 ;3 3 4 2 30 - 5 Trevor 4 4 3 .. 3 0 4 2 3 3 2 28 6 Tom 4 4 2 4 2 4 3 4 3 —2 --32 7 Tim 4 3 2 4 0 1 0 4 3 1 22 avg. SCOR 4.00 3.43 3.00 3.14 0:57 2.86 1.57 3.71. 3.14 1.291,r26.-:71 i" Notes: Relationships to existing Jennifer St. Bridge, existing Johnson Ave. class-II bike lanes and the proposed Flora/Flxlini Bicycle Blvd. Some sections will require traffic calming to reduce existing speeds. (A traffic signal at Johnson is in the city's plans as of 2005.) i i"- MasterProjects 3/5/2007 EI IaGeorgeBB P 1 1 1 1 Project 1 Section: Elia/Ruth/George Bicycle Blvd "A" 1 This section creates a Bike Blvd. along George from the Section exit/entrance of Jennifer St. bridge to Ruth, up Ruth and then to 1 Description: Ella. / Section Provide a connection from the proposed Ella St. Section "B" of 1 Intent: the Bicycle Blvd. to the Jennifer St. bridge. ' Class: BB School Zone: SI 1 Pave Section: 2 1 Length (Meter. 1 Est. Cost c 1 ° 1 �0' q- 0 0) AZ m o O V �• r v /, 1 0 / 0 _ _ See overall Project .Rank o 0 1 _ o / ' Section Relationships to existing Jennifer St. Bridge, existing Johnson 1 Notes: Ave. class II bike lanes, proposed Bicycle Blvd. "B" section (West of Johnson section of Ella St.),, Bicycle Blvd. "C" section (East of 1 Johnson section of Ella St.) and the proposed Flora/Fixli.ni Bicycle. 1 Blvd. Some sections will require traffic calming to reduce 1 existing speeds. (A traffic signal at Johnson is in the city's plans as of 2005.) 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 EIIaGeorgeBB 1 1 Ella/Ruth/George Bicycle Blvd "B" This section creates a Bike Blvd. along Ella, from Ruth to Johnson St. Provide a connection from the proposed George St. Section "A" of the Bicycle Blvd. to the existing Johnson St. Class II and the _ proposed Ella St. (east) section "C" of the Bicycle Blvd. BB SI 2 o� �y 0 IT A. V° tO`D �°i �Lm �a �c tiF v tq� �°'� 40 0 0 See overall Project Rank o 0 0 0 Relationships to existing Jennifer St. Bridge, existing Johnson Ave. class II bike lanes, proposed Bicycle Blvd. "A" section (George St.), Bicycle Blvd. "C" section (East of Johnson section of Ella St.) and the proposed Flora/Fixlini Bicycle Blvd. Some sections will require traffic calming to reduce existing speeds. (A traffic signal at Johnson is in the city's plans as of 2005.) MasterProjects 3/5/2007 EIIaGeorgeBB ' Ella/Ruth/George Bicycle Blvd. "C" 1 This section creates a Bike Blvd. along Ella, from Johnson St. to ' Fixlini.. 1 Provide a connection from the proposed Ella St. (west) section 1 "C" Bicycle Blvd., along with the existing Johnson St. Class II to ' the proposed Flora/Fixlini St. Bicycle.Blvd. BB ' SI 1 2 w1° CI m vF o o� Q co° o, qjAlp o - See-_overa.11 Project Rank .0 0 o Relationships to existing Jennifer St. Bridge, existing Johnson Ave. class II bike lanes, proposed Bicycle Blvd. "A" section (George St.), Bicycle Blvd. "B" section (East of Johnson section of Ella St.) and the proposed Flora/Fixlini Bicycle Blvd. Some ' sections will require traffic calming to reduce existing speeds. (A ' traffic signal at Johnson is in the city's plans as of 2005.) 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 EIIaGeorgeBB 1 C Orcutt Area Bikeways (Mis 25) Description: Orcutt Area Bikeways. Install Class I and.II bike ways in the Orcutt Area, consistent with its adopted specific plan, when subdivisions are processed. In accordance with BAC declaration, "New Construction Intent", Intent: under Bikeways; general policies, all new residential and commercial construction developments/subdivisions shall include bikeways to encourage their use as a main mode of transportation. Class: I and II C School zone: SI Pave - section: 2 Length (Meters) NA Est. Cost NA - Priority NA 0 qj - � 4zc � ,`Q 4F tiF v �0 �°' AO 1 Kevin -------- - 2 Jean 3 Ben Project is not ranked.since it is a construction/development driven 4 Glen project. This applies to the internal bicycle facilities, not the 5 Trevor regional facilities (i.e.: Railroad Trail) - 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCOR4 0.0010.0010.001 Q.001 0.0010.0010.0010.001 0.00 0.00 0:00 C Notes: This project was formerly known as.Mis.25 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated with this project are noted as 100% developer. C Mis25 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Project: Orcutt Widening (Mis-4) Description: Widen grade crossing to include additional travel lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks, on both sides of Orcutt Road between Laurel Lane and McMillan Avenue. The primary intent of this project is widening Orcutt Road from Laurel lane to McMillan and installing Class II bike lanes on both Intent• sides. These will connect with the existing class two lanes at these points. Related to this project and of concern also are, the crossing of Orcutt Road by the RR Safety trail just east of the railroad tracks and realignment of Bullock lane, Signage for both bicycles and motor vehicles should be clear for both the Class II lane on Orcutt 1 and necessary LHT to and from the RR Safety trail. Class: II School zone: HA SI Pave section: 2 3 Length (Feet) 1326 under Est. Cost construction 1 Priority First 110- 1U V Oo �a Via' aim iva �r tiF v Ricci Q. 0. 1 - - 1 Kevin ._ 5 5 . 41 5 01 01 0 51 3 0 27 2 Jean 5 5 41 5 0 1 1 5 3 1 30 3 Ben 5 _5 41 5 1 3 2 5 3 2 35 4 Glen 4 5 4 4 . _0 5 3 5 3 3 36 5 Trevor 5 5 4 5 0 5 2 5 3 3 37 6 Tom 3 5 3 4 0 3 0 3 3 3 27 7 Tim 5 5 4 51 0 1 0 5 _ 3 4 32 avg. SCO 4.57 5.00 3.86 4.7110.1412.571 1.14 4:73.00 2.29 .32.00 ' Notes: This project was formerly known as Mis 4 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. City of SLO Bicycle Count ' Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Orcutt and Broad use as fifteenth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 53. 1 1 1 ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis4 1 Project: Railroad Information Kiosk (OSP-1) Description: Transportation information kiosk in Railroad Square. Intent: Replace existing bulletin board at the Amtrak station with a facility that can accommodate information for all transportation modes. Class: other School zone: HA Pave section: 2 - Length _ (Feet) NA Est. Cost $51000 Priority Third c L C� C03 �y C J w IZ Q0 a01 � �O 1 Kevin 1 0 2 0 3 2 0 2 0 3 13 2 Jean 2 0 2 01 31 2 11 1 1 3 15 3 Ben 11 0 2 01 3 1 21 0 1 0 10 _ 4 Glen 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 3 10 5 Trevor 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 2 9 6Tom "08 -• 0 '1 0 " 3 2 2 3 0 3 15 7Tim 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 1 3 13 avg. SCOR .00 1.57 0.00 3.00 1.43 1.43 1.00 0.43 2.43 12.14 Notes: This project was formerly known as OBP 1 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated with this project are noted as 100% city. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 OBP1 1 t Project: Acacia Creek Class I Trail System Main project (ACT) 1 Description: 1 Creates a series of Class I trails connecting from the southern end of ' Rockview at Broad Street to Buckley Road. Intent: The intent is to create an off roadway route, connecting existing S. ' Broad St. neighborhoods north of Acacia creek with the Sports Field, proposed Prado, Tank Farm and Buckley Road Bikeways. ' Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 3 ' Length (Feet) 11,418 1 ' Est. Cost $31363,120 ' Priority Second z c c° o ' v w°'y G°o, F �" 'Q v F F U° 1 Kevin 3 3 .. 51 21 0 2 0 31 1 2 21 2 Jean 4 3 5 2 0 3 0 41 1 2 24 ' 3 Ben 4 4 5 2 0 5 1 41 1 2 28 4 Glen 5 5 4 4 0 5 1 5 1. 3 33 ' 5 Trevor4 4 4 3 . 0 5 1 4 1 3 29 6Tom 3 3 4 2 0 3 0 3 1 2 21 7 Tim 4 4 5 2 0 2 0 4 1 2 24 avg. 5C0 _ 3.86 3.71 4.57 2,43 0.00 3.57 0.43 3.86 1.00 2.29 =25:71 1 Notes: The overall project consists of five component pieces.The previous Bicycle Transportation Plan, dated May 7th 2002, listed these as ' individual projects "Act 1 - 5". The trail system bridges across both ' the Margarita Area and Airport Area Specific Plan areas. Also, has a relationship to the Tank Farm Road area class I's. Cost estimates ' reflect a 20% increase from the Bike Plan dated May 7th, 2002. 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjecks 3/5%2007 Ac-aCrkMain 1 Project Section: Aeti Rockview to south end of sports field complex. Passes along west Section side of creek, under the extension of Prado Road and be integral Description: to the Sports Field Complex. Section Intent: see main project Class: i School Zone: HA Pave Section, 3 r _ Length (Peet) 3,035 Est. Cost $710,400 Priority NA 0) cm vy o�� m� vim '�` ��a �� Q .ti" ,co oim �� •. . �� ��' h0 0 0 0 See_6YeraII. ,Project Rank 0 0 0 0 Section Alignment established by SF Master Plan. Partly improved by Notes: Sports Field project. Estimated cost reflect_ a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $149,184 (21%), Developer - $412,032 (58%), Grant - $148,184(21%). Grant fund source = TE or Rec (Transportation Enhancement or Recreation). Rockview PI. comer development pays small share. Located in the Margarita area. i� MasterProjects 3/5/2007 AcaCrkMain Project Section: Act2 West side of creek from sports field complex to Tank Farm Rd. Section shifting west to Intersect with Santa Fe Road at its proposed Description: intersection with Tank Farm. Section Intent: see main project Class: I School Zone: HA Pave Section, 3 Length (Feet) 11772 1 Est: Cost $294,720 Priority NA o� 10 0 0 See overall Project Rank o 0 o ' Section Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bicycle Notes: Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer - 100%. Unocal may install when property develops. Project location crosses both the Margarita Area and Airport Area Specific Plan locations. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 AcaCrkMain 1 f Project Section: Act3 Section Grade separated crossing at SR227 between existing trail and - Description: Rockview. Section Intent: see main project Class: I School Zone: HA _ t Pave Section, 3 Length (Feet) 279 Est. Cost $420,000 Priority NA oc ` F `gyms �m a \�F h o° ° :�Q .mac .oo, 0 0 0 See .overa1 I: Project.- Rank _o 0 0 0 Section Will require feasibilityanalysis and approval from Caltrans, Fish - Notes: and Game and Corps of Engineers. Estimated length listed is from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. Location is _ next to the Eastern border of the Margarita Specific Plan. Estimated cost reflects a 20% increase from the Bike Plan dated May 7, 2002. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 AcaCrkMain l Project Section: Act4 Section From Tank Farm Road south parallel to Santa Fe to south.side of Description: creek. Section Intent: see main project Class: I School Zone: HA Pave Section, 3 Length (Peet) 591 Est. Cost $138,000 Priority NA Or SCO/ ppm O Oy C 0 44V 110 0 0 See overall Project Rank o 0 o Section Sante Fe Road extension would include separated bikeway Notes: adjoining new creek bridge. The Tank Farm/Santa Fe intersection would be signalized. Estimated cost reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer - 100%. Part of AAS P funded flood control project and area impact fees. 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 AcaCrkMain Act 5 J Path located on east side of creek corridor from Sante Fe until it parallels the southern boundary of Union Oil Property; then it will Section bridge the creek (40m clear span structure) and cross to the west Description: side and extend to Esperanza, then south to Buckley Road. Section Intent: see main project Class: I School Zone: HA Pave Section; 3 Length (Peet) 5,741 Est. Cost $1,800,000 Priority NA o 10 0 0 0 See overall Project Rank o - 0 0 0 Section Estimated cost reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Notes: Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer - 100%. Part of AASP funded flood control project and area impact fees. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 AcaCrkMain - r 1 1 1 Project 1 Section: BR62 1 1 Section 1 Description: Class II bike lane on both sides of Buckley from Vachell to Broad 1 1 1 Section Intent: To provide space for bicyclists and motorists to share the lane. 1 Class: II 1 School Zone: LR 1 Pave Section: 3 5 1 Length (Peet) 14,105 1 Est. Cost $1,200,000 I �C toF �m aim �D� �c YFQ y6 40 1 0 _ 0 See overall Project Rank o 0 --- - - - 0 0 Section Notes: Includes Class II bike lanes on both sides of Buckley Road extension;-Will require shoulder widening across agricultural parcels and bridges and culverts extended. Estimated costs reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility-is: County = 20%, Grant = 80% (TE). Project is within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Relationships exist with proposed BRB1 project, Buckley Class I projects, Tank ' Farm Creek Bike path, the Acacia Creek Trail System and the East Fork of San Luis Creek Class I project. Although this project section only deals with Buckley Road from Broad to Vachell, if Buckley Road ' is extended to S. Higuera, class II lanes would be installed when it is built as part of the overall Buckley Class II project and new ' construction policy in this plan. 