HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-2013 ph2 2013 bicycle transportation plan
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: 2013 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (GPI/ER 71-13)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Planning Commission, adopt a resolution
approving the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact for the project.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the past two years, the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) completed an update to the
2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan represents a
comprehensive update of the current plan. Notable changes include the format, graphic presentation
of all projects, and the addition of actions to implement plan policies. There are twelve new
proposed projects and modifications are recommended to sixteen existing projects.
The Planning Commission reviewed the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan at its September 11,
2013 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the document. Their approval included
minor revisions recommended by staff and the Commission at the meeting. Each page of the
document recommended for change from the draft plan provided to Council in July is provided in
Attachment 1. Additionally, these changes have been identified on the updated public hearing draft
posted on the City’s website.
Plan Purpose and Need
By maintaining and updating a bike plan that complies with State standards, the City is eligible to
apply for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants. This account, which currently is
being absorbed into a larger ‘Active Transportation’ grant program, is a critical source of funding
for City bicycle facilities. Currently, over $1 million has been allocated to the Railroad Safety Trail.
To remain eligible, the City must complete this update by December 1, 2013.
Proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan Changes
The Planning Commission staff report is Attachment 2 and contains a summary of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan changes. The proposed new and modified projects are contained in Attachment
3. A summary of the fourteen minor changes recommended by the Planning Commission are
contained in Attachment 4. The Planning Commission’s recommended draft is also available for
Meeting Date
Item Number Nov. 5, 2013
PH2 - 1
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan (GPI/ER 71-13) Page 2
review on the City’s website. Features included in the electronic version of the document will be
demonstrated at the Council meeting.
General Plan Consistency
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan implements many goals, objectives, policies and programs in
the Circulation, Conservation and Open Space, and Land Use Elements as detailed in the Planning
Commission staff report (see Attachment 2). The policies promote bicycling and call for the City to
complete a continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways.
Major City Goal Implementation
Bike and pedestrian paths are identified as a “Major City Goal” in the 2013-15 Financial Plan. The
objective of the major City goal is “to expand bicycle and pedestrian paths to improve connectivity
and safety, including continued progress on the Rail Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Trail and
Bob Jones Trail, and pursuit of other options contained in the Bicycle Transportation Plan”. The
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan has been developed with this goal in mind. The Plan includes
policies that promote safety and connectivity, projects that complete a bikeway network within the
City and which connect to adjacent County facilities, and a method for prioritizing project
implementation. As shown in the table below, the City has made significant progress
implementing its Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Project Statistics
Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics
Facility Existing Mileage Proposed Additional
Mileage
Plan Completion
Class I Bike Paths 7.2 (22%) 26.1 33.3
Class II Bike Lanes 29.7 (62%) 17.9 47.6
Class III Bike: Routes
Sharrows
Boulevards
Subtotal
20.6 (100%)
2.9 (58%)
0.5 (8%)
24.0 (75%)
0
2.1
5.9
8.0
20.6
5.0
6.4
32.0
Total 60.9 (54%) 52.0 112.9
The Major City Goal 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).
Consequently, the Bike Plan identifies projects which are a top priority for the use of Measure Y
funds. This priority was identified by the community both before and during the Measure Y
election.
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for adoption (Attachment 5,
Initial Environmental Study). The Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA section 15070, finds
there are no potentially significant environmental effects since the Bicycle Transportation Plan
update includes previously adopted policies and standard mitigations which reduce potential
PH2 - 2
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan (GPI/ER 71-13) Page 3
impacts to less than significant levels. Existing City policies and standards and review procedures
would apply to any future proposed facilities included in the plan.
Public Review
The Bicycle Advisory Committee has been updating the Bicycle Transportation Plan at their bi-
monthly public meetings over the last two years. 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 Bicycle Advisory Committee and Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of fully implementing the plan is significant and will extend over many years.
The total construction cost estimates for all bikeway projects that are not funded by development is
$64 million, as presented in Appendix A of the plan. These projects are considered and prioritized
by the City Council as part of the City’s two-year financial planning process.
Although approximately $64 million in bikeway projects is identified, this total includes several
costly projects that will not be needed if other projects are constructed. For instance, the Plan
includes two grade separated crossings of Highway 101 connected by bicycle boulevards; one north
of Santa Rosa Street and one south of Santa Rosa Street. With the completion of one of these
facilities, the other is not needed. Another example is the Railroad Safety Trail. The Plan still
includes a bikeway along the railroad corridor should the railroad’s position on the use of their
property change. Realizing it may not, the Plan also includes an alternate route outside of Union
Pacific right of way.
Pursuant to the Plan’s Implementation Action 4.12.1, projects identified in this Plan will be
proposed for inclusion into the City’s five year Capital Improvement Program budget and
Transportation Impact Fee program. With Council approval of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation
Plan (see Attachment 6, Resolution), staff can also seek grant funding for projects identified in the
Plan. The 2013-15 Financial Plan anticipates that bicycle facilities will be funded 74% through
grant revenues and approximately 20% by Transportation Impact Fees. In addition to grant monies,
the General Fund will be providing up to $200,000 over the two year period for bicycle
improvements. The $200,000 from the General Fund reflects the City Council’s action at 2013-15
Financial Plan adoption to increase annual contributions to bike programs.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could recommend additional changes to the 2013 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. Council could continue this item to a future specific meeting date and request additional
information of staff.
PH2 - 3
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan (GPI/ER 71-13) Page 4
ATTACHMENTS
1. Bicycle Transportation Plan pages containing Planning Commission recommended changes
2. Planning Commission staff report of September 11, 2013
3. Proposed new and modified projects
4. Listing of Planning Commission recommended changes
5. Initial Environmental Study and Proposed Negative Declaration
6. Council resolution adopting the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
DISTRIBUTED TO COUNCIL ON JULY 18, 2013:
2013 Public Hearing Draft Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 2013 Public Hearing Draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is available for review on the
City’s web site (www.slocity.org). Hard copies are available for review at the City Clerk’s office at
990 Palm Street and at the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street.
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2013\2013-11-05\Bicycle Transportation Plan Update (Grigsby-Mandeville)\CAR 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan.docx
PH2 - 4
Objective 1: Improve bicycle circulation by identifying and
addressing barriers to bicycling.
