HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2018 Item 12 Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan Meeting Date: 2/6/2018
FROM: Daryl R. Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Luke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer
SUBJECT: BROAD STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD (ANHOLM BIKEWAY) PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Bicyc le Advisory Committee, adopt a resolution approving the Anholm
Bikeway Plan Preferred Alternative, as defined in Attachment B.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
P lanning efforts for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard project have progressed with the goal of
developing a safe, low-stress priority route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the City’s
Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. The corridor also serves as a key safe route to school
corridor for Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. The intent of this effort is to provide
a route that is attractive to not only experienced cyclists, but users of all ages and ability levels.
Based on a two-year process of community engagement and extensive technical analysis, staff
has developed final recommendations for the plan. As directed by the City Council at its August
15, 2017 Study Session, two distinct alternatives have been developed for the most challenging
portion of this route–the segment between Lincoln Street and Foothill Boulevard. Each of the
two proposed alternatives include unique benefits and trade-offs, and varying levels of support
and opposition from the community.
At its August 15, 2017 Study Session, Council directed staff to develop a primary alternative that
provided additional separation for bicyclists by looking at partial on-street parking space
removal. This primary alternative—referred to as the Preferred Alternative—includes installation
of protected/buffered bike lanes along the majority of the route connecting Downtown and
Foothill Boulevard, with the tradeoff of removal of 73 on-street parking spaces. The Lincoln
Street Alternative, a secondary option presented for consideration at the request of the Council,
includes a shared route with pavement markings, route signage and minor traffic calming to
convey the bikeway route. Minimal parking loss is required for the Lincoln Alternative, with the
tradeoff of a less desirable route with lower potential to attract new cyclists and increase bicycle
mode share.
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January
18, 2018 and has recommended the Preferred Alternative to the City Council for approval.
Council will receive full presentation of each plan along with the pros and cons of each
alternative. Council is asked to consider the technical analysis presented in each plan, and
community input for each alternative, and adopt a final plan to carry forward into design and
implementation. This project supports several key City programs and policies, including t he
Packet Pg. 299
12
Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to achieve 20 percent
bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan recommendation to increase bicycle use for
transportation, and Vision Zero initiative to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries
for all the city’s road users by 2030.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard has been a component of the City’s Bicycle Transportation
plans since 2007, with the goal of providing a low-stress, priority route for bicyclists and
pedestrians connecting the Downtown Core to Foothill Boulevard. For bicyclists, a “low-stress”
route minimizes stressful factors such as difficult terrain, gaps in connectivity, and most
importantly, perceived safety concerns about conflicts with high-speed/volume motor vehicle
traffic. Simply put, a low-stress route is a connection that is attractive to users of all ages and
ability levels, from families with young children to less-experienced adult cyclists who may be
intimidated sharing the street with vehicular traffic under current conditions. Additionally, the
proposed multimodal corridor serves a dual purpose as a safe routes to school connection for
Pacheco and Bishop’s Peak elementary schools. This project is established as a “first priority”
bike project in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and supports several City programs and
policies, including the Multimodal Transportation Major City Goal, the General Plan objective to
achieve 20 percent bicycle mode share citywide, Climate Action Plan, and Vision Zero initiative
to eliminate traffic-related deaths and severe injuries for all the city’s road users by 2030.
Development of this plan began approximately two years ago as part of the 2015 -17 Financial
Plan, and progress has accelerated after adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan when the Broad
Street Boulevard project was identified as one of the top priorities in Multimodal Major City
Goal. Over this time, numerous iterations of plan concepts evolved and were focused into a
series of alternatives through several public workshops, community design charrettes, online
forums, and community surveys. Through this public feedback, four themes emerged which were
reflected in the various alternatives. Those four themes, in no particular order, are:
1. The desire for physical separation from motor vehicle traffic—protected lanes;
2. The desire to have the improvements follow the route most cyclists are currently using ,
avoiding difficult topography and circuitous routing (i.e. follow existing Desire Lines1);
3. The request to not disrupt or substantially change vehicle flows; and
4. The wish to avoid removal of on-street parking.
In August of 2017, Staff presented preliminary design options to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee (BAC) and City Council to receive direction o n narrowing the range of options and
focusing further plan development on one or two alternatives to be brought back before the BAC
and City Council for final action. Council directed staff to continue development of an
1 In transportation planning, desire lines refer to paths created by pedestrians or bicyclists to follow the shortest or
most easily navigated route between origin and destination—often as a shortcut to a more circuitous, or inefficient
designated route. An example would be a dirt footpath worn across a field, created over time by pedestrians or
bicyclists, bypassing a more circuitous paved trail in lieu of a shorter path.
Packet Pg. 300
12
alternative that included protected bike lanes in exchange for on-street parking on one-side of the
street , with a more in-depth analysis of the associated on-street parking loss. Council also
directed staff to continue development of a secondary alternative following Lincoln Street, which
required minimal parking loss. Staff has completed this work and is now prepared for Council
consideration of final adoption.
Although this planning effort continues to be called the “Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan”,
City staff is recommending that the actual plan document be titled “Anholm Bikeway Plan”
because neither option is technically a bicycle boulevard , nor is it established exclusively on
Broad Street. “Anholm Bikeway Plan” is a working title and will be used herein to refer to the
project; however, staff welcomes any recommendations of alternative titles to the plan. Other
common terms used to describe streets that are intended to provide equal priority for bikes,
pedestrians, transit , automobiles and neighborhood livability are sometimes call “neighborhood
greenways”. Whatever the term that is being used, the intent is to promote all modes and
provide equal access and use.
The Plan
Consistent with Council direction, two alternative plans are being presented for the Northern
Segment of the proposed corridor (Lincoln Street to Foothill Boulevard). These alternatives are:
1. Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) – Converts one side of on-street parking to
protected or buffered bike lanes, with a route alignme nt following Chorro, Mission,
Broad, and Ramona.
2. Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) – Retains a shared street configuration
where bicyclists and drivers share travel lanes, with a route alignment following Lincoln,
Mission, Broad and Ramona.