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyCL2s 1 Project Section: BR83 Section Class II bike lane on both sides of Buckley from Vachell to S. Description: Higuera Section Intent: To provide space for bicyclists and motorists to share the lane. Class: II School Zone:• LR Pave Section: 3 5 Length (Feet) See SR132 Est. Cost See BR82 • oc 0 0 -,0 AIF ` m r o, V° tr`D �o �� tca �cc hFv �ic,� 40 0 0 See overall Project Rank 0 0 0 0 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyCl2s fil r 1 / 1 1 Project:. Broad/Sacramento Link 1 Create a Class I path from the proposed easter terminus of Prado Description: at Broad street to the existing Class I path just north of Capitolio 1 Street / 1 Intent: To provide a direct link for cyclists traveling East/West on Prado 1 to the proposed Class II path on Sacramento, allowing them to bypass the higher motorists use (and higher speeds) on Broad St. 1 1 Class: I School zone: HA 1 Pave section: 3 1 Length (Feet) 1,455 1 Est. Cost $87;300 Priority •Second m 0 c 1. qJ C J Joti 1100 0 \y N1 0 X02 4�V `m- �QF y D0 �0� �Q c F� c 0) p 1 Kevin 21 3 41 3 01 11 0 51 4 21 24 1 2 Jean 3 34 -3 0 4 0 5 4 2 28 1 3 Ben 3 3 5 3 1 5 4 4 3 2 33 4 Glen 4 4 3 4 0 4. 3 4 2 2 _ 30 5 Trevor 3 2 4 5 0 4 2 5 4 2 . 31 1 6 Tom 3 2 3 3 0 3 0 5 3 3 25 1 7 Tim' 3 3 3 _ 4 1 1 __0 4 3 3 25 1 avg. SCOR 3-0012.8613.71, 3.57 0.29 3.14 1.29 4.57 3.29 129 28.00 1 1 Notes: / I 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BroadSactoCLI 1 1 Project: Buckley Road Class II Bike Lane System Description: Class II lanes providing bicycle facility connectivity between Broad and S. Higuera St. along with connecting to the proposed Acacia Creek bikeway and the Tank Farm Creek path. Intent: Connect existing and future bicycle facilities along Buckley Rd. to preserve and enhance this route as a popular cycling destination as it continues to see increases in traffic and traffic speed. Class: II School lone: LR Pave section: 3 5 Length (Feet) 16,864 Est. Cost $1,212,000 - Priority Third m oC v Q °C �3cy �y C J ` i 4111 F0 4? v mF o�F a 4° �g �J`� co FQ Bch till: acs O a: /. 4 4 ti v 0 � - 1 Kevin 2 21 31 2 0 01 0 21 0 2 13 2 Jean 1 21 41 2 0 11 0 21 0 2 14 3 Ben 3 21 21 3 1 2 1 3 1 1 19 4 Glen 2 2 3 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 14 - 5 Trevor 2 .. 21 31 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 15 6Tom 1 _ 21 31 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 15 7 Tiro 2----3 3- 2 0 1 0 2 0 2 15 avg. SCO 1.86 " 2.14 3.00 2.14 0.14 1.29 .0.14 2.29 0:14 1.8615.00 Notes: Projects are within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Relationships exist with proposed Buckley Class,I projects, Tank Farm Creek Bike path, Acacia Creek Trail System and the East Fork of San Luis Creek Class I project. If Buckley Road is extended to S. Higuera, class II.lanes.would be installed when it is built as per new -. construction policy in this plan. i MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyCL2s 1 Project: Margarita Area Bikeways (Mis 26) Margarita Area Bikeways. Install Class I and II bikeways in the Description: Margarita Area, consistent with its adopted specificplan, when subdivisions are processed. In accordance with BAC declaration, "New Construction Intent", under Bikeways; general policies, all new residential and Intent: commercial construction developments/subdivisions shall include bikeways to encourage their use as a main mode of transportation. Class: I and II School zone: HA ' Pave section: 3 Length (Meters) NA Est. Cost NA Priority NA c m o c :v 4? o F tea`° ,•` .10 Zr �¢,� y o° •0 1 =�� C.G°� �m Qr dao �� tiF4 v �� ��o, A0 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben Project is not ranked since it is'a construction/development-driven 4 Glen project. This applies to the internal bicycle facilities, not the 5 Trevor regional facilities (ie: Prado Road) 6 Tom 7 Tim _ ' avg. SCO4 0.0016.0610.001 O-OPI QMikQ01-0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Notes: This project was formerly known as Mis 26 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated ' with this project are noted as 100% developer. 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis26 1 r Project: Orcutt Rd Class I Connection Provide a Class I on the South Side of Orcutt from the Railroad - Description: Safety Trail to the proposed Sacramento Drive Class II at Duncan Road Intent: Provide connectivity with existing RR Safety trail via Class I to proposed Sacramento Class H. r Class: I Schoolzone: SI Pave section: 3 Length (Feet) 718 Est. Cost $43,080 Priority First 0 47 C11 AF 1 Kevin 41 31 4 2 01 3 31 41 3 OF-26 2 Jean 41 31 5 3 0: 4 31 41 3 2 31 3 Ben 41 4 S . 4 2 _ 5 3 41 3 4 38 4 Glen 4 4 3: . 3 0 4 3 4- 2 3 30 5 Trevor 4 4 5 4 0 5 3 4 3 4 36 6 Tom 4 5 5 3 0 4 _ 2 5 3 4 35 7Tim 4 4 4 3 0 4 3 5 3 4 34 avg. SCO 4.00 3.86 47.4-373-1-4. 0.29 4.14 2.86 4.29 2.86 3.00 32.86 Notes: Project is intended to be done by the developer to encourage residents of the new housing on "four creeks re-zoning" area to use bicycle facilities. r MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Orcut r r r r Project: Prado East extension to Broad r Description: . Class I and II bike lanes on both sides, from the east end of Prado continuing to Broad street. r intent: Provide cross-town connectivity from the existing eastern r terminus of Prado Road to Broad Street. r Class: I and,n r . School zone: HA r Pave section: 3 r Length (Feet) 4,338 r Est. Cost $2681956 r r Priority . First r O , �`O ��h ��� 2C �y a y r =m G0 �� moi'° �a �c �� v �� �mQ' �O r 1 Kevin 4 31 51 3 _ 01 1 01 51 4 2F-27 2.Jean 5 3 5 3 0 2 0 51 4 3 30 3 Ben 5 5 4 4 3 5 . 4 5 4 3 42 4 Glen 5 4 3 3 0 4 4 5 3 3 34 r 5 Trevor 4 _4 ...__4 4 _.1 __i3 2 5 4 3 34 r 6 Tom 5 5 5 3 0 4 0 5 4 3 34 r 7 Tim 4 4 -4 _ _-4 1 ` 1 `0 5 `4 3 30 avg. SCOR 4.57 4.00 4.29 3.43 0.71 2.86 1.43 5.00 3.86 2.86 33.00 r _ r r Notes: It is anticipated that this will be largely constructed by the r developers. r - r r r r r r r 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 PradoToBroad 1 r L Project: South Hills / Margarita connection (Mis 24) L Description: Class I (unpaved) connection over South Hills from Exposition _ Drive to Margarita SP area. Intent: Provide a connection to the Margarita Area bikeways using surface _ materials consistent with Margarita Area Specific Plan. i Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 3 Length (Feet) 2,067 Est. Cost / Priority Second to 2F c,°F aim �`m eta° 41� ,F� .� �i� Al 1 Kevin 11 1 51 1 01 3 01 51 1 0 17 2 Jean 2 2 5 2 0 3 0 5' 2 1 22 3 Ben 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 5 5 3 : _ 38 `- 4 Glen 3 _ __3 --_S_ _. _ 2 _._._ 1 ___ 3 _ _ 3 4 3 3 -_ . :30 5 Trevor 4 5 5 5 0 4 0 5 5 3 36 6Tom 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 3 1 2 15 7Tim 4 2 5 4 0 3 0 4 5 4 31 avg. SCOR 2-6-7112.57 5.00 2.7110.141-15710.4314.4313.1411 2.29 27.00 Notes: This project was formerly known as Mis 24 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated With this project are noted as 70% City, 30% "TE (Transportation Enhancement) grant. - MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis24 C Project: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail (BJT) Description: Class I bicycle facilities connecting both: The Laguna Lake Park area and the west end of Marsh St., to the southern City Limit at South Higuera St. near the Octagon Barn area. Intent: The intent of this project is to join the proposed SLO county Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail with the downtown core and the Laguna Lake area businesses and neighborhoods. Class: I School zone: HA SM BP Pave section: 4 5 6 Length (Feet) 23504 Note: This sheet is just a copy of the main Bob Jones project page to facilitate sorts. Please see Est Cost $10,432,724 the specific BJonesProjects.xls file for the complete listing of project components. Priority Second cmo lizp Q C0� C� O q- C �20J �\ 0 �� 2m �o C6 AO . 1 Kevin 3 31 5 21 01 31 1 4 21 5 28 2 Jean 3 3 5 21 0 4 1 4 2 5 29 ' 3 Ben 3 3 5 2 1 4 2 3 2 3 28 4 Glen -3 4 4 2 :0 5 1 :4 1 5 29 5 Trevor 3. _ 3 4 21 0 5 1 4 2 5 29 6 Tom 2 3 5 2 0 3 01 41 2 51 26 7 Tim 3 3 5 1 0 4 11 41 21 51 28 avg. SCOR_ 2.86 3.14 4.71 1.86 0.14 4.00 -1-001 3.861 1.8614.711-27-11 Notes: The overall project consists of thirteen component pieces. The previous Bicycle Transportation Plan, dated May 7th 2002, listed these as individual projects "BIT 1 - 13". The viewpoint taken now is that it is one large project with integral pieces. Each project piece has been preserved in this plan as it was written in the May 7th, 2002 plan so that they can be treated (funded and implemented) individually. But they have not been individually ranked. Only the overall project, listed here, has been ranked. 1 ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BJmain J Project: "1133T1" Description: West side of creek from Prado to LOVR. (Includes a 95ft bridge over Prefumo Creek arm at south end of Wastewater Treatment Plant.) Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 5 Length Feet) 5,988 Est. Cost $2,546,040 Priority NA , c° oc 67 C� Ca 3 . 2y vm Op AO 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank - 5 Trevor 6 Tom. 7 Tim avg. SCORE r-- Notes: The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $1,909;530(75%), Grant, $636,510 (25%). Grant fund source =TE (Transportation Enhancement). Assume that Prado-Higuera project will dedicate land. r' BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJT1 Project: "BJT2" Description: Separated Multi Use Paths on both sides of US 101/LOVR bridge/interchange. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: SM HA Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 19,645 ' Est. Cost $600,000 1 Priority NA m o c 4° ca s' �y w� 2m �oF 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 54 Glen Trevor See overall Project Rank 6 Tom 7 Tim - avg. SCORE :.. _ - —.. .. .. .- Notes: The cost breakdown responsibility is: City,.$198,000 (33%), 1 Grant, $402,000 (66%). Grant fund.source = STIR (State. Transportation Improvement Program). Incorporate into Caltrans Project Study Report process and build as part of new bridge. Notes in the Bob Jones Trail plan indicate that this is the preferred option for crossing US101. The other option is a grade-separated crossing near the existing terminus of Calle Joaquin. 1 1 1 BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 Bm 4 4 c 4 Project: "B7T3" 4 Description: 148 feet parallel bridge over SLO Creek @ Prado Rd on north side of existing bridge. Intent: see main project Class: I , School zone: HA _ Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 148 Est. Cost $435,840 Priority NA o� 3 cl JAZI v, F io �� �m o gF y o°OD roc �Q Or 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor - - 6 Tom - 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: South side Class I path included in expansion of road bridge. The --cost-breakdown responsibility is: City, 100%: Build as part-of = replacement of bridge. WonesProjects 3/5/2007 BIT3 r Project: "B.IT4" Description: West side of creek from Elks to Prado Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 2,789 ' Est. Cost $1,763,520 Priority NA 1 � 1 Z Cl) h wm zcr 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim 1 avg. SCORE . Notes: There may be a variety of optional alignments available to address interim conditions. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $1,234,464 (70%), Grant, $529,056 (30%): Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Incorporate as part of property redevelopment (Drive In Theater) and/or flood project. (Cost estimates include interim project costs). 1 1 1 ' BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJT4 1 • 1,— I` Project: "BJTS" East side of creek Madonna Road to Elks Lane. Includes a 66ft bridge Description: over South Street Creek, just south of Caltrans property. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA _ Pave section: 5 6 Length (Feet) 21051 Est. Cost $1,186,840 Priority NA c � Zr y Ice 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben - 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor -6 Tom - :7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: The cost breakdown responsibility'is: City, $356,052 (30%), Developer-- $474,736 (40%).Grant - $356,052 (30%),. Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Construct as part of _ redevelopment of Caltrans site. BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJTS P 1 Project: 12133T6 ' Description: East side of creek from Marsh.St. to Bianchi Lane. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 4 Length ' (Feet) 820 1 Est. Cost $348,244 Priority NA c O ° q- Ca J1 �� 0 v F 0 F� VJ �O 17 2D V° AO 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim ' avg. SCORE Notes: Will require easements and possibly clearance of some older industrial structures to complete this segment. The cost breakdown responsibility is:-City; 100%. Assumes land-dedication as part of property redevelopment. 1 1 BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 B]T6 Project: "6.7T7" Description: west side of creek from Bianchi Lane to South St. Includes a 197ft ' bridge over the creek at south end of segment to connect with west end of South Street, using only City property. _ Intent: see main project - Class: I = School zone: HA Pave section: 4 Length (Feet) 10,233 = Est. Cost $970,800 Priority NA 4z o c Q C� 4m O �y O � Zr- w 0y m y FF �110� 00 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim - avg. SCORE Notes: The cost breakdown responsibility is: City- .$485,400 (50%), Grant -'$485,400 (50%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Project involves significant bridge structure. L BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BM / P 1 Project: "l"T8" Description: East side of creek from south end of Brook to Madonna. 1 Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave. section: 4 5 ' Length (Feet) 853 1 Est. Cost $312,000 Priority NA c ' m `moo 40 Z, v 2m V° �m �¢, ,�L° �a �c yic v �� � AO 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7. Tim avg. SCORE 10 _Notes: _ . _ Assumes.that Caltrans.maintenance yard has been purchased as a public park and accommodates BJT. The cost breakdown - responsibility is: City,-.1 00% Develop as part-of entry park with recreation funds. 1 1 - ' BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 Bn8 Project: "I""" Description: Cross under Madonna Road on east side of creek. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 4 5 Length (Feet) 197 Est. Cost $180,000 Priority NA m c moo, �� 3 -y 0 0 V AO 1 Kevin 2 lean - 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE _ Notes: _Will likely require reconfiguration of bank under bridge to create a clear passage area. Will require Caltrans approval. Combine with Caltrans project to widen bridge to install sidewalks. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, 100%. BlonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJT9 r Project: "13JIT10" Eastside of Prefumo Creek and drainage swale from Calle Joaquin to 1 Description: Madonna Road. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: SM Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 51246 ' Est. Cost $1,110,720 Priority NA 4` r o lizr 4C qj to C qj 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Various configurations can be considered at south end depending on development pattern of McBride Property. The cost breakdown 1 responsibility is: Developer, 100%.. Construct as part of Marketplace/McBride projects. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJT10 1 Project: "133T11" Description: East side of SLO Creek from LOVR to Octagonal Barn Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 5 r Length (Feet) 2,706 Est. Cost $558,000 Priority NA c c`d ° Z -CY) CqY m°1 y kO _ 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben - 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor % 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: Segment Is under County jurisdiction and would need to be integrated with agricultural operations. The cost breakdown responsibility is: 100% Grant: Grant-fund source= TE- (Transportation Ehhancerrient).-Joint City/County grant request. BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJT11 P 1 Project: "67T12H Description: Parallel bridge over creek at Elks Lane. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: HA Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 115 Est Cost $420,720 Priority NA c ' c o y zAV `O Jr �Ca �� 2y ,-0) qJ y AO 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $210,360 (50%), Grant - $210,360 (50%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement). Construct when Drive In property redevelops. 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 B]onesProjects 3/5/2007 BIT12 1 1 Project: "1133T13" Grade Separated Crossing for Madonna Road to connect with Laguna Description: Lake Park. Intent: see main project Class: I School zone: SM - Pave Eliminate GSX section: 5 (Recommend deleting from plan but Length (Feet) 153 keep 133 trail connections -- 9/06 Est. cost BAC meeting) Priority NA _ m - c w c0) i;:5 4C cod mac'° c°� �y o . I ° oma � 2° V �m <� 4Yk,� tiF tic, Qr AO 1 Kevin 2 Jean 3 Ben 4 Glen See overall Project Rank 5 Trevor _ 6 Tom 7 Tim avg. SCORE Notes: The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $939,120 (50%), Developer - $375,648 (20%), Grant - $563,472 (30%). Grant fund source = TE (Transportation Enhancement) and Recreation. Development project fronting Madonna Road contributes to project. BJonesProjects 3/5/2007 BJT13 Project: Broad St. Bike Blvd. crossing Hwy. 101 Description: Create a Bike Blvd. along Broad, from Monterey St. to Ramona. Intent• To provide the primary low traffic impact north/south through route for bicyclists and pedestrians serving the downtown core, for neighborhoods north of downtown core. Class: BB School zone: HA BP Pave section: 4 9 Length (Feet) .51201 1 Est. Cost $557,211 Priority Second C O =mF QoF �a ��m baa �� ��4 v `ice tea,°' �O 1 Kevin 5 31 4 4 1 4 0 4 51 1 31 2 Jean 5 3 4 4 3 4 1 5 5 2 36 3 Ben 5 3 4 4 2 4 1 5 5 3 36 4 Glen 5 4 2 4 0 4 _ 1. 5 5 2 _ _- --32 5 Trevor ___ __ 5 3 2 _4 0 4 1 5 5 2 31 6Tom2 1 1 1 0 2 0 3 3 1 14 7 Tim 5 3 4 3 1 4 0 4 .4 .-- -21- 30 avg. SCORE 4.5.7 2.86 3.00 3.43. 1.00 3.71 1 A C-71 4.43 4.57 1'.86 '3070U ' Notes: Will require traffic calming to reduce.speeds. Has a relationship with Broad Street Bicycle Blvd. 101 GSX (known as Mis14 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002): Grad e.separated crossing of Hwy. 101 connecting north and south segments of Broad street and with Cerro San Luis Class I. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Santa Rosa and Mill use as twelfth highest out.of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 65 (data included here as this project may impact use at the mentioned intersection). 1 ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BroadBB 1 Project -_ Section: Broad St. Bike.Blvd. 101 GSX (Mis 14) Section Grade separated crossing of Hwy. 101 connecting north and Description: south segments of Broad street. Section Provide a lower traffic volume route north/south from Foothill Intent: Blvd. by-passing Downtown core congestion. i - Class: 1 School Zone: BP Pave Section: 4 7 Length (Feet) Est. Cost oc ' JZ, co �� ca F �y ca gym 0- Q �`' °` ° m o, 0 0 0 _See overall project-rank o - o L - - T I I _ MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BroadBB i f ' Hwy 101 Class I-North Broad to Madonna Rd ' Description: Create a class I bikeway on the west side of 101 from the N. Broad St./101 area to Madonna Rd. ' Create a Ilnk between N. Broad St. and Madonna Rd. which doesn't require using downtown or the busy Madonna. Intent: Rd./Higuera/South st. intersections. Link will provide safer access to Madonna Rd. shopping and Laguna Middle school for N. Broad/N. Chorro and Foothill neighborhood commuters as well as recreational users. . ' Class: 11 School zone: SP HA 1 Pave section: 4 6 7 ' Length (Feet) 7,550 ' Est. Cost $4531000 Priority First � O O 2y C O ZrA`� �Oy `m01 � O l0 'C VO �O h O /F �c Q megj �O 1 Kevin 5 51 51 3 01 51 01 4 4 2R- 3 ' 2 Jean 5 4 5 3 0 4 0 5 4 4 ' 3 Ben 5 5 5 3 1 5 1 5 3 34 Glen 55 3 3 0 4 1 5 3 3 5 Trevor 4 4 5 4 0 50 . 5 4 2 33 6 Tom 3 3 5 2 0 5 0 5 3 2 28 7 Tim 5 5 5 _ 5 - 0 5 0 5 - 3 2 35 avg. SCORE4.57 .4.43 4.71 3.29 0.14 4.71 0.29 4.86 3.43 2.57 33.00 1 Notes: The current map shows.the connection being made at the N.Broad/101 intersection. This is only a suggestion. Hill St. may ' me more desirable. Property ownership, CalTrans control/approval and terrain are all issues which may impact the final route of the 1 path. Has a relationship with Mis14; Grade separated crossing of ' Hwy. 101 connecting North and South segments of Broad street, Mis19; Install bike lanes on both sides of Marsh from Fernandez Lane and the Broad St: Bike Blvd. project. 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CSLcI1 1 1 Project: Hwy 101/Marsh Street Undercrossing - MIS 19 Install bike.lanes on both sides of Marsh from Fernandez.Lane, under interchange to Marsh and including bicycle channelization for eastbound on Marsh at Higuera. May require modifications to ramp shoulders and landscaping. Project would provide _ connection to Cerro San Luis trailhead. Will likely require Caltrans Description: approval. - Provide safe access to/from city Open Space and proposed Cerro Intent: San Luis Class I path. Current situation is dangerous for all. Class: 13 School zone: HA Pave = section: 4 Length (Feet) 1069 Est. Cost $360,000 Priority Second m C - c Q c°j cm o �h c - O 1 0 �Q V°F t� � ��m �aJ 45� v mac, 1 Kevin - 0 31 41 3 1 11 0 ' i 0 01 13 glean 0 4 4 - 3 -1- -- -3 .---0 -- 2 - - 0 ' 0 17 3 Ben 0 2 2 2 4 4 1 2 ' 0 .. 0 17 4 Glen 1 4 4 3 1 3 2 2 0 2 22 5 Trevor 0 3 4 3 1 3 1 _. 2 0 . 1 18 6Tom 0 4 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 13 7Tim D 4 5 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 15 avg. SCOR 0.14 3.43 4.0012.711 1.2912.4310.5711.4310.0-0 0.43 16.43 MasterProjects Mis19 14 r 1 1 1 Notes: Channelization for eastbound on Marsh could be completed during 1 city repavement cycle. Relationship to Cerro San Luis Class I path from N. Broad st. area along West side of 101 to Madonna Road. 1 Rankings will probably change if/when the Cerro San Luis Class I 1 path is installed. The project was formerly known as Mis 19 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated with this project are noted as 25% City, 25% (developer) "Minor A/W and 50% "TE" grant. Also noted, 1 "Caltrans to improve bike link to Fernandez Lane across their right of way." Cost estimate reflects a 20% increase from the 2002 bike 1 Dian. / / 1 1 1 / / / 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects Mis19 14 1 1 1 I I Project: King / Beach Streets Bike Blvd. The overall project creates a Bicycle Blvd. from Meadow Park to Description: Marsh Street. _ To provide a low traffic impact north/south through route for _ bicyclists that serves the downtown core for neighborhoods south Intent: of the downtown core and west of Broad St. Class: BB School zone: HA Pave section: 4 Length (Feet) 21863 Est. Cost $231,493 Priority Second c° O k: F� 4? C� V \ J`� uJ Q `ti 0 .�0 1 Kevin 2 2 2 11 01 11 0 2 3 01 13 2 Jean 2 2 2 11 01 1 0 2 2 0 12 3 Ben 2 3 2 21 0 2 1 -1 4 1 18 4 Glen 3 4 2 2 '.0 - " 3 3 3 4 1 25 5 Trevor 3 3 2 2 0 3 1 2 4 1 21 6 Tom 1 1 1 .1 0 1 0 1 11 0 7 7Tim 3 2 3 2 0 1 01 31 4 0 18 avg. SCOR 2.29 2.43 2.00 1.57 0.00 1.71 .141 0.431-,165791 Notes: Connects with proposed Leff St. Bicycle Blvd. A bicycle/pedestrian signal or other device to facilitate crossing of South will be required on South St. Note: One pedestrian death in 2,005 at King/South intersection. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 KingBeachBB Project Section: King / Beach Streets Bike Blvd. "A" Section This section, "A", creates a Bike Blvd. along King, from South to Description: High St. To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves the downtown core for neighborhoods Section Intent: South of the downtown core and West of Broad St. 11 Class: BB 11 School Zone: HA Pave Section: 4 Length (Feet) Est. Cost oc �y m� 2 q m m C C 01 45� ti� � �` �2 �0 0 0 See overall Project Rank o o 0 Section Notes: Connects with proposed King / Beach "B" and proposed Leff St. Bicycle Blvd. A bicycle/pedestrian signal or other device to P facilitate crossing of South will be required on South St. Note: One pedestrian death in 2005 at King/South intersection. 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 KingBeachBB 1 King / Beach Streets Bike Blvd. "B" This section, "B", creates a Bike Blvd. along Beach, from Nigh St. to Marsh St. To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves the downtown core, for the neighborhoods west of Broad and South of the downtown core. BB HA 4 o� co' p C p0 •`p Q �¢o' 1O 0 0 0 See overall Project Rank_ _ . o 0 o 0 May require stop sign on High St. at the King/Beach intersection. Connects with proposed King / Beach "A" which also has a relationship to the proposed Leff St. Bicycle Blvd. I - MasterProjects 3/5/2007 KingBeachBB ' Project: South St. Channelization at Broad (Mis7) Description: Install channelization on South @ Broad (227) in both East and ' West bound directions. Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts with vehicles. ' Class: II 1 School zone: HA ' Pave ' section: 4 9 ' Length (Feet) 33 Est. Cost minimal Priority Second m o �Cb cm ° m mF� ia�u� F� .�ch � �,� p 2 v Qr �' , v � ' 1 Kevin 5 11 3 5 21 01 01 4 3 01 23 2 Jean 5 31 3 5 1 31 21 4 4 41 34 1 3 Ben 5 31 3 5 3 21 1 3 3 2 30 4 Glen 4 41 3 3 1 3 _ '2 2 3 2 27 ' 5 Trevor 4 41 3 5 '2 _ 2 2 3 3 3 31 6Tom - _- 3 2 - -2 - 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 14 7 Tim 5 1. 3 4 1 0 1 3 3 3 24 ' avg. SCORE4.43 2.57 2.86 4.14 1.43 1.43 1.1413.00 3.00 2.14 26.14 Notes: Note there is a relation to the-South Broad Street Corridor Plan. This project was formerly known as Mis 7 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. City of SLO Bicycle Count 1 Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show this intersection's use as eleventh highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 72. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer = 100%. Notes from 1 that plan state, "Construct as part of Broad Street Plaza project". 1 Length and costs pertains to each channel (N,S,E,W) direction to be installed. 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis7 1 Project: South/Higuera/Madonna Channelization (Mis 8) Description: Install bike channelization through intersections for South Street and S. Higuera, Madonna and S. Higuera. This should incorporate all directions. Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts with vehicles. Class: II School zone: HA Pave section: 4 9 Length (Feet) 33 Est. Cost $i®01000 Priority First � C - C� 0 J ��O ei Zr� 2C p V L l F C 2m (5 &m �� km tta qtr tiF v �� QKO 1 Kevin 5 41 51 4 21 01 01 4 2 01 26 2 Jean 5 41 51 5 2 2 1 4 2 4 34 3 Ben 5 5 41 5 4 3 2 . 3 2 3 36 4 Glen 4 5 3 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 29 5 Trevor 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 '36 6 Tom 4 3 2 4 0 2 1 3 3 0 22 7 Tim 5 5 4 5 3 2 1 4 3 4 36 avg. SCOR 4.71 4.43 3.86 4.43 2.43 2.14 1.43 3.291-2.291 2.29 31.29 Notes: The current layout of this multi-intersection presents three distinct problem areas for bicycles. 1) South bound on S. Higuera street forces bicyclists into a double wide RHT. 2) North bound on S. Higuera needs additional right of way as Class II bike lane is dropped forcing bicyclist into vehicle lane. 3) North bound on Madonna difficult transition to LHT from bike lane. This project was formerly known as Mis 8 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 8, 2002. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct.24, 2004 show this intersection's use as tenth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 75. City Bicycle Collision data for 2004 shows the intersection,of Higuera Street at South Boulevard as second highest with four collisions. The cost i breakdown responsibility is: City = 100%. Notes from that plan state, "Construct after City takes over route 227". Length and costs pertain to each channel (N,S,E,W) direction to be installed. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Miss r 1 1 1 Project 1 Section: BR61 1 1 Section Class II bike lanes on both sides of Vachell Lane, Higuera to 1 Description: Buckley 1 1 Section 1 Intent: To provide space for bicyclists and motorists to share the lane. 1 Class: II. 1 School Zone: LR 1 Pave Section: 5 1 Length (Feet) 21756 / ESL Cost $12,000 / or . j 'z-O icy GO m� cm o CS) 110 0 0 See _overall Project Rank o 0 0 Section Will require-widening of shoulders on Vachell Lane and may be Notes: done in pieces as frontages develop under county jurisdiction. For developed properties, will require removal of curb parking. Avila Ranch'development installs with frontage facilities. Estimated costs reflect 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer = 100%. Project is within the Airport 1 Area Specific Plan. Relationships exist with proposed BRB2, Buckley Class I.projects, Tank Farm Creek Bike.path, the Acacia 1 Creek Trail System and the East Fork of San Luis Creek Class I 1 project.. 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyCL2s 1 Project: Buckley Area, East Fork Trail Class I trail on the south side of Buckley Rd following the east fork of San Luis Creek from Vachell Lane.to the point where Esperanza Description: would extend straight to the creek. Intent: Create an off-roadway network of bike trails. Class: I School zone: LR - Pave section: 5 t.- Length (Feet) 7,733 c Est Cost $465,780 Priority Third m 0 c 4 c°' o �y c` `° m Ley <'°°' F -k9 oo \oc 4:1r A? . A? 1 Kevin 1 1 5 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 . 11 2 Jean 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 _ 9 3 Ben 1 3 5 1 0 4 1 2 0 1 18 4 Glen 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 2 0 3. _ 12 5 Trevor 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 12 6Tom 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 1 9 7 Tim 0 1_ 4 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 9 avg. SCOR4 0.571 1.1414.2910.4310.0012.1410.141 1.1-41 M01 1.57 :11.43 Notes: Has a relationship with Buckley Road Class II bike paths, as well as the Tank Farm Creek Class I. i MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyEFork Project Existing east end of Prado to Oceanaire Class 1 ' Class I bike paths and class II lanes on Prado Road from Broad St. 1 Description: continuing on to a grade separated crossing of US101, continuing on Dalidio Rd.to Laguna Lake Park and then southeast along Madonna Road to the intersection of Oceanaire. Intent•' Provide connectivity from the existing eastern terminus of Prado road as a main east/west connector across town to shopping and, ' most notably, our single middle school. ' Class: 2 II School zone: SM HA Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 13,593 Est. Cost $11,690,520 Priority First m � QO z Ca O 2y CrQ J w � ,mac,`' Grp°' 6m k" baa �� sic' � 40 -- 1 Kevin 4 4 4 4 0 2 0 5 4 3 30 2 Jean 4 4 4 - 41 0 4 01 5 -4- 41, _. 33 3 Ben 5 51 4. 4_ _ a _ . 5 . 4 5 5 -41 44 4 Glen 5 5 2 1 0 4 1 5 3 41 32 5 Trevor 5 5 4 4 2 5 3 5 4 5 42 6 Tom 5 5 4 4 0 4 0 5, 3 4 34 ' 7 Tim 5 5 4 - 4 _ 2, 2 0 5 5 4 36 avg. SCOR 4.71 4.71 3.71 3:86 -1.0013.711 1.14 5.00 4.00 4.00 35.86 ' Notes: The need for a Class II along this project length should be evaluated as developments are proposed along the corridor. There is a need for a Class I crossing of Hwy 101 between LOVR and Madonna roads. Note.the following project relationships: "Prado Grade ' Separated Crossing", "Dalidio Area Class 1's "Broad/Sacramento Link". 1 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 DalidioPrado Project: Los Osas Valley Road Channelization (Mis 16) Description: Redefine and reinforce chanrielization on SB LOVR at Calle Joaquin. To make it easier for cyclists to navigate the intersection and proceed over the freeway. The execution of this project needs to Intent: allow motorists a long visual chance to see bicyclists moving into the straight through bike channel as the RHL changes into a RT only lane. Class: 11 School zone: SM Pave section: 5 Length (Peet) 33 Est. Cost $30,000 Priority First _ m 0 0 o a rc icy C°°j F i°� �� c� aim �� C •� °° `° /10 1 Kevin 4 21 4 41 11 0 11 41 1 41 25 2 Jean 4 4 4 41 0 2 11 4 2 51 30 3 Ben 4 5 3 5 3 3 4 5 3 5 40 4 Glen 4 5 3 4 0 4 4 5 3 5 37 5 Trevor 4 5 4 4 1 3 4 5 4 5 39 6 Tom 4 4 4 5 0 5 .4 5 3 5 39 7Tim 4 -3 4 4 _ 1 -.:_ 1 1 4 3 5 30 avg. SCO 4.00 4.00 .3.71 4.29 0.86 2.57 2.71 4.57 2.71 4.86 34.29 Notes: Past notes on this project show it as part of the LOVR interchange project and/or the realignment of Calle Joaquin: These links mean that the location has not been finalized.. Three major factors should be considered when designing this bicycle channelization. 1) High volume traffic on LOVR at fairly high speed..2) Slight bend in LOVR and roadside shrubs impair both motorists ability to see bikes traveling ahead of them when approaching this intersection traveling south and bicyclist ability to see the motorists approaching from behind. The problem is compounded by both traffic speed and motorist entering from Calle Joaquin on the east side_ 3) Traffic entering from eastern side of Calle Joaquin with the intent to get into the.RHT lane of LOVR to enter 101 -- i.e., crossing all lanes of traffic. This project was formerly known as Mis 16 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002 and the cost estimate reflects a 20% increase from the 2002 plan. Cost associated with this project are noted as 100% from "STIP" grant (State Transportation Improvement Program). - MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis16 r 1 1 1 1 / Project: Prado Grade Separated Crossing (GSX) / Description: Class I crossing of Hwy. 101 between Madonna Road overpass and ' LOVR overpass. 1 Intent: Provide connectivity from the existing eastern terminus of Prado Road as a main east/west connector across town to shopping and, / most notably, our single middle school. / Class: I / School zone: SM HA / Pave / section: 5 Length ' (Meters) / Est. Cost• $1,650,000 / Priority Second c m o c 4 c°j cm o 0 c 2 F p �0 �Q sic, kO 1 Kevin 41 41 41 21 0 4 01 5 51 21 30 2 Jean �41 31 41 21 01 41 01 5 5 21 29 3 Ben 4 4 3 3 2 4 1 4 5 2 32 4 Glen 4 3. 3 3 0 4 11 51 4 3 30 5 Trevor 4 3 4 2 0 4 0 51 4 2 28 6 Tom 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 4 4 . 3 26 7 Tim 4 4 4 2 0 4 0 -__ 5 4 3 30 avg. SCOR 3.86 3.43 3.57 2.43 0.29 3.86 0.29 4.71 43 2. .443 .,29:29. Notes: If a Prado Road grade separated crossing of Hwy. 101 is completed for automobile traffic, incorporating appropriate bicycle facilities would suffice for this project. If a Prado Road GSX is not to be installed, this project calls for a bicycle/pedestrian facility / installation. Note project relationships: "Dalidio Area Class 1's", / "Existing East end of Prado to Oceanaire Class 1". / 1 / / / 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 PradoGSX / 1 Project: S. Higuera through Striping (Mis-20) Description: Install southbound bike channelization on S. Higuera @ LOVR intent: Shift the existing bike lane from the right hand edge, which is a right turn only lane, to the straight through lane. Class: II School zone: HA Pave section: 5 Length (Feet) 30 Est. Cost minimal Priority First - m c°j 4z c 0y c �" Sao' °' o° �o� AT, m c o� 2m Go �� ��' �� �a �� tiF v ci � A0 1 Kevin 31 41 4 4 21 11 31 2 3 26 2 Jean 3 41 4 4 01 2 21 31 2 4 28 = 3 Ben 5 5 4 4 31 3 4 31 1 4 36 - 4 Glen 4 5 3 3 0 3 31 41 1 3 29 5 Trevor 4 5 4 5 2 3 4 51 1 4 37 6 Tom - 3 -- 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 1 3 32 7 Tim 4 41 __-4 ::__--4 . -- 3 1. 1 _ . 4 1 _ 4 30 avg. SCORir-3.711 4.43 3.86 4.00 1.71 2.29 2.71 3.57 1.29 357 31.14 Notes: This project was formerly known as Mis 20 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In it the cost associated with this project are noted as 100% (developer): Do as part of Garcia Ranch development. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis20 1 Project: Tank Farm Creek Class I. ' Class I facility from Tank Farm Rd. to Buckley Rd. extending along 1 the western edge of the tank farm property south of Tank Farm ' Road, cross the small drainage swale and extend along the creeks Description: western edge through the Avila Ranch property to Buckley Rd. Create an off-roadway connection between the mid section of Tank ' Intent: Farm Rd. and Buckley. ' Class: I School zone: LR HA ' Pave section: 5 ' Length (Feet) 5,593 ' Est. Cost $1,680,000 1 Priority Third 2y �a p y (7 ¢, F 410 iv`° �� e or Al! 40 ' 1 Kevin 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 3 2 0 12 2 Jean 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 10 3 Ben 1 1 5 1 .._ . 0 2_.. . .;1..:.-.,.2 - _1 - 1 , 15 4 Glen 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 11 5 Trevor 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 10 1 6 Tom 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 7Tim 0 0 4 0 01 0 2 1 0 8 avg. SCORI 0.29 0.29 4.4310.5710.00 1.14 0.1 01 1.0010.571-10.431 1 Notes: Part of Airport Area Development. Estimated costs reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer = 100%. Project is within ' the Airport Area Specific Plan. Funding noted as part of AASP funded flood control project. Relationships exist with proposed Buckley Class I and Class II projects,the Acacia Creek Trail System and the East 1 Fork of San Luis Creek Class I project. 