Objective 2: By 2017, complete the network of Class II and III
bikeways and related improvements identified in this Plan.
Objective 3: By 2020, increase bicycle use for transportation to
a 20% mode share.
Objective 4: By 2032, complete the network of Class I bikeways
identified in this Plan that do not have established timelines or
phasing approved by another City plan.
Objective 5: Cooperate with the County, State, San Luis Obispo
Council of Governments, and Cal Poly in the planning and
design of bicycle facilities such as the Bob Jones City to Sea Bike
Trail and the Railroad Safety Trail.
Central Area Projects ImplementationSouthern Area ProjectsNorthern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects Western Area
Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
23Chapter One: Bicycle Transportation Network
Western Area Projects
Bicycling Network Objectives
Existing and Proposed
Bikeways A family enjoys a ride along the Railroad
Safety Trail near Sinsheimer Park.
Bikeways shall be established at locations shown on Map 1: Bicycle
Transportation Network. Where a bikeway is located within an adopted
City planning area (Specific Plan, Park Plan, Area Plan, etc.), its location
shall be as established by that plan (see Map 4: Planning Areas, for
affected areas). After receiving input from the Bicycle Advisory
Committee, the Public Works Director may approve changes in the
location and/or designation of bikeways to reduce environmental
impacts, better serve the needs of bicyclists, or provide a bikeway
connection through a new development.
NEW
MOD
P.C. M
O
D
Conver
t
t
o
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
PH2 - 5
30
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
Bicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding41Bicycle Transportation
Network
Policies
Principles that guide
implementation of this Plan
and other actions associated
with bicycling.
(Located in each chapter, relative to
chapter content.)
Implementation Actions
Implementation steps
associated with Plan policies.
(Located with associated policy.)
Policies and
Implementation Actions
Overall Network:
1.1 All bikeways shall meet or exceed minimum standards set forth in
the current version of the California Highway Design Manual.
Implementation Action 1.1.1: It is recommended that the City’s
Subdivision Regulations and Enineering Standards be revised to
include cross-sections for streets that include Class II bike lanes.
1.2 Neighborhood traffic management projects (traffic calming) shall
be designed to safely accommodate bicyclists.
1.3 Traffic Calming: On streets where vehicle volume, speed, or
collisions are impacting bicycle travel, the City shall consider possible
remedies such as signage, striping, or other traffic calming devices.
1.4 The City shall include small scale projects, such as signing and
striping in upcoming City paving projects when appropriate.
1.5 With the exception of Highway 101, all highways and City streets
in San Luis Obispo are considered streets that bicyclists will use.
Accordingly, all highways (except Highway 101) and public streets
shall be designed and maintained to accommodate bicyclists.
1.6 All developments/subdivisions shall be designed with bicycle use
as an equal and viable option for transportation to, from, and within a
development.
1.7 Developments shall adhere to all policies in this Plan, include all
bikeways described in this Plan, and include approved bicycle parking
as referenced in the Plan’s bicycle parking policies.
Overall Network:
1.1 All bikeways shall meet or exceed minimum standards set forth in
the current version of the California Highway Design Manual.
Implementation Action 1.1.1: It is recommended that the City’s
Subdivision Regulations be revised to include cross-sections for
streets that include Class II bike lanes.
1.2 Neighborhood traffic management projects (traffic calming) shall
be designed to safely accommodate bicyclists.
1.3 Traffic Calming: On streets where vehicle volume, speed, or
collisions are impacting bicycle travel, the City shall consider possible
remedies such as signage, striping, or other traffic calming devices.
1.4 The City shall include small scale projects, such as signing and
striping in upcoming City paving projects when appropriate.
1.5 With the exception of Highway 101, all highways and City streets
in San Luis Obispo are considered streets that bicyclists will use.
Accordingly, all highways (except Highway 101) and public streets
shall be designed and maintained to accommodate bicyclists.
1.6 All developments/subdivisions shall be designed with bicycle use
as an equal and viable option for transportation to, from, and within a
development.
1.7 Developments shall adhere to all policies in this Plan, include all
bikeways described in this Plan, and include approved bicycle parking
as referenced in the Plan’s bicycle parking policies.
NEW
MOD
NEW
P.C. M
O
D
add: “a
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Standa
r
d
s
”
PH2 - 6
Central Area Projects ImplementationSouthern Area ProjectsNorthern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects Western Area
Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
31Chapter One: Bicycle Transportation Network
Western Area Projects
1.8 Development shall provide bicycle facilities, in accordance with
City plans and standards pursuant to State and local legal requirements.
1.8a Where a bikeway is located within an adopted City planning
area (Specific Plan, Park Plan, Area Plan, etc.), its location shall be
as established by that plan.
1.8b After receiving input from the Bicycle Advisory Committee,
the Public Works Director may approve changes in the location
and/or designation of bikeways to reduce environmental
impacts, better serve the needs of bicyclists, or provide a bikeway
connection through a new development.
1.9 Signs and pavement markings shall be installed along City
bikeways, consistent with Caltrans and City standards and those
contained in adopted Specific Plans.
1.10 The City shall maintain and make available a bicycling map of the
City.
Implementation Action 1.10.1: Update and publish a City
bicycling map at least every ten years, or as needed.
Ensuring Connectivity within the
Bicycle Transportation Network:
1.11 Along collector or arterial streets where there are gaps in the
Class II bikeway network, share the road signs should be installed
using existing sign or streetlight poles wherever possible.
1.12 Where cul-de-sacs are used in subdivisions, pedestrian/bikeway
connections shall be provided to through streets. Where perimeter
walls are employed, breaks shall be provided at safe locations to
enable pedestrian and bicycle circulation to adjoining areas or public
streets.