Two stand-alone Anholm Bikeway Plan documents have been prepared—one for the Preferred
Alternative, and one for the Lincoln Street Alternative. These documents, which include detailed
project descriptions, conceptual design drawings, analysis of benefits and trade-offs, proposed
costs and implementation strategies, are provided for review as Attachment B and Attachment E.
Each Northern Segment alternative, as well as recommendations for the Southern Segment
(Downtown to Lincoln Street) are summarized below.
Northern Segment – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)
The Preferred Alternative is described in detail in Attachment B.
The Preferred Alternative, as requested by the City Council for further refinement and study
during the August 2017 Counc il Study Session, proposes conversion of one side of on-street
parking to dedicated protected/buffered bike lanes along Chorro Street, Broad Street and
Ramona Drive. The proposed corridor includes a two-way protected bikeway on the west side of
Chorro (Lincoln to Mission), shared mixed-flow lanes along the low-traffic portion of Mission
(Chorro to Broad), a southbound buffered/protected bike lane and northbound shared lane on
Broad (Mission to Ramona), a two-way protected bikeway on the north side of Ramona (Broad
to Safe Routes to School Path), and construction of the planned Safe Routes to School
Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the
Packet Pg. 301
12
Foothill/Ferrini intersection. Enhanced route signage and pavement markings are proposed
throughout the corridor for wayfinding purposes and to increase the visibility of the corridor as a
priority multimodal route.
The Preferred Alternative makes over 80 percent of the 1.3 -mile trip between Downtown and
Foothill Boulevard possible via physically protected or buffered bike lanes—the type of facilities
that are attractive to cyclists of all ages and ability levels. For this reason, this alternative is
expected to have the greatest potential to increase bicycle mode share. The primary tradeoff with
this alternative is the loss of 73 on-street parking spaces along the route, which is the chief
shared concern of neighborhood residents. To better understand the potential effects of this
parking loss on the neighborhood, parking data was collected throughout the vicinity of the
proposed bikeway during fall of 2017. Findings of the parking study are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Peak Period On-Street Parking Conditions with and without Project
It should be noted that this parking analysis does not reflect the recently approved, but not yet
occupied, multifamily residential developments at 22 Chorro and 41 Palomar. As approved,
these projects were found to include on-site parking consistent with City requirements, including
an allowed parking reduction for mixed-use development and for incorporating auto trip
reduction measures, such as increased bicycle parking and other amenities to encourage use of
alternative transportation modes. The proposed implementation and monitoring pla n for the
Anholm Bikeway strategically delays removal of street parking fronting residential properties
along Broad and Chorro Streets until a later project phase to allow for monitoring of parking
conditions after occupancy of these development projects. As discussed further below, formation
of a residential permit parking district would be an appropriate strategy to address concerns of
potential parking spillover from these developments into nearby neighborhood streets—
particularly considering that multifamily residential properties are not eligible to receive permits
for street parking within parking districts.
With the reduction in on-street parking supply associated with the proposed bikeway project ,
street parking is anticipated to be scarce during peak periods along certain segments of Chorro,
Broad and Ramona. For segments where peak parking demand nears or exceeds available
supply, there is generally available street parking within one-to-two blocks (about a 1- to 3-
minute walk). Some residents who favor parking on street out of convenience may simply park
in their garage or driveway more frequently if parking on street becomes difficult to find.
(Informal observations during parking data collection found that 30 -40 percent of residential
driveways were vacant along Chorro and Broad Streets during peak periods). Other residents
living in homes with high auto ownership and/or with limited off-street garage/driveway parking
Packet Pg. 302
12
will likely continue to rely on street parking and may need to walk 1 -2 blocks at times of peak
demand to find available parking nearby. It’s important to acknowledge that under either
circumstance, some residents consider the lack of readily-available on-street parking fronting
their home as an unacceptable hardship in exchange for improved bicycle facilities.
While there are no adopted plans or policies that obligate the City to provide street parking for
private vehicles, staff is sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood and have outlined the
following po tential strategies in the Anholm Bikeway Plan to address parking concerns:
• Residential Parking District – If the Council moves forward with the Preferred
Alternative, it is recommended that the City initiate the process to form a parking
district (s) in the Anholm neighborhood. Actual boundaries of the district will be
determined as part of this process and will require a 60% vote of support from
households and Council Approval. There is a limit of two permits per residents at a cost
of $15 per permit. The initial $15 permit fee for all is proposed to be funded by the
project at no cost to the neighborhood, any subsequent permit fees would be subject to
the standard provisions of the parking residential parking district program.
• Accessible On-Street Parking – The plan retains on-street parking on at least one side of
the street for the length of the route. On a case-by-case basis, residents can request
installation of designated ADA accessible on-street parking stalls along segments of the
proposed bike route where parking remova l is proposed.
• Phasing/Monitoring Strategies – The project is proposed to be constructed in three
phases with a one-year monitoring period and a subsequent performance report that will
be presented to Council. The phasing plan allows for parking removal t o occur
incrementally and provides time for initiation a parking district prior to removal of street
parking along Broad and Chorro, if supported by residents. In addition, t he initial
installation of protected bike lanes will be made with temporary device s that could easily
be modified/removed and parking restored if the Council Directed staff to do so. Lastly,
the phased approach allows for monitoring and adjustments to project designs and the
possibility of spillover parking from the 71 Palomar and 22 Chorro projects.
Although the Anholm Bikeway Plan is primarily a bicycle project, several other features are
proposed along the Northern Segment to improve safety and mobility for pedestrians, including:
• Installation of speed cushions along Broad between M ission and Ramona to calm traffic
and reduce auto speeds to a level conducive to a walkable, bikeable environment.
• Construction of a raised intersection at Broad/Murray to calm traffic and improve the
intersection crossing environment for pedestrians and bicycles.
• Installation of additional street lighting along the proposed bikeway route.
• Construction of corner bulbouts at Broad/Ramona/Meinecke, new sidewalks along west
side of Broad, installation of accessible curb ramps and higher -visibility crosswalk
markings at several intersections to improve pedestrian accessibility and safety along the
proposed route.
The primary elements of the Preferred Alternative are illustrated in Figure 1.