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 TankCrk Project: Laguna Middle School connection options This project proposes two options: Install a bridge from Oceanaire to the pocket park on Vista del Lago over Prefumo creek, or create a two-way Class I facility from Oceanaire to Laguna Lane on the Description: east side of LOVR. Intent• Provide better cycling connectivity to schools(Laguna Middle School and C.L.Smith) between neighborhoods (Laguna St. area and Oceanaire area) to avoid use of LOVR. Class: I School zone: SM Pave section: 6 Length (Feet) 540 Est. Cost $798,600 Priority Second 0 c 0 4 `o 4L0 ��.. . oy 0 AT 05 Qr hO I Kevin _ 5 - 5 4 21 0 51 . 0 21 5 01 28 2 Jean 5 . 4 4 ..3 - -0 4 1 3 S 01 29 3 Ben __511-1-5 ---3 .. -z_2__[ 0 . 5 2 3 5 01 30 4 Glen 3 4 41 31 0 4 2 4 5 11 30 5 Trevor 4 3 5 4. 1 5 1 4 5 0 32 6 Tom 33 3 ._:. 21. 2 .__ 0 4... 0. 3 5 0 22 7 Tim 5 5 4 2 "0 ` - 4 1 4 5EO. 0 30 avg. SCORE4.29 4.14 3.71 2.57 0.14 4.43 700 3.29 5.004 28.71 Notes: Conceming the bridge option, the City does not currently own land or have easements needed for the creek to park crossing _ option. Concerning the two-way class one facility: Care in planning must be taken considering potential hazards associated with intersections(Laguna and Oceanaire traffic flow), pedestrians, other users, roadway signs, etc. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 MiddleSchCnx = f ' Project: Laguna Lake Bikeways A (MIS-18A) ' Description: Create a Class I bikeway from the north end of Laguna Lake Park to lower Foothill area at O'Connor. 1 Create a link between Madonna Road and Foothill Blvd which doesn't Intent: 1 require using LOVR. Link will provide a more convenient access to Cuesta College for southbound SLO commuters as well as recreational uses. Class: I School.zone: SM ' Pave section: 6 ' Length (Feet) 5,578 Est. Cost $1,920,000 1 Priority First a,0' O 2 � � /• � � ti v � � 1 Kevin v 4 3 5 2 0 5 0 4 2 3 h28 2 Jean 5 4 5 2 _ 0 5 0 3 3 3 30 ' 3 Ben 4 5 5 3 1 5 2 3 3 3 34 4 Glen 5 5 5 .2 0 5 2 4 3 3 34 5 Trevor .4 4 5 . 4 0 5 2 4 3 3 - 34 6 Tom 5 2 5 1 0 3 0 4 2 2 24 7Tim 4 3 _5 _ - _ 4 ___0 _ 5 0 4 - 4 4 33 avg. SCOR 4.43 3.71 5.00 2.57 0.—141 4.7110.8613.71 2.86 3.00 31.00 Notes: Requires approval of Madonna ranch owners; path is.in flood zone, may need elevated sections. Note relationship to Laguna Lake Bikeways B (Mis18B) and Laguna Lake Bikeways C (Mis18C), Class I ' paths connecting to LOUR and upper Foothill. Portions of the overall project (parts A,B and C) were formerly known as Mis 18 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. Cost associated with ' this project are noted as 30% from "TE/BTA" grant (Transportation Enhancement/Bicycle Transportation Act). Cost estimate reflects a 20% increase from the 2002 Bike Plan. 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis18A 1 Project: Laguna Lake Bikeways B (MIS-1813) Description: Create a Class I bikeway connecting the proposed Class I from the north end of Laguna Lake Park to lower Foothill area at O'Connor (Mis18-A), to LOVR near DeVaul Ranch. Intent: Create a bike path connection to LOVR &adjoining ' neighborhoods. Class: I School zone: SM Pave section: 6 Length (Feet) 2278 Est. Cost $136,680 Priority First r Cip \°C O C0) - 0 00 lb 10 ZI 00, rp V . , L �v1 C� F° m` .. °; 'tom ,-0 1 Kevin 1 41 3 4 21 0 5 0 4 2 3 F 27 2 Jean '51 21 0 5 1 4 3 - 3F--3-0-1 3 Ben 4 5 5 31 1 . 5 2 3 3 . 31 34 4 Glen 51 5 5 2 0 5 2 4 3 31 34 5 Trevor 4 5 5 3 01 5 2 4 3 3 34 6 Tom 5 2 5 1 0 - 3 0 4 2 2 24 - 7Tim 4 : - .3. S. - -2 _- 01 _ -5 0 • . 4 - 31 - 31 29 L avg. SCORE 4.29 3.71 _4.86 2.14 0.14, 4.71 .1-.0013.8612.7112.86130.291 Notes: Requires approval of DeVau.l and Madonna ranch owners; path is in flood zone, may need elevated sections. Has a relationship to Laguna Lake Bikeways A (Mis 18A) and Laguna Lake Bikeways C (Mis18C) class I paths. Portions of the overall project (parts A,B and C) were formerly known as Mis 18 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis18B 1 r 1 ' Project; Laguna Lake Bikeways C (MIS-18C) r r Description: Create a class I bikeway connecting the proposed Class I from the north end of Laguna Lake Park to lower Foothill area at O'Connor (Mis 18-A), to upper Foothill Blvd. r r Create a link between Madonna Road and upper Foothill Blvd, Intent: bypassing LOVR and a majority of Foothill Blvd., to provide a r convenient, efficient link between the Foothill neighborhood and r Madonna Road for area commuters as well as recreational uses. r Class: I r School zone: SM r Pave section: 6 Length r (Meters) 4980 r Est. Cost $29,880 r Priority First r m o c Q; ,ze 110 1 Kevin -4 31 4 21 0. . 5 0 4 2 3 27 2 Jean 4 3 5 2 01 5 0 4 3 3 29 3 Ben 4 51 5 3 1 5 2 3 3 3 34 r 4 Glen 5 51 5 2 0 5 2 4 3 3 34 5 Trevor 5 5 5 3 0 5 2 3 3 4 35 6 Tom 521 5 1 0 3 0 4 2 2,_ 24 7Tim 5 3 5 3 0 5' 0 4 3 3 31 r avg. SCORE4.57 .3.71 4.86 2.29 0.14 4.71 0.86 .3.71 2.71 3.00 30.57 r - r r Notes: Requires approval of Madonna ranch owners; path is in flood r zone, may need elevated sections. Has a-relationship to Laguna r Lake Bikeways A (Mis18A) and Laguna Lake Bikeways B (Mis18B), class I paths. Portions of the overall project (parts A,B'and C) - r were formerly known as Mis 18 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan r dated May 7, 20.02. r r r r MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis18C r Project: Cerro Romauldo Bike Blvd. Create a Bike Blvd. from Patricia to Ferrini. The Stop sign at Tassajara will have to swap direction to allow for continuous flow. Description: Traffic calming will be required to reduce existing speeds and possible increased speeds due to stop direction change at Tassajara. Intent: To provide a route, alternate to Foothill, for E/W travel on this side of town. Directly serves two elementaryschools. Class: BB School zone: BP Pave section: 7 Length (Feet) 2,857 C Est., Cost $31,427 Priority Second \° � ° k m°j Q, 1 Kevin 4 31 41 01 3 0 4 5 or 24 2 Jean 4 4 4 3 0 4. 1 - 4 5 1 30 , 3 Ben 5 4 4 4 3 . 5 3 4 4 11 37 4 Glen 4 4 3 3 0 ' ' 4 3 4 5 1 - . 31 5 Trevor 5 4 4 4 1 5 2 4 5 2 36 6Tom 3 5 3 -- 3 0 3 0 3 5 0 25 7 Tim 4 4 - 4 1 - 0 3 0 4 5 _ 1 26 avg. SCOR 4.14 4.00 3.71 2.71 0.57 3.86 1.29 3.86 4.86 0.86 29.86 Notes: Relationship to other projects: Installation of traffic signal on Foothill at Ferrini and/or Class 1 connection of Cerro Romauldo _ from Ferrini to Chorro. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Foothill and Tassajara use as fourteenth highest out of 24 locations surveyed,=with a total count of 54. 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CerroR;BB Project: . Cerro Romauldo ClassI. Description: Create a Class 1 path to extend Cerro Romauldo from Ferrini to N. Chorro. To connect the proposed Cerro Romauldo Bike Blvd.To N. Chorro Intent: which will be a safer intersection than dumping the BB to the unsignalized intersection of Ferrini and Foothill. 1 Class: I School zone: BP Pave section: 7 Length (Feet) 570 Est. Cost $34,200 Priority Second 1 � c m o y ` Q S0 2c J o 4C` tQy L�D� �� y `1 2 p� 4z* Or �Q Or A0 1 Kevin 41 4 - 41 2 01 4 01 41 5 01 27 2 Jean 4 4 3 3 01 4 1:1 4 .5 01 28 3 Ben 5 5 4 4 1 5 21 31 3 11 33 4 Glen 5 5 2 3 0 4 1 3 4 11 28 ' 5 Trevor 5 5 4 4 1 5 0 . 3 . 5 11 33 6 Tom 3 5 : - 3 3 0 _ 3 _ 0 ., 3 ; . 5 0 - 25 7 Tim 4 5 3 3 1 4 0 3 5 11 29 avg. SCOR 4.2914.711 -3.291 3.1470-4-31 4.14 0.57 3.29 -4.57 0.57 29.00 Notes: The specific route,for this path has.not been determined as the city does not currently own the property necessary to complete it. 1 The route is dependent on which properties the city can acquire. This project has a direct relationship to the Installation of a traffic signal on Foothill at.Ferrini project. If the Foothill/Ferrini signal is in place or funded for construction, then this proposed, project ' would be dropped. Other project relationships exist with the ' creation of the.Cerro Romauldo Bike Blvd. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data-taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Foothill and Tassajara use as fourteenth highest out of 24 locations ' surveyed, with a total count of 54. 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CerroR,X 1 Project: Foothill/California Channelization (Mis 6) ' Description: Install eastbound bike channelization on Foothill @ California. Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts with vehicles. Class: II School zone: SP Pave section: 7 a Length (Feet) 33 Est. Cost $1541409 Priority Second m ° to� I°* AO 1 Kevin 5 31 31 5 2 0 01 4 3 Or 25 2 Jean 5 3 2 4 1 2 2 4 4 21 29 3 Ben 5 3 4 5 2 2 2 4 5 11 33 4 Glen 4 4 2 . 3 1 . _ -3 2 4 3 3 - . 29 5 Trevor 5 5 2 3 - 3 3 2 4 . 5 2 34 6Tom 3 4 1 5 0 2 1 3 3 - 1 23 ' 7 Tim 5 4 .2 5 4 21 1 4 5 1 33 avg. SCORq 4.5713.7112.2914.291 1.8612.001 1.431 3.861 4.00 .1.43 29.43 Notes: A former Cal Poly'student worked very hard on solutions for this intersection. Suggestion; bike box for intersection. Note, there is a relationship to the Railroad Safety trail. This project was formerly known as Mis 6 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show this intersection as the highest used with a total count of 352. Estimated costs-listed are from the-Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City = 100%. Length and costs pertain to each channel (N,S,E,W) direction to be installed. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis6 1 Project: Foothill/Ferrini Signal Description: Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill and Ferrini. Intent: To provide designatedlocation for crossing at Foothill to serve as a link to/from the proposed Cerro Romauldo Bike Blvd. via Ferrini. Class: other School zone: BP Pave section: 7 Length (Feet) Est. Cost $100,000 Priority Second cm o =mF voF 4? 41 � civ tea? �c �F4 \c AS1 Kevin 4 4 4 2 0 0 0 4 5 0 23 2 Jean 4 4 4 3 0 2 0 4 5 1 - 27 3 Ben 5 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 11 35 4 Glen 4 5 2 4 0 3 1 2 4 11 26 5 Trevor -5 -5 5 5 1 4 0 . 4. 5 135 ' 6 Tom 5 5 2 1 0 4 1 4 5 _ 1 28 7Tim 4 4 3 4 0 1 0 4 5 1 26 avg. SCOR 4.4314.4313;4313.2910.4312.5710.7113.7114.71 0.86 28.57 Notes: The proposed signal-should include video detection for bicyclists. This project has a direct relationship to the creation of an extension of Cerro Romauldo as a class I path from Ferrini to N. Chorro. If the Class I extension is in place or is funded, then this proposed project would not be as necessary as a BB link. There is also a relationship to the proposed creation of Cerro Romauldo as ' a Bike Blvd. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 -show the intersection of Foothill and,Tassajara use as fourteenth ' highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 54. ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 FoothillSig 1 1 Project: Foothill/Patricia/La Entrada Intersection Re-engineer intersection to more easily allow bicyclist crossings of Description: Foothill at Patricia/La Entrada for both directions. Provide for easier crossing of this offset intersection, in particular for elementary school children, while maintaining in-the-flow of Intent: normal traffic. Class: NA School zone: SP Pave section: 7 = Length (Feet) Est. Cost $45,000 _ Priority Second o Q �O qj C 49 Oko AO 1 Kevin 3 3 2 2 0 1 0 3 5 1 20 2 Jean 3 4 2 3 0 2 0 4 5 0 23 - 3 Ben 2 3 2 3 0 2 1 3 5 0 21 4 Glen 4 3 2 3 0 2 1 2 4 0 21 5 Trevor 4 3 2 3• 0 2 0 2 5 1 22 6 Tom 2 4 1 2 2 4 0 3 5 2 25 - 7 Tim 3 4 2 2 0 1 0 3 5 1 21 avg. SCORq 3.0013.431 1.86 2.57 0.29 2.00 0.29 2.86 4.86 0.71 21.86 Notes: The crossing of Foothill Blvd. is a significant barrier for many children and parents of children traveling to/from Bishop Peak/Teach Elementary school. Currently, children are directed to become pedestrians and cross Foothill in the crosswalk (only on the west side of Patricia). When traveling North this means they must also cross Patricia if they are to legally continue riding from - this point. Proposed solutions to the intersection need to be identified. 1 ' Project: Highland Center Line Striping (Mis 29) ' Description: Highland & Patricia: Add a Centerline (Highland only). 1 1 Intent: The intent of this project is to help slow the traffic speeds on 1 these streets due to proximity to Cal Poly. ' Class: III ' School zone: BP Pave section: 7 8 ' Length (Feet) Est. Cost 1 Priority Second 0 .0y C-� o° moo. ? 1 Kevin 3 ..3 '31 2 . .'-31 0 11 3 .5 1 24 2 Jean 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 5 1 - -26 3 Ben 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 0 32 4 Glen 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 _3 33 5 Trevor 3 .3 3 4 3 3 2 3 5 .2 31 6 Tom 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 4 5 1 26 7 Tim 3 . 