Bicycle Facilities:
Any physical feature that serves the
needs of bicyclists, including bike lanes
and paths, bicycle racks and lockers,
signs, pavement markings and symbols,
places to post information, lighting,
and traffic controls.
“Share The Road” signage on Monterey St.
1.8 Development shall provide bicycle facilities, in accordance with
City plans and standards.
1.9 Signs and pavement markings shall be installed along City
bikeways, consistent with Caltrans standards and those contained in
adopted Specific Plans.
1.10 The City shall maintain and make available a bicycling map of the
City.
Implementation Action 1.10.1: Update and publish a City
bicycling map at least every ten years, or as needed.
Ensuring Connectivity within the
Bicycle Transportation Network:
1.11 Along collector or arterial streets where there are gaps in the
Class II bikeway network, share the road signs should be installed
using existing sign or streetlight poles wherever possible.
1.12 Where cul-de-sacs are used in subdivisions, pedestrian/bikeway
connections shall be provided to through streets. Where perimeter
walls are employed, breaks shall be provided at safe locations to
enable pedestrian and bicycle circulation to adjoining areas or public
streets.
1.13 In complex traffic corridors where competing demands for the
use of the right-of-way present unique challenges that traditional
facilities may not wholly meet (e.g., areas with right-of-way constraints
or potential conflicts between multiple user groups), the City may
consider utilizing alternative design facilities such as, but not limited
to:
a. Colored Pavement: To enhance the conspicuity of a bicycle
lane or a bicycle lane extension in locations with high bicycle
and motor vehicle use, such as through intersections and other
Colored pavement on California Blvd. at
Monterey Street
Colored Pavement:
Color is applied to bicycle facility pavement
to alert motorists to the presence of
bicyclists in known high conflict zones.
NEW
NEW P.C. M
O
D
1.8 add
:
“
p
u
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
S
t
a
t
e
a
n
d
local le
g
a
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
”
1.9 add
:
“
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
”
MOD
PH2 - 7
1 Bicycle Transportation
Network
32
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
Bicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4
Buffered Bicycle Lane:
A buffered bike lane is an on-street bike
lane that has a painted buffer either
between the bike lane and parked cars,
between the bike lane and the standard
motor vehicle lane, or both. Typically the
buffer will be striped with diagonal lines
and serves to keep bicyclists from riding in
the “door zone” and/or to add separation
between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic.
Bike Box:
A designated area at the front of a
traffic lane at a signalized intersection
that places the bicyclist ahead of
queuing motor vehicle traffic during
the red signal phase.
A bicyclist waits in the Bike Box on
Madonna Road at Higuera Street.
1.13 In complex traffic corridors where competing demands for the
use of the right-of-way present unique challenges that traditional
facilities may not wholly meet (e.g., areas with right-of-way constraints
or potential conflicts between multiple user groups), the City may
consider utilizing alternative design facilities such as, but not limited
to:
a. Colored Pavement: To enhance the conspicuity of a bicycle
lane or a bicycle lane extension in locations with high bicycle
and motor vehicle use, such as through intersections and other
traffic conflict areas.
b Bike Box: To facilitate bicyclist left turn positioning, help prevent
right-turn conflicts, increase bicyclist visibility, or to group
bicyclists together to clear intersections quickly, the City may
install bike boxes at intersections.
c. Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Using striping to create a buffer
between a bike lane and the adjacent travel lane, and/or the
“door zone” of the parking lane.
The design treatment that is approved for use by the City’s Traffic
Operations Manager will depend on a variety of factors, such as the
specific desired outcome, impact to all transportation modes within
the corridor, future development plans, success rates of similar facilities
in other locales, local supporting data, cost, etc.
Addressing Bicyclists at Intersections:
1.14 Intersections shall be designed to allow motorists, pedestrians,
and bicyclists to see one another approaching and encourage legal
movements, per the California Vehicle Code.
1.15 Intersections of Class I bike paths and roadways should align
at 90 degrees, either at crossings where motorists can be expected
to stop, or a location completely out of the influence of any other
intersection. Design of intersections not able to align at 90 degrees
should consider assignment of right of way via traffic control devices.
Colored Pavement:
Color is applied to bicycle facility pavement
to alert motorists to the presence of
bicyclists in known high conflict zones.
Colored pavement on California Blvd. at
Monterey Street
traffic conflict areas.
b Bike Box: To facilitate bicyclist left turn positioning, help prevent
right-turn conflicts, increase bicyclist visibility, or to group
bicyclists together to clear intersections quickly, the City may
install bike boxes at intersections.
c. Buffered Bicycle Lanes: Using striping to create a buffer
between a bike lane and the adjacent travel lane, and/or the
“door zone” of the parking lane.
The design treatment that is approved for use by the City’s Traffic
Operations Manager will depend on a variety of factors, such as the
specific desired outcome, impact to all transportation modes within
the corridor, future development plans, success rates of similar facilities
in other locales, local supporting data, cost, etc.
Addressing Bicyclists at Intersections:
1.14 Intersections shall be designed to allow motorists, pedestrians,
and bicyclists to see one another approaching and encourage legal
movements, per the California Vehicle Code. Stopping and corner
sight distance shall not be blocked by parked vehicles, trees, transit,
vehicles, or other obstructions.
1.15 Intersections of Class I bike paths and roadways should align
at 90 degrees, either at crossings where motorists can be expected
to stop, or a location completely out of the influence of any other
intersection. Design of intersections not able to align at 90 degrees
should consider assignment of right of way via traffic control devices.
1.16 Directional signs should be installed where bikeways intersect,
turn, terminate, or at bikeway connections. (See Operation and
Maintenance Implementation Action 1.57.1.)
1.17 Roundabouts or Traffic Circles: Designs shall provide bicyclists
the choice of proceeding through the roundabout as either a vehicle
or a pedestrian. These facilities should be designed to minimize
Bike Box:
A designated area at the front of a
traffic lane at a signalized intersection
that places the bicyclist ahead of
queuing motor vehicle traffic during
the red signal phase.