Packet Pg. 303
12
Figure 1: Northern Segment Summary Map – Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes) Packet Pg. 30412
Northern Segment – Lincoln Street Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)
The Lincoln Street Alternative is described in detail in Attachment E.
The Lincoln Street Alternative was requested by the City Council for consideration as a
secondary option if the parking loss proposed in the Preferred Alternative is determined to be too
impactful to the neighborhood. This alternative retains a shared street environment throughout
the Northern Segment, where bicyclists and motorists share travel lanes , albeit with the addition
of guide signage, bikeway pavement markings and minor traffic calming measures. The
proposed route alignment follows Lincoln Street (Chorro to Mission), Mission (Lincoln to
Broad), Broad (Mission to Ramona), Ramona (Broad to Safe Routes to School Path), and
construction of the planned Safe Routes to School Bicycle/Pedestrian Path connecting Ramona
to the planned bicycle/pedestrian crossing at the Foothill/Ferrini intersection. This alternative
requires elimination of less than 10 on-street parking spaces—strictly at corners where bulbouts
are proposed to improve pedestrian crossings, and on Ramona at the entry to the planned Safe
Routes to School Path.
While the Lincoln Alternative requires minimal loss of on-street parking, it has the tradeoff of
having less potential to increase bicycle mode share. Lincoln Street is already a superior cycling
environment over Chorro & Broad Street ; however, only 12 percent of the approximately 300
daily cyclists that travel between Downtown and Foothill currently choose Lincoln over Broad &
Chorro Streets—mainly due to the route being longer and more circuitous. Pedestrians and
bicyclists using the streets for transportation as opposed to leisure will most commonly choose
the shortest and most int uitive path over a path with an improved environment, even when the
distance or time difference is minor. In addition to this, the Broad Street and Ramona Drive
portions of the proposed bikeway route will continue to carry traffic volumes that exceed the
t hreshold s generally recommended for shared bicycle streets. Implementation of additional
traffic calming will provide some benefits to cycling along these streets, but the frequent
conflicts with passing autos will likely continue to deter many less experienced riders.
The Lincoln Street Alternative includes the same pedestrian improvements for the Northern
Segment as the Preferred Alternative, which are listed in the previous section of this report.
The primary elements of the Lincoln Street Alternative are illustrated in Figure 2.
Packet Pg. 305
12
Figure 2: Northern Segment Summary Map – Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss) Packet Pg. 30612
Southern Segment
One set of recommendations is proposed for the Southern Segment of the Anholm Bikeway Plan,
extending from Downtown (Monterey Street) to Lincoln Street. The plan recommendations for
this segment are summarized as follows:
• Install safety lighting and streetscape enhancements at Highway 101/Chorro Street
undercrossing. Staff will explore opportunities through grants and other City programs to
include community artwork and/or other aesthetic features to enhance this location as a
key gateway to the downtown.
• Extend existing buffered bike lanes on Chorro between Lincoln and Palm, and add
physical separation within buffers to create protected bike lanes.
• Provide enhanced pavement markings and route signage on Chorro between Palm and
Monterey to convey the priority bikeway link into Downtown.
• Construct corner bulbouts at Chorro/Walnut to shorter pedestrian crossing exposure.
• Install accessible curb ramps and enhanced crossing markings for bicycles and
pedestrians at the Chorro/Peach and Chorro/Walnut intersections.
Potential Highway 101/Broad Street Ramp Closure
In the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Broad Street Bicyc le Boulevard identifies a
potential future grade-separated bicycle/pedestrian crossing of Highway 101 at Broad Street .
This project has been considered as part of this planning process however the scope of the
project is significant and requires the ultimate closure of the Broad Street 101 on- and off-ramps
by Caltrans. Recent studies of the potential closure of the Broad Street ramps by both the City
and Caltrans, including consideration for closure of the southbound ramps only, have concluded
that closure of the ramps is not feasible at this time without significant, and costly improvements
to the adjacent Highway 101/Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1) interchange. A separate project
would need to be created to consider the system implications of such a closure that is beyond the
scope of the bicycle boulevard project. In addition to the high-cost improvements required
simply to facilitate closure of the ramps, construction of the grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle
crossing would involve substantial costs and fu nding challenges on its own. For these reasons,
these improvement s are not included as part of the Anholm Bikeway Plan at this time; however,
staff will continue to work with Caltrans to pursue closure of the ramps and will reevaluate the
potential for a pedestrian/bicycle crossing at this location in future years if closure of the ramps
becomes feasible. Making the recommended improvements along Chorro south of Lincoln Street
improves the bicycle separation objectives of bike plan without significant operation impacts or
capital cost outlay.
Community Input
To supplement the input already received at previous community meetings and via the project’s
web forum, staff conducted additional informal surveys of residents to gauge support for the two
proposed project alternatives for the Northern Segment . An online survey was made available for
citywide participation via the project webpage, while a mail-in survey was distributed to
approximately 1,200 residents in the Broad and Chorro neighborhood. In total, 697 survey
responses have been received as of January 16, 2018. The results of this survey are summarized
below.
Packet Pg. 307
12
As shown in the survey results, there is a clear differentiation of the support for either alternative
between the community-wide sample and residents of the Anholm neighborhood. This would be
expected as it mirrors concerns of the residents regarding potential parking removal. Where
survey participants selected “Other” as a preferred option, comments generally supported no
change at all, many citing the limited benefit of the Lincoln alternative, or prioritization of other
improvements in the city over this project. All comments received during the community survey
process are included as a Council Reading File in Attachment G.
Implementation Strategy
The proposed implementation strategy is similar for either alternative and includes the two
elements of the recently adopted Safe Routes to School (SRTS) plan for Bishop’s Peak and
Pacheco Elementary Schools: the bike and pedestrian crossing at Foothill/Ferrini and the Class I
Path between Foothill & Ramona. Proposed project phasing is summarized as follows:
Phase I (2018-19)
1. Right of Way Acquisition from Church of Latter Day Saints Property
2. Processing of Residential Parking District
3. Construction of Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing at Foothill & Ferrini
4. Construction of SRTS Class I Path between Foothill & Ramona
5. Installation of Measures along Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)
- 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Highway 1 & 101 Improvements &
Following Broad Ramp Closure.