31 31 31 41 2 1 3 51 11 28 . avg. SCORI 3.0013.1412.8613.29,12.861 2.14 .861 1.29 28.57 Notes: These two streets have become an alternate route for traffic to and from Cal Poly. With higher than posted travel speeds common and heavy on-street parking, they can be challenging for cyclists. Of particular concern are the two elementary schools these streets serve. Note: There is a relationship to the Highland Class II (Mis 10) project. This project was formerly known as Mis 29 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May'7,-2002. This project is a good candidate for shared lane markings (sharrows). MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis 29 Project: Tassajara Class II Bike Lanes Description: Provide a class II connection from Ramona across Foothill at signal to Cerro Romauldo. Intent: Provide travel space for cyclists, especially children accessing both Bishop Peak/Teach and Pacheco Schools, crossing Foothill Blvd. Class: II School zone: SP Pave section: 7 Length (Meters) 830 Est. Cost $1,660 Priority Second FQ, F `'F ,c'° �� 4 �y o° �o AF v �� Q /O 4z Q 1 Kevin 4 3 4 1 0 0 0 5 5 0 22 2 lean 4 4 3 3 0 2 0 4 5 2 27 3 Ben 4 5 2 4 4 3. 4 3 5 _ 1 _. 35 = 4 Glen 4 4 2 4 0 3 2 2 5 1 27 5 Trevor 4 4 3 4 - 2 - 4 - 3 5 5 2 36 6 Tom 5 __ _ 5 3 2 0 '4 2 - 5 5 1 d327 Tim 4 4 3 1 0 2 0 4 5 1 avg. SCOR 4.14 4.14 2.86 2.71 0.86 2.57 1.57 400 500 1.14 29: Notes: Will require on-street parking removal. Has relationship with proposed Cerro Romauldo Bike Blvd. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Foothill and Tassajara use as fourteenth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 54. I f, MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Tassa = Project: Casa to Toro Bicycle Blvd. Crossing Hwy 101 Description: The overall project creates a Bicycle Blvd. from the north end of the proposed Toro St. Bicycle Blvd, over Hwy101, to Murray via ' Lemon St., Santa Rosa park and Casa St. 1 Intent: To provide a low traffic impact north/south through route for bicyclists that serves Cal Poly for the neighborhoods East of Santa Rosa and other downtown bike route connectors, in response to the continuing congestion and deterioration of Santa Rosa St. Class: BB School zone: BP 1 Pave ' section: 8 Length (Feet) 11322 Est. Cost $564,542 Priority Second o wC CI47 m ate` c FA a°j O � � 1 Kevin 2 31 2 3 0 2 0 3 3 1 19 2 Jean 3 , 3 3 3 0 3 0 4 3 1 23 3 Ben 4 3 2 4 2 3 . 1 3 3 2 27 4 Glen 3 3 2 3 '0 3 1 A 3 1 23 5 Trevor 3 3 2 3 0 3 1 3 3 1 22 6Tom 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 12 7Tim 3 3 2 3 0 2 0 3 2 0 18 avg. SCO 2.71 2.86 2.00 3.00 0.29 2.57 0.43 3.14 2.71 0.86 :20.57 Notes: Has a relationship with the proposed Toro St. Bicycle Blvd. Overall, the grade separated crossing(section "A") is key to this project. Path through Santa Rosa park necessary to conned ' Lemon St. with Casa. This project with its related links of Lemon and Casa, becomes more important if the proposed Broad St. BB is not able to be completed. City of SLO Bicycle Count Data taken ' Oct. 24, 2004 show the intersection of Santa Rosa and Mill use as twelfth highest out of 24 locations surveyed, with a total count of 1 65 (data included here as this project may impact use at the mentioned intersection). 1 MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CasaToroBB 1 i r - Project Section: Casa to Torro Bicycle Blvd. "A" Section This section, "A", creates a Grade Separated Crossing from Toro _ Description: St. to Lemon St. across Hwy 101 This is the pivotal section of the entire project. The intennt is to provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves Cal Poly for the neighborhoods East of Section Santa Rosa and other downtown bike route connectors, in Intent: response Class: BB - School Zone: BP Pave Section, 8 r Length (Feet) Est. Cost , oc 4m 3 0Z 4z: �y �� c0. ` ip Cr L F �y Ca V FF ,�� � � Jvm `off �' �y v� ��° �� �` �a �� tiF �� ��' RE 0 C C See overall Project Rank o C o C 0 C Section Relationship with "Casa to Toro Bicycle.Blvd." sections "B" and Notes: "C". (Section "B": Connecting Lemon St. to Santa Rosa Park. Section "C": Lemon St. from Hwyl to.Santa Rosa Park. ) Also has a relationship with the proposed Toro St. Bicycle Blvd: Overall, the grade separated.crossing (section "A") is key to this project. Path through Santa.Rosa park necessary to connect Lemon St. with Casa. This project with its related links of Lemon and Casa, becomes more important if the proposed Broad St. BB ' is not able to be completed. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CasaToroBB Casa to Torro Bicycle Blvd. "B" This section, "B" creates a Bicycle Blvd. along Lemon, from Hwy 101 to Santa Rosa Park. 1 To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves Cal Poly for the neighborhoods East of Santa Rosa and other downtown bike route connectors, in response to the continuing congestion and deterioration of Santa Rosa St. BB 1 SP S 1 o� :v j AI IT See overall Project Rank 0 0 .0 Relationship with "Casa to Toro Bicycle Blvd." sections "A" and C . (Section "A": Grade separated crossing at Hwy. 101 1 connecting Lemon and Toro. Section "C": Lemon St. from Hwyl to Santa Rosa Park. ) Also has a relationship with the proposed ' Toro St. Bicycle Blvd. Overall, the grade separated crossing (section "A") is key to this project. Path through Santa Rosa park ' necessary to connect Lemon St. with Casa. This project with its ' related links of the GSX'ing between Lemon and Toro and the Casa St.-BB section, becomes more important if the proposed 1 Broad St. BB is not to be completed. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CasaToroBB 1 Casa to Torro Bicycle Blvd. "C" This section, "C" creates a Bicycle Blvd. along Casa St. from Santa Rosa Park to Murray St. It includes a connection through Santa Rosa Park. To provide a low traffic impact North/South through route for bicyclists that serves Cal Poly for the neighborhoods East of Santa Rosa and other downtown bike route connectors, in response to the continuing congestion and deterioration of Santa Rosa St. BB BP 8 o� w z lc Qr �C J Qr 0 O Q 4? �� aF v �i` Q` 10 0 0 0 See overall Project Rank 0 0 0 0 Relationship with "Casa to Toro Bicycle Blvd." sections "A" and "B" (Section "A": Grade separated crossing at Hwy. 101 con-necting Lemon and Toro. Section "B": Connecting Lemon St. to Santa Rosa Park.) Also has a relationship with the proposed , Toro St. Bicycle Blvd. Overall, the grade separated crossing r. (section "A") is key to this project. Path through Santa Rosa park necessary to connect Lemon St. with Casa. This project with its related links of Lemon and the GS crossing at Lemon to Toro, C becomes more important if the proposed Broad St. BB is not able to be completed. C MasterProjects 3/5/2007 CasaToroBB r 1 1 1 1 . 1 Project: Highland Class II (Mis10) 1 Description: Install Class II bike lanes in each direction on Highland from SR1 1 to Cuesta St. 1 1 Intent: To provide travel lanes for bicyclists. The project will also provide 1 connectivity to the proposed Class III lanes on Cuesta and in 1 turn, to the proposed Cerro Romauldo Bike Blvd. 1 Class: II 1 Schoolzone: BP 1 Pave ' section: 8 1 Length (Feet) 10SO 1 Est. Cost minimal 1 Priority First o� . � � �- c� s' �y 2° V° aim �v, �D �c tiF .� �� � �O ' 1 Kevin .5 2 41 4 01 01 0 41. 5 21 26 2 Jean 5 3 4 4 0 41 1 4 5 4 34 1 3 Ben 5 5 3 5 2 4 2 3 — 5 1 35 4 Glen 5 4 4 4 0 4 3 4 5 3 36 5 Trevor 4 5 4 4 0 4 2 3 5 2 33 ' 6Tom 2 4 2 2 0 1 0 3 5 2 21 7 Tim 4 4 3 4 0 1 0 3 5 2 26 avg. SCOR 4.2913.8613.431 3.86 0.29 2.57 1.141 3.4315.0012.291 30.14 i t - ' Notes: Note relationship to Cal Poly H-8 site development and relationship to the Highland Eastbound (Mis 5) and Highland / Patricia Striping (Mis 29) projects. This project was formerly known as Mis 10 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. In that plan the project was for only a Class II on the North side of Highland with a length of 175 meters and a "negligible" 1 cost. Note that the project now calls for a class II lane on each 1 side the total length could be 350 meters. Costs responsibilities 1 were listed as Developer = 100%. "Cal Poly install as part of H-8 site development". See also (Mis 5). / MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mislo i f Project: Highland Eastbound (Mis 5) Description: Install eastbound bike channelization on Highland Drive at SR 1 Intersection. Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts with vehicles. Class: iI School zone: BP Pave - section: 8 Length (Feet) 33 Est. Cost $162,980 Priority Second. i c Q z c`° 47 o V c ¢, F `gym ,,�•c,. c'° �OJT oUZ ° �o� � AD 1 Kevin 5 1 - 3 4 2 0 0 4 2 3[— 24 2 Jean 5 1 3 3 0 2 1 4 4 5 28 3 Ben 5 31 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 3 33 4 Glen 5 4 3 3 1 3 2 4 5 3 __ . 33 5 Trevor 5 5 4 3 2 . 3 3 4 5 4 - 38 6Tom 3 5 2 2 - 1 Z ' 0 2 2 " 3 22 r 7Tim 5 4 3- 4 1 _ 1 0. 4 51 3 30 - avg. SCOR 4.71 3.29 3.0013.291 1.431 L861 1.1413.711 -3.861-1- 29.71 Notes: Any redevelopment of this area should include the redesign of this intersection. Note relationship to Cal Poly H-8 site development is also mentioned in the Highland Class II (formerly Mis 10) project. This project-was formerly known as Mis 5 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. Estimated costs reflect a 20% increase from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, ' 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer (Cal Poly) = .100%. See also (Mis 10). MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Miss 1 Project: Montalban Bridge (Mis 2) Description: Bridge over Stenner Creek at Montalban. Intent: The intent of this, project is to provide cyclists who are South bound on Santa Rosa a convenient route to the Lincoln Street neighborhood and lower traffic access to downtown. Class: I School zone: SP Pave Eliminatesection: 7 Length (Feet) 115 � O 1 Est. Cost. 6 Priority Third c o Oji 0 AW 2m� G°� ccaJ 1 Kevin 2 11 11 1 01 2 .01 11 1 0 9 2 Jean 0 01 , 01 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 01 0 3 Ben 1 01 11 0 0 1 0 3 1 11 8 '4 Glen 2 3 2 2 0 . 2 0 3 1 11 16 5 Trevor 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 _ 8- 6 Tom 6Tom 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7Tim 1 1 1 01 0 1 0 1. 0 0 5 avg. SCOR l 00 Too 0.86 0.57. O.—Uti-141 0.001 1.29—9.57 _0.29 Notes: In 2004 the BAC downgraded this project in the old project ranking system from a Priority I, to a Priority II. This was done due to safety concerns for North bound cyclists and pedestrians at the Montalban /Santa Rosa intersection. There are no plans for traffic control at Montalban and Santa Rosa. This project was formerly known as Mis 2 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. Estimated costs listed are from the Bicycle ' Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: City, $21,500 (11.5%), Grant, $165,500 ' (88.5%). Grant fund source = SHA (State Highway Account). ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mist 1 I� r - Project: South Street Widening (Mis-3) _ Widen South Street between Beebee and Higuera to include bike Description: lanes. Eliminate the bottleneck on the south side of South Street directly West of Beebe street by widening the road and connecting the two _ Intent: pieces of existing class II bike lane. Class: iI School zone: HA Pave Completed ' 06 section: 4 Length (Meters) 65 t-- Est. Cost Priority First c .p ° -0 v Q C� Cm O Vco Pi C v° �'a 4? ��'& 4 �,c N -4 Vic, Qr A0. ' 1 Kevin 51 51 3 51 0 01 51 5 2 Or 30 2 Jean 51 41 3 51 0 2 5J 5 2 - 31 34 - 3 Ben 51 5 4 5 2 5 51 5 3 31 42 4 Glen 41 5 3 3 . 0 4 51 5 2 2 33 5 Trevor 4 5 4 4 1 5 5 5 2 A- 4.T7 6 Tom 5 5 5 5 0 3 5 5 3 7 Tim 5 5 3 5 0 1 5 5 2 avg. SCOR 4J1 4.86 3.57 0.43 2.86 .5.00 5:00 2.29 2 L Notes: This is SR 227 under Caltrans jurisdiction. This project was formerly known as Mis 3 in the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. Estimated cost listed are from the.Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002..