A bicyclist waits in the Bike Box at the
intersection of Madonna Road and
Higuera Street.
Buffered Bicycle Lane:
A buffered bike lane is an on-street bike
lane that has a painted buffer either
between the bike lane and parked cars,
between the bike lane and the standard
motor vehicle lane, or both. Typically
the buffer will be striped with diagonal
lines and serves to keep bicyclists from
riding in the “door zone” and/or to add
separation between bicyclists and
motor vehicle traffic.
Door Zone:
The lateral space next to on-street
parallel parked cars within which car
doors may open into the roadway.
NEW
NEW
P.C. MOD
Eliminate sentence
NEW
PH2 - 8
1 Bicycle Transportation
Network
36
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
Bicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4
On Flood Controls Channels:
1.29 Where an existing creek channel is widened to establish a new top
of bank, Class I bikeways shall be located as prescribed by Policy1.23.
1.30 Where parallel flood control channels are constructed, Class I
bikeways may be located within the riparian canopy established by
the new flood control channel, parallel to the channel side that is
farthest from the parent creek. (See Appendix D.)
1.31 When existing creeks are widened or when new flood control
channels are constructed, Class I bikeways should be installed at the
same time or, at a minimum, their rights-of-way shall be reserved and
maintained as clear space to enable their eventual installation.
1.32 Along parallel flood control channels, Class I bikeways and service
roads may share the same alignment. The structural design of these
facilities shall be sufficient to support maintenance vehicles.
Near Railroad:
1.33 Reconstruction of “at-grade” railroad crossings by the Union
Pacific Railroad or others should be at right angles and shall include
the installation of bicycle friendly panels on the approaches and
between the tracks.
1.34 New bicycle and pedestrian bridges along the Railroad Safety
Trail should generally be separate from existing railroad bridges.
1.35 Class I bikeways along the railroad should include appropriate
setbacks and fencing to ensure safe and compatible operations with
active rail lines. (See Appendix D.)
Fencing separates the bike path from
the railroad near the intersection of
Foothill and California Blvds.
1.30 Where parallel flood control channels are constructed, Class I
bikeways may be located within the riparian canopy established by
the new flood control channel, parallel to the channel side that is
farthest from the parent creek. (See Appendix D.)
1.31 When existing creeks are widened or when new flood control
channels are constructed, Class I bikeways should be installed at the
same time or, at a minimum, their rights-of-way shall be reserved and
maintained as clear space to enable their eventual installation.
1.32 Along parallel flood control channels, Class I bikeways and service
roads may share the same alignment. The structural design of these
facilities shall be sufficient to support maintenance vehicles.
Near Railroad:
1.33 Reconstruction of “at-grade” railroad crossings by the Union
Pacific Railroad or others should be at right angles and shall include
the installation of concrete panels on the approaches and between
the tracks.
1.34 New bicycle and pedestrian bridges along the Railroad Safety
Trail should generally be separate from existing railroad bridges.
1.35 Class I bikeways along the railroad should include appropriate
setbacks and fencing to ensure safe and compatible operations with
active rail lines. (See Appendix D.)
Lighting:
1.36 Vandal resistant lighting shall be provided for all Class I bikeways
and shall be consistent with City plans, located overhead (including in
under crossings), generally not more than 16 ft. (5 m) high, direct light
downward, have bulbs well recessed to avoid direct glare, and comply
with City regulations.
MOD
P.C. M
O
D
replace
w
i
t
h
:
“
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
”
PH2 - 9
1 Bicycle Transportation
Network
38
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
Bicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4
1.42 Before a street with Class II bikeways is slurry sealed, pavement
deficiencies such as severe cracking and potholes shall be repaired.
Existing surface elevation differences between the edge of asphalt
and the concrete gutter shall be made flush. Streets with bikeways
shall only receive a Type I or Type II slurry seal. Chip seals are not to
be used on streets with bikeways. (See Operation and Maintenance
Implementation Action 1.57.1 and 1.57.2.)
1.43 Class II bikeways shall be kept clear of all vegetation, including
overhead (a minimum of 8 feet of vertical clearance).
1.44 When installing new drainage inlets along Class II bikeways,
undercurb inlets shall be used to eliminate grates from the bikeway.
When resurfacing roadways or performing other construction
maintenance, inspection and assessment for replacement or repair
of drain grates shall be performed and corrective measures pursued.
(See Operation and Maintenance Implementation Action 1.57.1 and
1.57.2.)
Class III Bike Routes:
1.45 Class III bikeways should be located along streets that meet the
following criteria:
a. Motor vehicle traffic is less than 10,000 vehicles per day.
b. The 85th percentile speed of traffic is less than 35 mph.
c. The route provides a connection between Class II bikeways, or is
a low-volume motor vehicle route, parallel to a Class II bikeway.
1.46 Along Class III bikeways traffic lanes may be narrowed to 10 ft.
and edge stripes installed to channelize vehicles.
1.47 “Bike Route” signage along Class III bikeways shall be considered
when the route provides a connection between other bikeway facilities
(Class I, Class II, etc.), when traffic conditions (speed, volume, etc.) have
indicated a need to raise awareness of the route, or when the route
is an identified City, State, or Federal bicycle route (e.g. Bill Roalman
Bicycle Boulevard, Pacific Coast Bicycle Route).
Bike Route signs help direct cyclists
following the State’s “Pacific Coast”
bicycle route through downtown.
Under curb drain inlets eliminate
the need for in-street drain grates,
providing a more consistent surface for
bicyclists.
When resurfacing roadways or performing other construction
maintenance, inspection and assessment for replacement or repair
of drain grates shall be performed and corrective measures pursued.
(See Operation and Maintenance Implementation Action 1.57.1 and
1.57.2.)