Packet Pg. 308
12
Phase II (2019-20)
1. Installation of Temporary Measures South of Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)
2. Installation of Lighting and Streetscape Enhancements at Chorro & 101 Undercrossing.
- 12 Month Performance Monitoring and Status Report to Council
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following
Broad Ramp Closure.
Phase III (2020 & Beyond)
1. Incremental conversion of Temporary Measures to Permanent installations
2. Installation of ancillary spot improvements, such as raised intersection at Broad/Murray,
installation of sidewalks along west side of Broad, curb ramps and additional street lights.
- Continued coordination with Caltrans on Hwy 1 & 101 Improvements & Following
Broad Ramp Closure.
CONCURRENCES
The Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm Bikeway Plan alternatives on January
18, 2018, and recommended approval of the Preferred Alternative to the City Council. Due to the
limited time between the Bicycle Advisory Committee Meeting and City Council Meeting, draft
minutes will be provided as part of Council Correspondence.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The findings of the CEQA environmental analysis conducted for each project alternative is
included as Attachment C and Attachment F.
Per Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines , the
project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and
Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because the project would be constructed on existing city
streets within the public right of way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value
as habitat for biological resources and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed
street lights would be located in an urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare
beyond existing conditions. The project has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department
(Transportation Division) and Community Development Department, and no significant traffic
impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways,
and traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is proposing to implement elements of the Bishop’s Peak and Pacheco Safe Routes to
School Plan in conjunction with the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan—
both projects are included in the adopted FY2017-19 Financial Plan. There is currently $610,000
approved through FY2018/19 in the FY2017-19 Financial Plan for project implementation. At
Packet Pg. 309
12
the time the current financial plan was adopted, the scope was yet to be de fined and the cost
estimates were speculative for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway) Plan. For
example, a final plan had yet to be adopted and potential costs could range significantly,
depending on the type of features to be approved. The cost for Phase I of the Anholm Bikeway
(Preferred Alternative) improvements is estimated at $900,000, leaving a budget shortfall of
$290,000 for Phase I. To address this shortfall, staff will be requesting $290,000 as part of the
FY2017-19 Budget Supplement through SB-1 State funding.
Phase II of Anholm Bikeway Plan implementation is included in the five -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), with $270,000 identified for FY2019/20. Again, at the time the
current Financial Plan was adopted, the scope of these improvements was yet to be defined.
Under the recommended plan, the estimated cost for Phase II implementation is $475,000. Staff
will be requesting these funds as part of the FY2019-21 Financial Plan. Due to the incremental
nature of Phase III imple mentation, it’s anticipated that these improvements can be scaled and
phased in as future budgets permit.
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard (Anholm Bikeway Plan) improvements are under consideration
for inclusion in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Program update, which is expected to be
finalized in 2018 and could provide additional funding opportunities. In addition, staff will
pursue any available grant funding for unfunded portions of the project.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could adopt a resolution ado pting the Anholm Bikeway plan under a hybrid of
features from the Preferred Alternative (protected bike lanes) and the Lincoln Alternative
(shared streets).
An example hybrid plan could include the Preferred Alternative’s protected lanes on
Chorro & Ramona, with the Lincoln Alternative’s class III shared lanes, traffic calming,
and no parking removal on Broad where parking is most limited. This example is a
supportable alternative by staff.
2. Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan under the Lincoln
Street Alternative, as defined in Attachment E. Staff does not recommend this alternative
because this option is expected to have limited effect on achieving the bicycle mode share
goals, as adopted in the City General Plan.
3. Council could either defer adoption of any plan to some future point uncertain or decide
to adopt no plan and direct staff to return with an amendment to the Bicycle
Transportation plan removing the planned facility augmentation.
Packet Pg. 310
12
Attachments:
a - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Preferred Alt)
b - Council Reading File - Final Report (Preferred Alt)
c - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Preferred Alternative)
d - Council Resolution Adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan (Lincoln Alt)
e - Council Reading File - Final Report (Lincoln Alt)
f - CEQA Notice of Exemption (Lincoln Alternative)
g - Council Reading File - Final Survey Summary
Packet Pg. 311
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX___ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to the General Plan support reducing use of single-occupant motor vehicles by supporting
alternatives, such as walking and bicycling ; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20
percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan develops dedicated, protected bicycle
facilities—the types of infrastructure that have been shown in other communities to provide
substantial benefits to bicycle safety and increase bicycle mode share ; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified Multi-Modal Transportation as a Major City Goal,
with the purpose of prioritizing implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, pedestrian
safety, and the Short -Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends development of a low-impact
route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to Foothill Boulevard as a “first
priority” project ; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths
and severe injuries by 2030, with a focus on improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and
WHEREAS, the City coordinated with neighbors and other community members on
outreach and public input through community meetings and other methods; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2018 the Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm
Bikeway Plan at a public hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that
SECTION 1. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Anholm Bikeway Plan as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will develop low-stress, protected bicycle facilities,
which have been a well-documented strategy to make bicycling safer, more accessible, and
attractive as a transportation option for users of all ages and ability levels.
2. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will further General Plan goals to increase bicycle and
walking mode share.
Packet Pg. 312
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
3. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will provide improved infrastructure for walking and
bicycling, improving the viability of active transportation modes for school access and to
connect the downtown with the neighborhoods to the north.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Per Section 15304 of the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because
the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of way. The project
will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources and would not
be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an urban area and
would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project has no
potentially significant traffic impacts. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that
promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and traffic calming measures that promote
a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Packet Pg. 313
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
SECTION 3. Approval. The Anholm Bikeway Plan, as described and depicted in
Attachment B, is hereby approved.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo , California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 314
12
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of San Luis Obispo
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
1144 Monterey Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Applicant Address:
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Phone Number: 805-781-7190
Project Title: Anholm Bikeway Plan
Project Location - Specific: Chorro, Broad, Mission, and Ramona Streets between Foothill Blvd and Monterey Street
Project Location - City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo
Description of Project:
The project proposes bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the existing street right-of-way, including traffic calming
measures, pavement markings, signage, bulbouts, ADA curb improvements, sidewalk improvements, and installation of
bike routes (Class III), buffered bike lanes (Class II) and protected bike lanes (Class IV) on Chorro Street (Monterey to
Mission), Mission Street (Chorro to Broad), Broad Street (Mission to Ramona) and Ramona Drive (west of Broad). The
project would remove portions of on-street parking on one side of the street along segments of Chorro, Broad and
Ramona to provide width for bicycle facilities. The project includes restriping of existing portions of streets to convey
bicycle facilities, and adds additional street lighting along the proposed route per City Engineering Standards.