$50,000 is SLO City share of a Caltrans project. MasterProjects 3/5/2007 Mis3 C r Project: Mis 12 Reconstruct three gutters along Broad St. @ old Vons Site. Old style gutters leave little clear area for northbound bike lane. Description: Caltrans controls the design of these improvements. Intent: School zone: Pave section:a Completed ' 04 � c°j cm ° oy � 11-0oy m°' u�i AQ a c F O 1 Kevin 0 2 Jean 0 3 Ben 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 avg. SCO ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ;..0:00 Notes: 1 1 1 r. Project: Mis 13 r" Install Class II bike lane on north side of Peach Street where it adjoins Stenner Creek. Travel lanes are wide enough and parking Description: is already prohibited. All that is required is paint and signs. To preserve this space for bicycle use as this road is frequently Intent: used by bicyclists. Class: III ® i School zone: Eliminate Pave section: 4 - °Q �°j °gym �o �y c F Qi F iQr . r✓a C �� y O° AO 1 Kevin 2 1 1 2 0 1 3 1 4 0 i5 2 Jean 3 3 1 3 0 1 3 1 3 0 18 3 Ben 3 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 4 0 18 4 Glen 2 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 2 1 18 , 5 Phil 0 6 0 7 0 avg. SCORM 2.5012.0011.2512.2510.2511.2513.001 17F[7251 0.25 17.25 Notes: Eliminated because it provided only a short segment of bike lane of only 500 feet. C L r Project: Mis 15 Path from south end of Brizzolara St. thru Promontory project (406 Higuera). Requires difficult connection to existing bridge if path is along the western creek bank. Easement through parking Description: lot would be easier to accomplish. Intent: Unclear Class: School zone: Pave Eliminate ' section: w Q c°i Cm 3 °'y wV O 0 F a �� um o \°F y ° o� �Q F F �� o 6? Qr AO 1 Kevin 0 2 Jean 0 3 Ben 0 4 0 5 0 7 0 0 avg. SCOR ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### 0.00 Notes: Project was eliminated due to the difficulty to implement 1 Project: Mils 17 Install Class II bike lanes on the outside of parking bays on Prefumo Canyon Rd. from LOVR west. Bike lanes would tie in with = those established by previous subdivisions west of LOVR. Installing bike lanes would still allow installation of 4.3m landscaped median in Prefumo Rd. as called for by Circulation Description: Element. - Intent: Unclear Class: '- Completed School zone: - Pave ' section: c -0 ,J moo' cz �� 0 c J i <c �viy y�di �� 0 Fi F ��� ��+ G� �� �p �0 AIF�mdim baa �c �F4 v �� CIO A0. r 1 Kevin 0 2 Jean p - 3 Ben 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 avg. StORO###I###I###I###I###I###I###I### ### ### C Notes: Is this supposed to read "from LOVR west"? As I understand it, Perfumo doesn't go east from LOVR. 1 C C C Project Mis-22 Pave existing path from Boulevard Del Campo to Helena at north Description: end of Sinsheimer Park. Intent: Improve existing drainage. Class: I School zone: SI Eliminate Pave section: 2 (decided at 5/19/05 BAC meeting) Zoc � F ZmF 0F b� �v,� ��'° �a� �c yF� \S �c, ��o, 10 1 Kevin 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 T3- 2 Jean 4 2 4 1 0 3 3 4 4 2 27 3 Ben 2 3 3 0 0 3 1 2 4 0 18 4 Glen 3 3 4 1 0 3 3 4 3 1 25 1 5 Phil 2 2 - 4 . 2 0 3 1 3 4 1 22 6 0 70 avg. SCORO 2.4012.4013.401 O,nl 0.00 12.801 2MI 3.001 3.40 0.80 21.00 Notes: Existing path runs between trees and is waterlogged at times. Peggy to check into ADA regulations concerning adding ramps_ at each end. 1 1 r Project: Mis 27 Description: Chorro Street Edge Stripes (Lincoln to Foothill). Intent: Class: Schoolzone: Pave section: Completed ° --Pp 49 , c .0 ATI 1 Kevin 5 4 4 4 1 2 5 5 4 1 35 2 Jean 5 3 4 4 1 2 5 5 4 3 36 3 Ben 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 2 39 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 - 0 avg. SCORO 4.6713.671 U01 4.0011.6712.331 s.661 376UF4.331 2.00 36.67 Notes: . 1 1 1 P 1 Project ' Section: 13111133 Section Description: Class I path parallel to Buckley Rd., from Broad St. to Santa Fe Rd. Section To provide connectivity In the network of Class I facilities in the 1 Intent: area (Acacia Creek and Tank Fane Creek). Class: I School Zone: LR. ' Pave Section, 3 1 Length (Peet) 2,100 . Est. Cost o� F Eliminate o (Added a class II to this side of o Buckley Road. See Buckley CLII's o Pr 9/06 BAC meeting) . 0 o - 0 Section Project would be located on County Airport property and require Notes: County approval. If not possible proposed separated Class I. / adjacent to roadway. (Assume no land costs.) Estimated costs listed are from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated May 7, 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility is: Developer = 50%, Grant = / 50% (STIP). Notes from-the past plan indicate that the grant application will be done jointly. by City and County. The project is ' within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Relationships exist with proposed BRB4, Buckley Class II projects, Tank Farm Creek Bike ' path, the Acacia Creek Trail System and the East Fork of San Luis Creek Class I project. ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyClls I Project Section: BRB4 Santa Fe Road to Vachel Lane Class I on North side of Buckley. Project would cross adjoining agricultural fields and include a 25m Section bridge crossing Tank Farm Creek at west end of Buckley. Project Description: would terminate at Vachell-Buckley. Section To provide connectivity in the network of Class I facilities in the area = Intent: (Acacia Creek and Tank Farm Creek). Class: I - School Zone: LR Pave Section: 3 5 Length (Feet)) 2,180 Est. Cost oc OEliminate A0 (Added a class iI to this side of Buckley Road. See Buckley CLU's 0 project -- 9/06 BAC meeting) o 0 0 Section Estimated costs listed are from the Bicycle Transportation Plan dated Notes: May 7 2002. The cost breakdown responsibility Y p ty is: Developer = 50%, Grant = 50% (STIP). Notes from the past plan indicate that "Avila Ranch contributes $460K." The project is within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Relationships exist with proposed BRB3, Buckley Class II projects, Tank Farm Creek Bike path, the.Acacia Creek Trail System and the East Fork of San Luis Creek Class I project. r MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyClls P Project: Buckley Road Bikeway Parallel Class I System 1 Description: Class I lanes parallel to Buckley providing connectivity between Broad and Vachel.Lane, along with connecting to the proposed / Acacia Creek trail system and the Tank Farm Creek path. Intent: ' Provide off-roadway bicycling facility for this popular cycling route. Class: I School zone: LR Pave section: 3 5 ' Length (Feet) Est. Cost., Priority Third EliMinate oQ (Added a class-11 to this side of F Buckley Road. See Buckley ii=Vs =m project -- 9/06 BAC meeting. Note ko 1 Kevin See "East Pork" 12 2 Jean project for CLI 0 3 Ben trail on South side of Buckley - . 0 4 Glen following the .creek) 0 5 Trevor 0 / 6 Tom g 7 Tim 0 avg. SCO 1.0011.5014.501-0.501000. 2.50 0.00 0.50 0:00 0.-00 .10;50 Notes: Projects are within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Relationships / exist with proposed Buckley Class II projects, Tank Farm Creek Bike path, the Acacia Creek Trail System and the East Fork of San Luis Creek Class I project. 1 1 1 1 1 / MasterProjects 3/5/2007 BuckleyClls 1 Project: OBP 2 Provide additional downtown bicycle parking as needed. Survey / Description: the arrangement of downtown land uses and provide bike racks at high-demand locations where pedestrian traffic will not be obstructed. Intent: To provide additional bicycle parking downtown to encourage people to use bicycles instead of cars _ Class: other School zone: HA EliminatePave _ section: 9 (Added to Policy section of plan Length NA during 9/06 BAC meeting) Est. Cost _ Priority Second � b O � i �� c`° c �y J •� �� 2y a01 Q� h 2 ,�' �0 Its 1 Kevin 5 - 01 11 1 01 2 31 01 0 01 12 2 Jean 5 .- 2 2 I 0 4 - 21 1 0 21 19 3 Ben 5 1 3 1 2 3 2 0 0 2 19 4 Glen 3 1 -3 " 1 _. 2 _ 3 . 3..: 0 0 1 .. 17 5 Trevor 5 - -1 __. 2:. ._._l:__._2 ..___3. -._..__2 0 0 _ 2 - _ 18 6 Tom 5 1 3 4 0 4 4 0 0 2 23 7Tim 5 1 2 11 0 3 3 . - _0 0 1 16 avg. SCORE 4.71 1.00 2.29 .1.431 0.8613.1412.711 0.14 0.00 1.43 17.71 Notes: (Add this to general plan policy and drop as a project.) MasterProjects 3/5/2007 OBP2 1 1 Project: OSP 3 City-Wide Bicycle Parking Retrofit, Program. Should grant monies ' become available, offer to purchase bike racks and lockers for existing businesses outside the downtown, if they agree to install Description: and maintain them. 1 ' To provide bicycle parking for citywide commercial and multiple ' Intent: residential (apartment) complexes that have poor/none/limited. ' Class: other School zone: ALL ' Pave section: NA Length (Meters) Eliminate ' Est. cost (Added to Policy section of plan 1 Priority Third during 9/06 BAC meeting) o v 0 ' v o a �� zm ate` c Fc X06 O 4 , v 05 4 /10. ' 1 Kevin 5 01 11 0 01 2 01 0 01 01 8 2 Jean 5 1 1 0 0 3 2 0 4 2 18 1 3Ben 5 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 17 ' 4 Glen 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 1 13 5 Trevor 5 1 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 2 16 1 6 Tom 5 1 1 1 0 4 2 01 0 0 14 ' 7Tim 5 0 1 1 0 3 1 01 0 0 11 avg. SCOR 110.711 1.0010,711 Q.291 2.862,00. Q.001_-Q.571 1.001 13.86 Notes: (Add this to general plan policy and drop as a project.) 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects OBP3 25 Project: OBP4 City Bicycle Parking facilities. Through the City's Racks with Plaques program, survey all existing City parks and identify bicycle parking needs and opportunities; install bike racks as Description: needed. Provide convenient bicycle parking for all park users who travel by Intent: bicycle. Class: 01 , t School zone: N Eliminate Pave Added to Poli section: a � Policy section of plan Length during 9/06 BAC meeting) (Meters) Est. Cost Priority T m c 0 o � w 03 �co C O `oa 2� A0 C° 1 Kevin 1 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 2 Jean 2 1 5 0 1 5 2 0 2 21 20 3 Ben 1 -- ----1-._-- -5 _1- -----2 -- -51 - 3 0 0 1 19 4 Glen _ .1 1: - 4 ---0-- ---0 .:_ . 21. .- .3 0 .. . 0 p 11 5 Trevor 2 7 --5 ' 1 "0 51 3 0 10 2 19 6Tom 2 1 3 0 0 4 3 0 _ 0 215 7Tim 2 01 5 _ __0 __ 0 31 0 0 0 11 avg. SCOR `1.57 0.71 _ 4.57 0 29 '0.43 ._3.7i _2.14 0.00 0.291 1.00 .14,71 Notes: (Add this to general plan policy and drop as a project.) MasterProjects OBP4 26 d 1 Project: OBP 5 1 Community Bicycle Program: Evaluate the feasibility of a / community-wide "free" bike program and implement program Description: within City's urban reserve. 1 Intent: r Class: 1 Schoolzon6: Eliminate Pave section: (decided at 5/19/05 BAC meeting) ' oc oQ r � O .41 1 Kevin 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 r 2 Jean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 3 Ben 0 4 Glen 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 r 5 Phil 3 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 11 r 6 0 r 7 0 r avg. SCORI 1.0010.0010.5010.5010.501 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 5.67 r - - r _ Notes: -- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r Project: Pacific Bike Blvd. Create a Bike Blvd. along Pacific St, from Higuera St. to Santa Description: Rosa St. To provide a low traffic impact West bound through route for downtownbicyclists that serves the downtow-ft-core and - Deleted 7 / 05 meeting- School zone: HA Pave section: 4 m c O w 2 V tiF �J 4 1 Kevin 0 2 Jean 0 3 Ben 0 4 Glen 0 5 Trevor 0 _ 6 Tom 0 7 0 avg. SCORO### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### Notes: Connects with proposed Leff St. Bicycle Blvd and proposed Beach - St. Bicycle Blvd. Project better served by Beach and Leff streets. 1 Project: Prefumo Creek grade separated crossing, Class 1 Description: Bridge from Oceanaire to Vista del Lago over creek. Intent: Provide safe cycling connectivity to schools between neighborhoods and provide an alternate to LOVR for pedestrians. Class: I School zone: SM Due to the recent City Council Pave 1 section: 6 meeting concerning the easement on Length the Oceanairro e (Meters) P P Est Cost Replaced this with the Priority Second previous sheet project: m Laguna Middle School Connection Options. 10/06 BAC meeting z' 4? � v 1 Kevin 5 51 41 2 01 5 01 2 5 OF-28 ' 2 Jean 5 4 41 2 0 4 0 2 5 0 26 3 Ben 2 3 3 2 1 4 2 4 4 0 25 4 Glen 3 4 4 3 0 4 2 4 5 1 30 5 Trevor 4 3 5 4 1 5 . 1 4 5 0 32 6 Tom I -- - --0 7 Tim 3 41 3 21 01 41 1 1---41 51 01 26 avg. SCOR 3.6713.8313.8312.501 0.331-4-.331-1.0013.3314,8310.,17[27.831 Notes: City,does not currently own land or easements needed for 1 crossing. 1 ' MasterProjects 3/5/2007 PrefumoCreekXing 1 Project: Sacramento Class I Provide a connection from the northern end of Acacia Class I Description: (MUP) at Sacramento to proposed Orcutt Class I. Provide connectivity with exiting Class I and RR Safety trail via Intent: Class I Class: I School zone: SI Pave section: Deleted, 9/05 meeting Sacramento is pushing through �0 to Orcutt and will have a Class II 2� C,° 4 aim 4a 4 -F v �� 4f AO 1 Kevin 4 41 51 3 01 4 21 51 3 4F-34 2 Jean 4 4 5 3 0 4 1 3 4 4 32 3 Ben 4 - 4 5 3 2 4 1 3 3 2 31 4 Glen 0 5 Trevor 0 6 Tom 4 5 S 3 0 4F 2 5 3 4 35 I 0 avg. SCOR 4.00 4.25 5.00 3.00 0.50 4.00 1.50 4.00 3.25 3.50 33.00 Notes: Through route from present terminus-of Acacia Creek Class I to connect to the present RR Safety trail via proposed Orcutt class I. Deleted this project as a Class I at the 9/05 meeting and _ recommended that the entire length of Sacramento have Class II lanes (both sides). This was done in anticipation of the increased bicycling need when Sacramento pushes through to Orcut and the increased motor vehicle traffic. The 11/05 BAC agenda contains a letter from UPS requesting that the route be a class III to preserve needed "overflow" parking. d Project: Sharrows (Shared Lane Markings) During the city pavement cycle, class III routes will be identified 1 Description: and studied for placement of Sharrow symbols. Intent: The intent is to educate all road users. 