Class III Bike Routes:
1.45 Class III bikeways should be located along streets that meet the
following criteria:
a. Motor vehicle traffic is less than 10,000 vehicles per day.
b. The 85th percentile speed of traffic is less than 35 mph.
c. Travel lanes are a minimum of 12ft. wide.
d. The route provides a connection between Class II bikeways, or is
a low-volume motor vehicle route, parallel to a Class II bikeway.
1.46 Along Class III bikeways traffic lanes may be narrowed to 10 ft.
and edge stripes installed to reduce vehicle speed
1.47 “Bike Route” signage along Class III bikeways shall be considered
when the route provides a connection between other bikeway
facilities (Class I, Class II, etc.), when traffic conditions (speed, volume,
etc.) have indicated a need to raise awareness of the route, or when
the route is an identified City, State, or Federal bicycle route (e.g. Bill
Roalman Bicycle Boulevard, Pacific Coast Bicycle Route).MOD
P.C. M
O
D
1.45 - E
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
“
c
”
.
1.46 - R
e
p
l
a
c
e
w
i
t
h
:
“
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
i
z
e
vehicle
s
”
PH2 - 10
40
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
Bicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding41Bicycle Transportation
Network
Shared Lane Marking Legends (Sharrows):
1.51 On streets where bike lanes are not provided and where lanes are
too narrow for motorists and cyclists to travel side by side within the
lane, the City, with input from the Traffic Operations Manager and the
Bicycle Advisory Committee, may install shared lane markings (also
known as “Sharrows”) to improve the lateral positioning of bicyclists on
roadways with regular bicycle use. Sharrows will most commonly be
used on roadways that serve as connections between other bicycling
facilities. Criteria for consideration of Sharrow locations may include
the following:
a. On-street parking
b. Travel lane width
c. Posted speed limit
d. Measured traffic speeds
e. Traffic volume
f. Traffic composition (presence of buses and large trucks)
g. Bicycle traffic volume
h. Number of incidents of wrong-way bicycling, or sidewalk
bicycling
i. Corridors where there is a high potential to increase trips by
bicycle
Implementation Action 1.51.1: For cost efficiency, installation
of the legends and associated signage should be implemented in
conjunction with other striping/signage projects.
Operation and Maintenance:
1.52 Annexation, planning and development activities, street
reconstruction or reconfiguration projects, and street maintenance
shall provide for bikeways and bicyclists as prescribed by this Plan.
Shared Lane Marking Legend - from
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD).
A bicyclist on Broad Street downtown
uses the shared lane marking legend to
position herself outside of the parked
car “door zone”.
Shared Lane Marking Legends (Sharrows):
1.51 On streets where bike lanes are not provided and where lanes are
too narrow for motorists and cyclists to safely travel side by side within
the lane, the City, with input from the Traffic Operations Manager and
the Bicycle Advisory Committee, may install shared lane markings (also
known as “Sharrows”) to improve the lateral positioning of bicyclists on
roadways with regular bicycle use. Sharrows will most commonly be
used on roadways that serve as connections between other bicycling
facilities. Criteria for consideration of Sharrow locations may include
the following:
a. On-street parking
b. Travel lane width
c. Posted speed limit
d. Measured traffic speeds
e. Traffic volume
f. Traffic composition (presence of buses and large trucks)
g. Bicycle traffic volume
h. Number of incidents of wrong-way bicycling, or sidewalk
bicycling
i. Corridors where there is a high potential to increase trips by
bicycle
Implementation Action 1.51.1: For cost efficiency, installation
of the legends and associated signage should be implemented in
conjunction with other striping/signage projects.
Operation and Maintenance:
1.52 Annexation, planning and development activities, street
reconstruction or reconfiguration projects, and street maintenance
shall provide for bikeways and bicyclists as prescribed by this Plan.
NEW
MOD
P.C. M
O
D
Delete:
“
s
a
f
e
l
y
”
PH2 - 11
Central Area Projects ImplementationSouthern Area ProjectsNorthern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects Western Area
Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
41Chapter One: Bicycle Transportation Network
Western Area Projects
1.53 Class I bikeways should be kept clear of debris and litter which
service may in part be performed by volunteer organizations.
Implementation Action 1.53.1: Develop a volunteer program for
organizations, businesses, and private citizens to contribute towards
maintenance efforts by adopting a bicycle facility. The program
should be designed to also generate publicity for the group’s service.
1.54 Class II bikeways along arterial streets and highways shall be
swept on a routine basis to remove road debris and litter.
1.55 Site maintenance during construction shall include bicycling
facilities outside of the designated work site, to the degree that traffic,
work site machinery, and/or environment (wind, water, etc.) may have
migrated construction related roadway hazards to them (gravel, sand,
etc.).
1.56 The pavement surface of bikeways shall be smooth and free of
potholes, and shall be maintained consistent with Section 1003.6 (2)
and Table 1003.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (below).
Table 1.2 Bikeway Surface Tolerances
(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 cover; or that might exist between two
pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway.
Table obtained from the California Department of Transportation Highway Design
Manual, 2009.
Direction of Travel Grooves (1)Steps (2)
Parallel to travelNo more than ½” wideNo more than ⅜” high
Perpendicular to
travel ---No more than ¾” high Pavement “step” exceeding the
“Bikeway Surface Tolerances” table
specifications.
1.53 Class I bikeways shall be kept clear of debris and litter which
service may in part be performed by volunteer organizations.
Implementation Action 1.53.1: Develop a volunteer program for
organizations, businesses, and private citizens to contribute towards
maintenance efforts by adopting a bicycle facility. The program
should be designed to also generate publicity for the group’s service.
1.54 Class II bikeways along arterial streets and highways shall be
swept on a routine basis to remove road debris and litter.
1.55 Site maintenance during construction shall include bicycling
facilities outside of the designated work site, to the degree that traffic,
work site machinery, and/or environment (wind, water, etc.) may have
migrated construction related roadway hazards to them (gravel, sand,
etc.).
1.56 The pavement surface of bikeways shall be smooth and free of
potholes, and shall be maintained consistent with Section 1003.6 (2)
and Table 1003.6 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (below).