Name of Public Agency Approving the Project: City of San Luis Obispo
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project:
Exempt Status (check one):
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268;
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Existing facility – Section 15301 (c) (f); Minor Alterations
to Land – Section 15304 (h)
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
General Rule Exemption (Sec. 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4,
Minor Alterations to Land; Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, because the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of
way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources
and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an
urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project
has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant
traffic impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and
traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Luke Schwartz Area Code/Telephone/Ext. 805-781-7190 Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Packet Pg. 315
12
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ________________________ Date: January 25, 2018
Title: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Signed by Lead Agency Date Received for Filing at OPR: __________
Signed by Applicant
Revised December 2016
Packet Pg. 316
12
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _XXX___ (2018 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN
(LINCOLN STREET ALTERNATIVE)
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements
to the General Plan support reducing use of single-occupant motor vehicles by supporting
alternatives, such as walking and bicycling ; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20
percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation ; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan recommends addition of enhanced
signage, pavement markings and traffic calming to improve conditions for bicycling ; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified Multi-Modal Transportation as a Major City Goal,
with the purpose of prioritizing implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan, pedestrian
safety, and the Short -Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan recommends development of a low-impact
route for bicyclists and pedestrians connecting the downtown core to Foothill Boulevard as a “first
priority” project ; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths
and severe injuries by 2030, with a focus on improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and
WHEREAS, the City coordinated with neighbors and other community members on
outreach and public input through community meetings and other methods; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2018 the Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Anholm
Bikeway Plan at a public hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that
SECTION 1. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the Anholm Bikeway Plan as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereof, makes the following findings:
1. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will support bicycling as a more visible and attractive
transportation option for users of all ages and ability levels.
2. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will support General Plan goals to increase bicycle and
walking mode share.
3. The proposed Anholm Bikeway Plan will provide improved infrastructure for walking and
bicycling, improving the viability of active transportation modes for school access and to
connect the downtown with the neighborhoods to the north.
Packet Pg. 317
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Per Section 15304 of the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA
under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land, because
the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of way. The project
will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources and would not
be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an urban area and
would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project has no
potentially significant traffic impacts. The project is consistent with General Plan policies that
promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and traffic calming measures that promote
a safe, multimodal transportation network.
SECTION 3. Approval. The Anholm Bikeway Plan, as described and depicted in
Attachment D, is hereby approved.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Packet Pg. 318
12
Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo , California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 319
12
Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research From: City of San Luis Obispo
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Community Development Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
County Clerk
County of San Luis Obispo
1144 Monterey Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Applicant Address:
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Phone Number: 805-781-7190
Project Title: Anholm Bikeway Plan
Project Location - Specific: Chorro, Broad, Mission, Lincoln, and Ramona between Foothill Blvd and Monterey Street
Project Location - City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo
Description of Project:
The project proposes bicycle and pedestrian improvements within the existing street right-of-way, including traffic calming
measures, pavement markings, signage, bulbouts, ADA curb improvements, sidewalk improvements, and installation of
bike routes (Class III) on Lincoln Street (Chorro to Mission), Mission Street (Lincoln to Broad), Broad Street (Mission to
Ramona) and Ramona Drive (west of Broad). The project would remove approximately 10 on-street parking spaces to
improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at intersections. The project includes restriping of existing portions of streets to
convey bicycle facilities, and adds additional street lighting along the proposed route per City Engineering Standards.
Name of Public Agency Approving the Project: City of San Luis Obispo
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out the Project:
Exempt Status (check one):
Ministerial (Section 21080(b)(1); 15268;
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Existing facility – Section 15301 (c) (f); Minor Alterations
to Land – Section 15304 (h)
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
General Rule Exemption (Sec. 15061(b)(3))
Reasons why project is exempt:
The project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Existing Facilities; Section 15301 and Class 4,
Minor Alterations to Land; Section 15304 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, because the project would be constructed on existing city streets within the public right of
way. The project will be constructed in an area that has no value as habitat for biological resources
and would not be located in agricultural areas. The proposed street lights would be located in an
urban area and would not significantly increase light or glare beyond existing conditions. The project
has been reviewed by the City Public Works Department, Transportation Division, and no significant
traffic impacts were identified, based on the description and location of the project. The project is
consistent with General Plan policies that promote an integrated system of bikeways, walkways, and
traffic calming measures that promote a safe, multimodal transportation network.
Lead Agency
Contact Person: Luke Schwartz Area Code/Telephone/Ext. 805-718-7190 Email: lschwartz@slocity.org
Packet Pg. 320
12
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ______________________________ Date: January 25, 2018
Title: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Signed by Lead Agency Date Received for Filing at OPR: __________
Signed by Applicant
Revised December 2016
Packet Pg. 321
12
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg. 322
12
THENewspaper of the Central Coast
MBUNE
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispr
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AD #3492242
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen and not
interested in the above entitled matter; I am now, and at
all times embraced in the publication herein mentioned
was, the principal clerk of the printers and publishers of
THE TRIBUNE, a newspaper of general Circulation,
printed and published daily at the City of San Luis
Obispo in the above named county and state; that notice
at which the annexed clippings is a true copy, was
published in the above-named newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof — on the following dates to wit;;
JANUARY 27, 2018 that said newspaper was duly and
regularly ascertained and established a newspaper of
general circulation by Decree entered in the Superior
Court of San Luis Obispo County, State of California, on
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct.