1 Class: other Eliminate / School zone: all Pave (decided at 3/24/06. BAC meeting section: all that this would be incorporated ' Priority Third into the plan as a policy) - added policy in 9/06 meeting i Co� a "5,y � F� 4? oo o .moo �Q 40 1 Kevin 1 1 1 0 3 1 5 5 5 5 27 2 Jean 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 3 11 3 Ben 1 2 2 1 2 1 3 -0 2 0 14 4 Glen 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 7 5 Trevor 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 8 6 Tom 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 . 0 4 7Tim 1 2 1 0 3 1i6.71 0 3 3 18 avg. SCOR 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.29 1.71 0.86 1:71 1.57 _12:71 / Notes: The BAC will annually review and recommend routes for sharrow ' markings. 1 1 1 1 1 MasterProjects OBP6 27 1 1 APPENDIX K: PAST EXPENDITURES.FOR.BICYCLE FACILITIES (1995 f' To 200 Every two years,the City Council adopts a Financial Plan. An integral part of the Financial Plan is the Capital Improvement Program(CIP). The CIP identifies major equipment or facility needs for the next four years. The information below is taken from CIPs dating back to 1995 and reflects bicycle projects that are either completed or are under construction. Where a bicycle facility was just a part of a larger project,an estimate of only the bicycle component is shown. City expenditures for repaving and rehabilitating streets that include Class 11 bike lanes are not shown in the table below. Past Expenditures for Major Bicycle Facilities 1995 to 2007 1 Type and Location of Facility Year Total Cost Completed x$1,000 On-Street Bicycle Lanes:.stripe over 4.5 miles of Class ll bike 1995 215 lanes along arterial streets. Johnson Park Bike&Pedestrian Path:a Class I bike path 1995 20 #Dugh the p#between Augusta St.and Southwood Dr. Jennifer Street Bridge:a 168-foot clear span bicycle& 1998 1,300 pedestriari bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad Railroad Bicycle Path(Phase I):a Class.1 bike path along the 1998 760 east side of the railroad between Orcutt Rd.and Bushnell St. FPAC Property Acquisition:a parcel of land for the eventual 1998 90 construction of a Class I bike path along the west side of the railroad between Francis St.and McMillan Ave with connections to the east end of Lawrence Dr. Railroad At-Grade Crossing Improvements: concrete inserts 2000-01 150(l) between the rail Imes and repaving of the at-grade railroad crossings at Foothill Blvd and Orcutt Railroad Safety Trail(Phase II):a Class I bike path along the 2002 400 east side of the railroad between Bushnell St and the Jennifer Street Bridge. Railroad Safety Trail(Phase Ell):preliminary engineered plans 2001 95 for the path between the AMTRAK passenger terminal and Marsh St Railroad Safety Trail(Phase IV):preliminary engineering plans 2006 60 for the path between Foothill Blvd and Hathaway St. Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail:preliminary engineering 2001 40 plans for a path along SLO Creek between Madonna Rd and Los Osos Valley Rd and along Prefumo Creek from Madonna Rd to Calle Joaquin. Railroad Transportation Center(RTC):a segment of Class I 2001 70 bike and pedestrian path along the east side of a newl San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) -45 - ®e® 1 1 constructed pulang lot next to the railroad. ' Bill RoahnanBicycle Boulevard: closing the south end of Morro 2007 356 Street to vehicle access while maintaining bicycle access and use of Morro Street as a downtown connector route. Bill Roalman Bicycle Boulevard Traffic Signal:install a traffic 200 120 ' signal at the Santa Barbara/Morro Street intersection that allows ' cyclists and pedestrians to cross Santa Barbara Street more conveniently. TOTAL $3,676,000 1 Estimated a 'lure by Union Pacific Railroad 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 2007) APPENDIX L: BIKEWAY SURFACE QUALITY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS Surface Ouality The surface to be used by bicyclists should be smooth, free of potholes,and the pavement edge uniform.On new construction,the finished surface of bikeways should not vary more than 6 mm from the lower edge when laid on the surface in any direction. See the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual,2006. Table 1003.6 Bikeway Surface Tolerances Direction of Travel Grooves 1 Ste s 2 Parallel to travel No more than 12mm No more than l Omm wide high Perpendicular to travel -- No more than 20mm high (1)Groove--A narrow slot in the surface that could catch a bicycle wheel,such as a gap between two concrete slabs. (2)Step--A ridge in the pavement,such as that which might exist between the pavement and a concrete gutter or manhole cove,or that might exist between two pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway. Source:Table 1003.6,California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual,2006 San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) -47 - ®� _ = s .0 >1 d N ��..E N 0� 4 f0 C C a E to V L' �. d C 'a 0 .0 s m .ep a 8Y ac c > >, y e EdE 8 0 •s r s s ecc co Q .. �� _ o� Cco C d 3 c c ,� u m > d ?3 0ob0 00 rya _ yy iO U = 3 C O W co � 3 o acv SS 'fl q c = a •�' c Ep 0S .1 p. V cc O N= W d .p m y3 :0 cc o a ° o e. vii yh y a. � QQy � 6Q ° �� c Ic pow�+ m w d $� d U U U V] V� ,O m v!Itt C m N f0 D d .0 .s7 .0 .0 >. L a a a o 3 — .9 A0' " EEEE EEE E EE �, x > m � " 00000 o00 0 �0y0 a CLOC-I map a Aleq V V V n & oy v �,b O p . U 3 mss, c�p V O 3 0 a o° w et d e o o e e d o 0 o e o o - m m 7 t0 O CLa , y tr C �. TC' of V a� .� y E aC1 O H �W � V n V V v v V my V v nl Q p d 5 y m V-Olt V d d d aae 3 Oa0 �j � m In V V V n n fi tn Me�'ry M � Ma aUi i° > 0a O a e V Al Al V v Al o° Q W e o d a J o Z cc mcs m v co a: ° oo o � m 000 0 00 ° mph Zc � A o00 0 0o g d o .. 10 °o .� V V n n y o o"o o" o o �° 00 °0 .0 m n as ar . C; ( .� >:o, V Al nl V Al my c 'g °. ° m '° 93 Mny 7 UA O .� •'� 0 Ow ow m .. gy d m U C E CCU o .. v „ acc � cti o as w 0 d � .. ° o ° b � �49 s. . o da A m °PC 'OO WI'D =7 � � l � a Ix U U U w o a I APPENDIX N: STANDARD MITIGATION FOR CLASS I BIKEWAYS ADJOINING CREEKS 1. Permits: Construction through any creek,drainage,or riparian habitat shall not be _ conducted until all required federal, state and local permits are approved and issued by agencies with jurisdiction. Best Management Practices(BMPs)during construction activities shall be employed to reduce impacts to water quality. 2. Fencing: Where a bikeway extends along a creek identified in the City's General Plan Open Space Element, a fence shall be installed at the inside edge of the bikeway to discourage trail users from entering the creek setback area,riparian canopy or creek - channel. Fencing shall be as illustrated and described below,unless alternative designs are approved or required by the natural resources manager: ?ilr+�t F - ��►,.. .._ _-._ 1.2 rn. (4 tt. Typical Height • .� Wood with 4 - . ... . .. . .. Split Rail Strand Wire 1.2-meter(4 foot) tall wooden posts 1.2-meter(4 foot)tall wooden posts -Posts spaced 2.4 meters (8 foot) on center . Posts spaced 2.4 meters (8 foot)on enter - Four(4)wire strands _ ---.. ....... Three(3).horizontal.splitrails 3. Signs: Signs that identify the sensitive nature of all creek habitats,and post notice that access is restricted into these areas,shall be installed along the corridor fencing and on bridges. - 4. Vegetation Enhancement: Locally occurring native plant species shall be installed between the corridor fencing and the existing riparian habitat,or top of bank where no habitat exists. Plantings should consist of low water using native species to increase the diversity and width of the riparian corridor. Species should be selected that support local bird and wildlife populations. 5. Lighting. Shielded lighting that provides for minimum illumination of bikeway junctions, staging areas,bridges,and constriction points, shall be installed. The City's Natural Resources Manager shall review all lighting plans to ensure that light levels and spillage will not impact sensitive habitat areas. 6. Rare Plant Survey: Where a bikeway is planned to encroach into a creek setback,a rare plant survey will be conducted and mitigation strategies included in the project's design if rare species are found. The survey shall be conducted during times of the year when candidate rare plants are both evident and identifiable. The survey shall follow San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) applicable guidelines promulgated by the California Native Plants Society and the California Department of Fish and Game.The Natural Resources Manager may exempt specific bikeway projects from this requirement when the proposed bikeway will be installed on land disturbed by urban development—such as service roads,parking lots, other paved areas,or fenced storage areas. 7. Cultural Resource Mitigation:At the commencement of a project's construction,a qualified archaeologist shall give all workers associated with earth disturbing procedures an orientation regarding the possibility of exposing unexpected cultural remains and directed as to what steps are to be if such a find is encountered. If any cultural resources are encountered during constriction, construction shall cease immediately and procedures established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerning the protection and preservation of historic and cultural properties shall be followed. In such an event,a qualified archaeologist with local expertise shall be consulted immediately in order to assess the nature,extent,and possible significance of r any cultural remains encountered. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until.the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent,the comer has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person(s)thought to be the Most Likely Descendent(MLD)of the deceased Native American,who will then help determine what course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains. r 8. Water Quality Mitigation:A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading for any bikeway segment and shall be implemented for all construction activity.The SWPPP shall include specific Best Management Practices(BMPs)to control the discharge of material from the site. BMPs may include,but are not limited to: • Seeding and mulching of bare surfaces r • Use of straw bales and rock dams • Soil wetting during high wind conditions • Soil stabilizers • Re-vegetation of all slopes as soon as possible following construction ' 9. Flood Management Mitigation: Within thirty(30)days following flooding events, bikeways adjoining creeks shall be inspected to determine if damage has occurred. if significant damage is found,it shall be repaired immediately,with temporary signage to 1 indicate the trail's closure until damage is repaired. Routine inspections shall be conducted on an annual basis. In order to minimize damage to flood-prone portions of ' bikeways,an anchored path structure should be used.Methods for anchoring the path include,but are not limited to: 1 • Geo-web mesh as a trail base • Gabions covered with soil cement as a trail base r • Finger dikes or groins along the trail edge 1 r r San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) r J RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION,AMENDING THE 2002 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN,AND RECINDING RESOLUTION NO. 9308 (2002 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 needs to be updated to incorporate policies,programs and standards that guide bicycle facility design, development and maintenance; and WHEREAS, on , a Public Review Draft of the updated Bicycle Transportation Plan was published and 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 2007 the BAC reviewed the draft update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and its Negative Declaration at a public hearing, and on , 2007 C 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 L Impacts associated with implementation of the amended Bicycle Transportation Plan. Section 2: The Bicycle Transportation Plan of the City of San Luis Obispo is hereby amended. The amended Bicycle Transportation Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Section 3: Resolution No 9308 (2002 Series) is hereby rescinded. On motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: I, San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan(February 2007) - 51 - ®®® Page 2—Resolution No. (2004 Series) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the following resolution was adopted this_day of , 2007. David F. Romero, Mayor 1 ATTEST: 1 City Clerk Audrey Hooper Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney 1 ' San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan (February 20 07) - 52 QED 1