Table 1.2 Bikeway Surface Tolerances
(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 cover; or that might exist between two
pavement blankets when the top level does not extend to the edge of the roadway.
Table obtained from the California Department of Transportation Highway Design
Manual, 2009.
Direction of Travel Grooves (1)Steps (2)
Parallel to travelNo more than ½” wideNo more than ⅜” high
Perpendicular to
travel ---No more than ¾” high
NEW
NEW
NEW
P.C. M
O
D
Replac
e
:
“
s
h
a
l
l
”
w
i
t
h
“
s
h
o
u
l
d
”
PH2 - 12
Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
77Chapter Four: Implementation and Funding
Central Area Projects Southern Area ProjectsNorthern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects Western Area Projects
4.6 New bikeways shall be considered a priority for installation in
advance of, or during the first phases of development.
4.7 Continue to prioritize “Measure Y” funding (City 1/2 cent sales
tax) towards transportation congestion relief projects including high
priority bicycling projects.
4.8 Work with local organizations to pursue additional funding for
bicycling safety education programs. By providing support to grants
and other funding applications, the City can help organizations that
conduct education to increase their resources and reach more City
bikeway users.
4.9 Consider employing other financial strategies such as debt-
financing on projects that are likely to be funded by regional, state or
federal grant programs, or from the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.
4.10 Utilize grant funding to the maximum extent feasible to pay for
bicycling projects and programs. Candidate grant programs include,
but are not limited to grant sources listed earlier in this chapter.
4.11 Make an effort to develop financial partnerships with others to
complete the Railroad Safety Trail.
4.6 New bikeways shall be installed in advance of, or during the first
phases of development.NEW
NEW
NEW
P.C. M
O
D
Replac
e
w
i
t
h
:
“
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
priority
f
o
r
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
”
PH2 - 13
Implementation
Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-123
Southern Area Projects Western Area ProjectsCentral Area Projects Northern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects
Pave. Mgt. Zone 6
Priority:
First
School Zone:
C. L. Smith
Class: I
Project Description: Create a Class I bikeway connecting the
proposed Laguna Lake Bikeways A, a Class I bikeway from the north
end of Laguna Lake Park to lower Foothill area at O’Connor Way, to
the Laguna Middle School neighborhood at Diablo Drive.
Notes: Two conceptual route options have been identified. The
bridge option may require amendments to the Laguna Lake Parks
Master Plan and agency approvals. The optional route around
Laguna Lake Requires approval of DeVaul and Madonna ranch
owners; path is in a flood zone, may need elevated sections, and
may require reconfiguration of Los Osos Valley Road between Diablo
Way and the City Limit. Has a relationship to Laguna Lake Bikeways
A, Laguna Lake Bikeway C and the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan.
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.
Transportation Act) in the 2002 plan.
Section “B” options
X
X XX
Foothill
L.
O
.
V
.
R
.
Ma
d
o
n
n
a
Intent: Create a bike path connection to the Laguna Middle School
neighborhood. Overall the Laguna Lake Bikeways A, B, C should
create off roadways links between northern and western City
neighborhoods, City parks, and Laguna Middle School.
Laguna Lake Bikeways - B
Project Length (feet):
3,690
Estimated Cost:
$1,800,000
MOD.
P.C. M
O
D
Replac
e
w
i
t
h
s
h
o
w
n
m
a
p
and tex
t
a
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
Plannin
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
PH2 - 14
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner Phone Number: 781-7590 E-mail: pmandeville@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: GPI/ER 71-13 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve the Bicycle Transportation
Plan Update as forwarded by the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) with minor revisions
proposed by staff and adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project.
PROJECT DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo Public
Works Department
Representative Peggy Mandeville, Principal
Transportation Planner
Zoning Citywide
General Plan Citywide
Environmental
Status
A Negative Declaration is
recommended for adoption
SUMMARY
The City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) in April of
1985. Since that original adoption, the City has adopted updates to the Plan in 1993, 2002, and
2007 to comply with State standards. By complying with State standards, the City is eligible to
apply for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants; a key source of funding for City
bicycle facilities. To remain eligible for BTA grant opportunities, in 2011 the Bicycle Advisory
Committee initiated this update. The State’s deadline for completing the update is December 1,
2013. A copy of draft Plan was distributed to Commissioners in July and can be viewed on the
City’s website at www.slocity.org/publicworks .
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
On September 3, 2002 the City Council expanded the Planning Commission’s role to include
review of transportation projects and plans including the Bicycle Transportation Plan (see
Attachment 2). The purpose of the Planning Commission’s expanded role was to increase the
Meeting Date: September 11, 2013
Item Number: 2
PH2 - 15
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 2
level of discourse regarding parking, transportation and access issues citywide.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
The Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update represents a comprehensive
update to the adopted 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Notable changes include:
Plan Format – Plan topics are now organized in chapters rather than appendices. The Plan’s
objectives and policies are found within these chapters and glossary definitions are found
topically on the page sidebars. Plan chapters and project areas can be located using graphical tabs
at the tops of the pages. For locating Plan requirements relative to the California Streets and
Highways Code Section 891.2, a separate contents page has been included.
Implementation Actions – These have been added to identify implementation steps associated
with Plan policies. They are found in the policy sections of each chapter where a relationship
exists with the stated policy. They are also compiled in Appendix B, “Implementation Actions
Matrix”.
Project Ranking and Presentation – The same criteria established in the 2007 plan has been used
to rank projects, but only the project’s overall rank (First, Second, Third) is included in the 2013
presentation (Appendix A). Included in the “Bicycle Transportation Network” chapter is a
discussion of the top two ranked projects by facility type. Graphics are now included to visually
orient the location of each project in the City. Projects are presented in groupings by City
location (Central, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western).