(SiJaature of Principal Clerk)
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2018
AD COST: $358.44
RECEIVED
FF.P 01 2018
-C`=rYCORK
CITY OF
8f I .[>FB OBISPO
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tiic San Lui; Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to
attend a public hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 4:00
p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, relative to the following:
CONSIDER. ATION Or AN ORMNANCE REGULATINQ THE
VSE OF CITY FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED BOT I'LEQ BBEVERAG-
ES- IN CC TLIANCE WITH RECENTLY INDgPTEO ORDI-
NANCE NUMBER 1641
A public hearing to consider introducing an ordinance to amend
Chapter 3.24, Section 3.24.075 of the Municipal Code to add Sub-
section (F) to prohibit the use of City funds for specified single -use
plastic beverage bottles, in compliance with recently adopted
Chapter 8.07 of the Municipal Code regulating singe -use plastic
beverage bottles on City property.
For more information, you are invited to contact Kristin Eriksson of
the City's Finance Department at (805) 781-7510 or by email at
k ri on%sloallv.0
The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business
Items befora or after the items listed above. 11 you challenge the
proposed project in court, you may be limited to raising only those
Issues you or someone also raised at the public hearing descri-
bed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City Cler-
k's Office and online at www.slaclty oA on Wednesday, January
31, 2018. Please calf the Clty Clerk's Office at (805) 7a1-7100 for
more Information. The City Council meeting Wit be televised We
on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live, streaming on www.slocity
-oro•
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons to
altend a public hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 2018, at 6:00 p.m
in the City Hall Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obi-
spo, California, relative to the following:
gBgAq STREET BICYCLE BOULEVARD A HOLM BIKE -
wavj� rir�
A public hearing to consider the Slocle Advisory Committees'
(BAC) recommendation to the City CouncII to:
Review final recommendations and adopt a preferred alternative
for the Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan. The intent of the plan
is to guide development of a low -stress bicycle and pedestrian
route between Downtown and Foothill Boulevard. The project Is
categorically exempt under Class I, Section 15301 and Class 4,
Section 15304 of the California Environmental Quality Act. More
information can be found at the project website: http://www.peak
democMW,com/3444
For more information, you are invited to contact Luke Schwartz of
the City's Public Works Department at (805) 781-7190 or by email
al I%chwartz@,912g4y.org
The City Council may also discuss other hearings or business
Items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge the
proposed project in Court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing descri-
bed in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
Reports for this meeting will be available for review in the City
Clerk's Office and online at www.slocitV.org on Wednesday, Janu-
ary 31, 2018. Please call the City Clerk's Office at (805) 781-7100
for more information. The City Council meeting will be televised
live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and live streaming on www.slo
tl98YA .
Carrie Gallagher, CMC
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
January 27, 2018 3492242
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard(Anholm Bikeway) Plan• Project Background• Project Alternatives• Costs, Phasing & Implementation• Hybrid Options• Feedback & DiscussionFinal Plan Presentation – City Council, February 6, 2018Staff Presenters:Jake Hudson, Transportation ManagerLuke Schwartz, Transportation Planner-Engineer02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Project Goal:Develop a safe, low-stress through route serving bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and skill levels connecting the City’s downtown core north to Foothill Boulevard. 02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
How Do We Increase Bicycle Mode Share and Why Are Low Stress Bicycle Routes Important?82% of residents already bicycle or would bicycle more frequently if the right facilities were available 4 Types of Transportation BicyclistsStrong and FearlessEnthusiastic and ConfidentInterested but ConcernedNo Way No HowSources: SLOCOG 2013 Bicycle Use SurveyCity of Portland, “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists”02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Why Low Stress Bicycle Routes?Enthusiastic and ConfidentInterested but ConcernedHow do we attract the 64% who are interested in bicycling more frequently?02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Design for All Ages & Abilities!02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,0000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMEMOTOR VEHICLE SPEED (MPH)SPEED AND VOLUME THRESHOLDS FOR SHARED BICYCLE STREETMaximumPreferredCHORRO ST(EXISTING)BROAD ST(EXISTING)Existing Challenges along Corridor02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
MaximumPreferredCHORRO ST(EXISTING)BROAD ST(EXISTING)Existing Challenges along Corridor02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Public Outreach Activities4 Community MeetingsIncluding interactive design charretteNeighborhood forumOnline Forum1,300+ visitors to project site180+ comments2 Community SurveysMailed to 1,400+ residents in project areaOnline survey available community-wideSocial Media PlatformsPress ReleasesCity WebsiteE-BlastsTribuneKSBYNeighborhood MailersBicycle Advisory Committee• Preliminary Alternatives• Draft Concept PlanCity CouncilStudy Session on Preliminary Alternatives 02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Design Options Considered Thus FarTraffic Diversion on Broad St.(Traditional Bike Blvd like Morro St.)Chorro/Broad One-Way Couplet(Convert 1 Travel Lane to Protected Bike Lanes)Traffic Calming Only(Bike Blvd. on Broad w/ Traffic Calming Only)Highway 101/Broad Street Ramp Closure &Grade-Separated Bicycle/Pedestrian Crossing02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Design Options Considered Thus FarTraffic Diversion on Broad St.(Traditional Bike Blvd like Morro St.)Chorro/Broad One-Way Couplet(Convert 1 Travel Lane to Protected Bike Lanes)Traffic Calming Only(Bike Blvd. on Broad w/ Traffic Calming Only)PREFERRED ALTERNATIVELINCOLN ALTERNATIVE02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Southern Segment (Monterey to Lincoln)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Southern Segment (Monterey to Lincoln)Northern Segment Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Northern Segment Lincoln Street Alignment (Minimal Parking Loss)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Southern Segment (Monterey to Lincoln)Northern Segment Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Northern Segment Lincoln Street Alignment (Minimal Parking Loss)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