2007 BTP Accomplishments and 2013 BTP Modifications – Appendix G “Accomplishments and
Updates”, provides a detailed listing of bicycling related City accomplishments resulting from
the 2007 Plan and a listing of changes proposed in the 2013 Plan. Because the document has
been reformatted and reorganized, a legislative draft document could not be produced. To assist
in the review of the proposed changes, strike through and underline notations were utilized
where simple language changes are made and diagonal labels were applied to identify new and
modified language and projects. A total of twelve (12) new projects and sixteen (16)
modifications have been proposed as described below:
Page New Projects
A-17 Jennifer Street Bridge access to Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard
A-27 Boysen Ave. connection to North Chorro near University Square
A-28 Santa Rosa grade separated crossing at Boysen
A-32 North Chorro intersection enhancement
A-35 Hwy 101 bike exit near Cuesta Park
A-69 Southwood shared lane markings
A-71 Spanish Oaks underpass ramp
A-87 Class II connection to Prado if a roadway is developed
PH2 - 16
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 3
A-90 LOVR grade separated crossing east of LOVR interchange
A-106 Industrial to Bougainvillea connection
A-107 Industrial to Tank Farm connection
A-126 Madonna Inn to Laguna Lake connection
Page Modified Projects
A-16 Leff Street Bicycle Boulevard moved to Islay Street.
A-31 Tassajara shared lane markings replaced proposed bike lanes
A-34 Cuesta Park undercrossing includes an exit from Hwy 101
A-44 Railroad Safety Trail-Taft to Phillips realignment
A-45 Railroad Safety Trail- Phillips to Marsh realignment
A-46 Railroad Safety Trail- Marsh to Amtrak Station realignment
A-49 French Hospital bikeway refinement
A-54 Sinsheimer Park bikeway connections now consistent with park master plan
A-55 Duncan to Laurel Lane bikeway connection added
A-66 Ella Street bicycle boulevard added an optional route
A-96 South Hills/Margarita Area connection includes unpaved option
A-108 Tank Farm Class I bikeways on both sides of roadway
A-110 Unocal Collector Class I bikeway if no road developed
A-115 Buckley Extension to include Class I bikeway
A-123 Laguna Lake Class I bikeway-B realignment
A-124 Laguna Lake Class I bikeway-C realignment
Finally, the proposed 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update contains all the information
required by Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code for State certification (see Page iii
in the Table of Contents of the draft Plan).
2.3 Project Statistics
Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics
Facility Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total Mileage
Class I Bike Paths 7.2 (22%) 26.1 33.3
Class II Bike Lanes 29.7 (62%) 17.9 47.6
Class III Bike: Routes
Sharrows
Boulevards
Subtotal
20.6 (100%)
2.9 (58%)
0.5 (8%)
24.0 (75%)
0
2.1
5.9
8.0
20.6
5.0
6.4
32.0
Total 60.9 (54%) 52.0 112.9
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
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,
PH2 - 17
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 4
work, commercial centers and downtown. The proposed projects shown on the map are fully
described, mapped and ranked in Appendix A. Although the total cost of all projects exceeds
$64 million, several costly projects are not needed if other projects are constructed. For instance,
the Plan includes two grade separated crossings of Highway 101 connected by bicycle
boulevards; one north of Santa Rosa Street and one south of Santa Rosa Street. With the
completion of one of these facilities, the other is not needed. Another example is the Railroad
Safety Trail. The Plan still includes a bikeway along the railroad corridor should the railroad’s
position on the use of their property change. Realizing it may not, the Plan also includes an
alternate route outside of Union Pacific right of way.
The proposed policy changes strengthen existing policies that promote bicycling, bicycling
safety, and bicycling education. The changes also include the addition of implementing actions
that establish specific direction to be taken to implement Plan policies. Appendix B contains a
matrix on the action items identifying the responsible party and how the action will be
implemented.
3.1 General Plan Consistency:
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update implements the following Circulation,
Conservation and Open Space, and Land Use Element goals, objectives, policies, and programs:
CI 1.5 Transportation Goals. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
CI 1.7 Promote Alternate 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.
CI 4.0.1 Bicycle Use. Bicycle transportation should be encouraged.
CI 4.0.2 Cal Poly Trips. At least 33% of all Cal Poly trips should be made by bicycle by the
year 2000.
CI 4.0.3 Continuous Network. 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.
CI 4.0.4 New Development. New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage,
parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and standards.
CI 4.0.5 Bikeway Design. Bikeways should be designed and maintained to improve bicycling
safety, convenience, and encourage people to use bicycles to commute to work or school.
CI 4.0.6 Bikeway Development. Bikeways designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan
PH2 - 18
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 5
should be established when: a) the street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to
its cross sectional design; or b) the street section is being changed as part of a development
project; or c) the construction of bike lanes or paths are called for by the City's Capital
Improvement Plan.
CI 4.0.7 Arterial Streets. All arterial street projects should provide bicycle lanes. Residential
Arterials may or may not be able to accommodate bike lanes; the evaluation of bike lanes on
these streets will consider the neighborhood context.
CI 4.1.1 Incentives. Cal Poly and Cuesta College shall be encouraged to provide incentives to
all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.
CI 4.1.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan. 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.
CI 4.1.5 Zoning Regulations. The City will modify its zoning regulations to establish
standards for the installation of lockers, and secured bicycle parking, and showers.
CI 4.1.6 Railroad Bikeway and Trail. The City should obtain railroad right-of-way and
easements to establish a separated bike path and pedestrian trail through San Luis Obispo.
CI 4.1.7 Funding Priority. The City will give a high priority to using street funds for ongoing
maintenance of bicycle lanes and paths or other public bicycle facilities.
CI 7.0.3 Neighborhood Traffic Management. The City should ensure that neighborhood traffic
management projects…allow for convenient through bicycle or pedestrian traffic.
COSE 1.6 The Ahwahnee Principles. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should
contribute to a system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design
should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings,
trees and lighting, and by discouraging high-speed traffic.