West Side of StreetNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
West Side of StreetNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Southbound Bike LaneNorthboundShared LaneNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Addition of dashed centerline on Broad will allow drivers to pass bicyclists safelySouthbound Bike LaneNorthboundShared LaneNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
North Side of StreetNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Additional Street Lighting to meet City StandardsADA Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, Bulbouts & Green Street FeaturesMORE THAN A BICYCLE PROJECTNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
•Increased Bicycle Ridership• Improved Public Health• Sustainability – improved air quality, lower GHG, energy-efficient• Reduces traffic & parking congestion•They Can Make Biking Safer •They Can Benefit DriversWhat we can achieve with this alternative…Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
•Increased Bicycle Ridership• Improved Public Health• Sustainability – improved air quality, lower GHG, energy-efficient• Reduces traffic & parking congestion•They Can Make Biking Safer •They Can Benefit DriversWhat we can achieve with this alternative…Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Learning curve w/ new facilitiesOn-Street ParkingHigher costs for permanent installation compared to striped bike lane or simple route markingsNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)PROJECT CONDITIONSEXISTING CONDITIONSTrade Offs02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)RAMONA DRIVE(BROAD TO PALOMAR)Peak Parking Demand with Project:>100%(Deficit of 13 spaces)Available On-Street Parking Nearby:Within 1-2 minute walk: 1-8 spacesWithin 3-4 minute walk: 8-18 spacesIs street parking available nearby?**Excludes unoccupied garages or driveways, and street parking in existing parking districts**02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)BROAD STREET(MURRAY TO RAMONA)Peak Parking Demand with Project:97%(1 space available)Available On-Street Parking Nearby:Within 1-2 minute walk: 5-6 spaces**Reflects spillover from Ramona parking removal**Is street parking available nearby?**Excludes unoccupied garages or driveways, and street parking in existing parking districts**02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
BROAD STREET(MISSION TO MURRAY)Peak Parking Demand with Project:100%Available On-Street Parking Nearby:Within 1-2 minute walk: 13-32Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Is street parking available nearby?**Excludes unoccupied garages or driveways, and street parking in existing parking districts**02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
CHORRO STREET(MT. VIEW TO VENABLE)Peak Parking Demand with Project:83% to >100%(Deficit of 3 spaces between Center and Venable) Available On-Street Parking Nearby:Within 1-2 minute walk: 35-72 spacesNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Is street parking available nearby?**Excludes unoccupied garages or driveways, and street parking in existing parking districts**02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Strategies to Address Parking Concerns:• Residential Parking District• Strategic Phasing & MonitoringoDelay parking removal on streets w/ residential frontage (Broad & Chorro) to later phase• Accessible On-Street ParkingoAccessible on-street parking stalls can be installed on impacted streets on case-by-case basisNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Learning Curve with New Type of Bike Facility?• Protected bike lanes (one-way & two-way) are new to SLO• Where do residents place waste bins on trash day?• Where do service vehicles & deliveries park?• Potential for conflicts at driveways?• Confusing maneuvers at intersections?02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Deliveries & Service Vehicle Parking41%33%29%47%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%Morning Midday Afternoon Late Evening% OCCUPANCYTime of Day Parking Occupancy by Time of Day – Broad and ChorroDeliveries &Service Activity02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)DrivewaysCaltrans Min: 8’Caltrans Min: 2’ (3’ next to parking)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Driveways02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)CHORRO STREET -- EXISTINGDriveways02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)CHORRO STREET -- EXISTINGDriveways02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)CHORRO STREET -- PROPOSEDDriveways02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)CHORRO STREET -- PROPOSEDDriveways02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)CHORRO STREET -- EXISTINGDriveways02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Intersections02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Intersections02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)IntersectionsDAVIS, CA02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)IntersectionsAUSTIN, TX02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Intersections02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)Alternate Treatment for Chorro -- Traditional Bike LanesWest Side of StreetTravel Lane10’Sidewalk(Existing)Bike Lane6’Parking7’Sidewalk(Existing)Travel Lane10’Bike Lane6’Chorro Street (Lincoln to Mission)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Preferred Alternative (Protected Bike Lanes)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)Lincoln Street / Mission Street / Broad Street / Ramona StreetTravel Lane10’-12’Travel Lane10’-12’’Parking7’-8’Sidewalk(Existing)Sidewalk(Existing)Parking7’-8’02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)Lincoln Street / Mission Street / Broad Street / Ramona StreetTravel Lane10’-12’Travel Lane10’-12’’Parking7’-8’Sidewalk(Existing)Sidewalk(Existing)Parking7’-8’Addition of dashed centerline on Broad & Ramona will allow drivers to pass bicyclists safely02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)Lincoln Street / Mission Street / Broad Street / Ramona StreetTravel Lane10’-12’Travel Lane10’-12’’Parking7’-8’Sidewalk(Existing)Sidewalk(Existing)Parking7’-8’02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Additional Street Lighting to meet City StandardsADA Curb Ramps, Sidewalks, Bulbouts & Green Street FeaturesPedestrian Improvements & Streetscape FeaturesNorthern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)•Traffic calming•Preservation of street parking spaces•Improved route wayfinding•Route markings and signage are generally low-cost to implementWhat we can achieve with this alternative…02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)Trade Offs…Unlikely to noticeably increase bike mode shareDaily Auto VolumeSpeed GradeDaily Bike RidershipChorro6,300 31 MPH 4%210Broad3,400 30 MPH 6-9% max174Lincoln400 30 MPH 2-3% max4202-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Northern Segment (Lincoln to Foothill)Lincoln St. Alternative (Minimal Parking Loss)Trade Offs…Unlikely to noticeably increase bike mode share02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Implementation (Phasing) StrategiesPhase I (2018-19)•Right of Way Acquisition from Church of Latter Day Saints Property•Construction of Bicycle & Pedestrian Crossing at Foothill & Ferrini•Construction of Class I Path between Foothill & Ramona•Initiation of Residential Parking District•Installation of Measures along Ramona (Depending Adopted Plan)Phase II (2019-20)•Installation of Temporary Measures South of Ramona (Depending on Adopted Plan)•Installation of Lighting at Chorro & 101 Undercrossing.Phase III (2020 & Beyond)•Incremental conversion of Temporary Measures to Permanent installations•Installation of ancillary spot improvements such as gaps in sidewalks & various street lights.•Depends highly on grant and private-public partnership opportunities02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Implementation (Phasing) StrategiesPhase II: Before & After Studies12 Month Performance Monitoring Status Report to Council02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Community Feedback“Other” Responses:No ChangeAny Parking Loss is UnacceptablePrefers Other Bike FacilitiesPrefers Traffic Calming Only(105)(183)(218)(76)(81)(32)02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Broad Street Bicycle Boulevard Plan02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
BAC Feedback• SLO Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) received draft plan, staff presentation, and public input at 1/18 meeting.• BAC deliberation focused on challenging balance between improving bicycling vs. neighborhood trade-offs. Also discussed other traffic calming needs and potential for confusion/conflict with new (to SLO) bikeway type• Final BAC recommendation to Council is to approve plan under Preferred Alternative to promote highest potential to increase bike safety & mode share02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
•Included as CIP Project in 2017-19 Financial Plan•Broad Bike Blvd (Anholm Bikeway) improvements overlap with and will be implemented concurrently with SRTS project•Phase 3 improvements to be scaled and phased incrementallyCosts & FundingFUNDING SOURCE2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 Total91317 Safe Routes to School (SB1) $ 321,614 $ ‐$ ‐ $ 321,614 91619 Broad Street Bike Blvd. (SB1) $ 18,000 $ 180,000 $ 270,000 $ 468,000 91373 BTP Implementation (GF)$ 90,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 90,000 Total: $ 429,614 $ 180,000 $ 270,000 $ 879,614 EXPENSESSR2S Class I Path ROW $ 375,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 375,000 SR2S Class I Path $ ‐$ 350,000 $ ‐ $ 350,000 Foothill Hawk Signal$ ‐ $ 175,000 $ ‐ $ 175,000 Anholm Bikeway ‐ Downtown to Ramona $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Chorro Underpass Lighting$ ‐ $ ‐$ 150,000 $ 150,000 Total: $ 375,000 $ 525,000 $ 475,000 $ 1,375,000 Balance: $ 54,614 ($290,386) ($495,386) ($495,386)PHASE IPHASE II02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
•Included as CIP Project in 2017-19 Financial Plan•Broad Bike Blvd (Anholm Bikeway) improvements overlap with and will be implemented concurrently with SRTS project•Phase 3 improvements to be scaled and phased incrementallyCosts & FundingFUNDING SOURCE2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 Total91317 Safe Routes to School (SB1) $ 321,614 $ ‐$ ‐ $ 321,614 91619 Broad Street Bike Blvd. (SB1)$ 18,000 $ 180,000 $ 270,000 $ 468,000 91373 BTP Implementation (GF)$ 90,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 90,000 NEW 18’‐19’ Supplement Request (SB 1)$ 300,000Total: $ 429,614 $ 480,000 $ 270,000 $ 879,614 EXPENSESSR2S Class I Path ROW$ 375,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 375,000 SR2S Class I Path$ ‐$ 350,000 $ ‐ $ 350,000 Foothill Hawk Signal$ ‐ $ 175,000 $ ‐ $ 175,000 Anholm Bikeway – Downtown to Ramona $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Chorro Underpass Lighting$ ‐ $ ‐$ 150,000 $ 150,000 Total: $ 375,000 $ 525,000 $ 475,000 $ 1,375,000 Balance: $ 54,614 $9,614($195,836) ($195,836)PHASE IPHASE II02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
•Included as CIP Project in 2017-19 Financial Plan•Broad Bike Blvd (Anholm Bikeway) improvements overlap with and will be implemented concurrently with SRTS project•Phase 3 improvements to be scaled and phased incrementallyCosts & FundingFUNDING SOURCE2017‐18 2018‐19 2019‐20 Total91317 Safe Routes to School (SB1) $ 321,614 $ ‐$ ‐ $ 321,614 91619 Broad Street Bike Blvd. (SB1)$ 18,000 $ 180,000 $ 270,000 $ 468,000 91373 BTP Implementation (GF)$ 90,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 90,000 NEW 18’‐19’ Supplement Request (SB 1)$ 300,000NEW 2019‐21 Financial Plan Request$ 200,000Total: $ 429,614 $ 480,000 $ 470,000 $ 1,379,614 EXPENSESSR2S Class I Path ROW$ 375,000 $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 375,000 SR2S Class I Path$ ‐$ 350,000 $ ‐ $ 350,000 Foothill Hawk Signal$ ‐ $ 175,000 $ ‐ $ 175,000 Anholm Bikeway – Downtown to Ramona $ ‐ $ ‐ $ 325,000 $ 325,000 Chorro Underpass Lighting$ ‐ $ ‐$ 150,000 $ 150,000 Total: $ 375,000 $ 525,000 $ 475,000 $ 1,375,000 Balance: $ 54,614 $9,614 $4,164 $4,164PHASE IPHASE II02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Comparing CostsPhaseFeaturesCommon Costs to Both AlternativesPreferredAlternativeLincolnAlternativePhase I• SRTS Class I Path (ROW & Const.)• SRTS Crossing @ Foothill/Ferrini• Ramona Bike Improvements $800K $100K $50KPhase IIInterim Anholm Bikeway Improvements (Dtwn. to Ramona)$250K $225K $175KSubtotal $1.05M $325K $225KPhase III• Incremental conversion to permanent bikeway features & higher-cost ancillary improvements (sidewalks, curb ramps, etc.)$1.3M $265K $250K02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
RecommendationStaff Recommendation: As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt a resolution approving the Anholm Bikeway Plan as defined in the Preferred Alternative.Alternatives1. Hybrid Option: Adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway plan under a hybrid of features from the Preferred Alternative (protected bike lanes) and the Lincoln alternative (shared streets). 2. Lincoln Alternative: Council could adopt a resolution adopting the Anholm Bikeway Plan under the Lincoln Street Alternative. 3. Defer Approval02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Hybrid Examples• Lincoln Alternative from Lincoln to Ramona• Preferred Alternative for remainder of corridor02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Hybrid Examples• Lincoln Alternative from Lincoln to Ramona• Preferred Alternative for remainder of corridorTwo-Way Protected BikewayOR Traditional Bike Lanes 02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation
Hybrid Examples• Retain shared street between Lincoln & Ramona • Review bicycle ridership after 12-24 months02-06-2018 Item 12 - staff presentation