COSE 2.3.3 Alternative transportation/land 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 4.4.1 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 4.4.2 Alternative Transportation. The City’s transportation and circulation systems
shall foster travel by modes other than motor vehicles, including walking, bicycles and public
PH2 - 19
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 6
transit.
LU Community’s Goals, City Form. San Luis Obispo should provide a safe and pleasant place
to walk and ride a bicycle, for recreation and other daily activities.
LU 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.
3.2 Revisions Proposed by Staff: Minor revisions proposed by staff will be presented to the
Commission at the meeting.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study was prepared for the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update.
The initial study identifies that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
5.0 PUBLIC INPUT
The Bicycle Advisory Committee spent 12 public meetings developing the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan over a 2-year period. The Committee’s May 2011 meeting was specifically
advertised to announce the kickoff and solicit input from the public. In addition to considering
requests from the public, the Committee considered input from SLOCOG’s annual unmet bike
needs requests, input received from other agencies such as the County and Caltrans, and
comments received as part of the City’s Bicycle Friendly Community award renewal in 2011.
Input concerning City priorities gathered as part of the City’s FY 2013-15 Financial Plan process
was also considered. Finally, several members of the public and organizations such as the San
Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition provided input on the Plan Update.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue review of the project with direction to staff on pertinent issues. Depending on
the type and scope of the changes, the project’s environmental document may need to be
amended to reflect these modifications.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Initial Environmental Study and Proposed Negative Declaration
2. City Council Report Expanding the Planning Commission’s Role
3. Planning Commission Resolution
Previously distributed to Planning Commission and available for review on the City’s website and at the
919 Palm St. Public Works counter: 2013 Public Review Draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan
PH2 - 20
Intent: To allow bicycle traffic to flow between the
Railroad Safety Trail and the Bill Roalman Bicycle Blvd.
without having to ride through the parking lot, or the traffic
circle.
Page A-17
PH2 - 21
Intent: Create the most direct route possible from the
Boysen Ave. intersection of Santa Rosa St. to N. Chorro St.,
to connect with other proposed bikeway network facilities.
Page A-27
PH2 - 22
Intent: Address an existing bicycle and pedestrian
circulation pattern and provide a legal crossing of Santa
Rosa (Hwy 1) that does not conflict with vehicle traffic..
Page A-28
PH2 - 23
Intent: To address conflict potential in the common
direction movement (north on Chorro to west on Foothill)
from the right hand lane that allows both left turning and
straight through traffic movement.
Page A-32
PH2 - 24
Intent: Provide an exit from Hwy. 101 southbound for bicycles
only that allows bicyclists to exit prior to roadway curves
preceding the Monterey St. exit that limit sight visibility. The
project will also provide access to Loomis Street.
Page A-35
PH2 - 25
Intent: To provide bikeway network continuity
between exiting Class II lanes on Southwood (west of
Laurel Ln.) and Johnson Ave.
Page A-69
PH2 - 26
Intent: Provide rideable access to the underpass.
Page A-71
PH2 - 27
Description: If a roadway is constructed as shown in the
Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail Preliminary Alignment plans
(segment 3 - sheet 3), Class II lanes shall be provided to
connect with the Class I path along the creek alignment.
Page A-87
PH2 - 28
Description: Provide a Class I grade separated
crossing of Los Osos Valley Road, connecting the
north and south segments of the path.
Page A-90
PH2 - 29
Intent: Provide a direct connection between the existing
bikeway facilities on Sacramento Dr. and Industrial Way,
linking to the Bougainvillea St. neighborhood.
Page A-106
PH2 - 30
Intent: Provide a bypass for bicyclists traveling N/S
between Industrial Way and Tank Farm Rd.
Page A-107
PH2 - 31
Intent: Create a link between existing and proposed
Class I bikeways that avoids crossing traffic conflicts.
Page A-126
PH2 - 32
The Plan contains 16 modified projects.
PH2 - 33
Intent: To provide a low traffic impact East/West
through route for bicyclists that serves the downtown
neighborhoods south of the downtown core.
Page A-16
PH2 - 34
Intent: Raise the awareness of all road users as to proper
lane positioning for bicyclists, especially children
accessing both Bishop Peak/Teach and Pacheco
Elementary Schools.
Page A-16
PH2 - 35
Intent: To allow bicyclist to exit South bound Hwy. 101 and
allow bicyclist and pedestrian access under the freeway
between San Luis Dr. and Loomis Street at Cuesta Park.
Page A-34
PH2 - 36
Description: Primary segment - Class I path from Taft to
Phillips. Includes a 250 ft. (approx.) bridge spanning the
railroad tracks from behind the Highway Patrol property, to
Phillips St.
Page A-44
PH2 - 37
Description: Primary segment - Route along Pepper St., from Phillips St. to Marsh St. The route will utilize existing surface streets as either Class III facilities or Bicycle Boulevards limiting motor vehicle access. A bridge spanning Monterey St. will be constructed to minimize the route gradient changes.
Page A-45
PH2 - 38
Description: Primary segment - Route utilizing
existing City streets.
Page A-46
Class II
Class III
Proposed Bike
Blvd.
PH2 - 39
Description: Support segment - Create a Class I path
connection between the east end of Iris St. and Fairview
St., with access to the intersection of Lizzie St. at Johnson
Ave.
Page A-49
PH2 - 40
Description: Support segment - Provide paved path and unpaved trail connections from the RRST through Sinsheimer Park to Southwood Drive as is consistent with the Sinsheimer Park Master Plan, including but not limited to a paved connection between the ball fields and a paved or unpaved trail along the north side of Sydney creek.
Page A-54
PH2 - 41
Description: Primary segment - Off street two-way path on the
north side of Orcutt Rd., between the intersections of
Sacramento/Duncan and Laurel, creating connection with the
Railroad Safety Trail (RRST) and the two closest intersections.
Page A-55
PH2 - 42
Intent: To provide a low traffic impact East/West through
route for bicyclists that serves the downtown core,
downtown neighborhoods and Johnson Ave.
neighborhoods.
Page A-66
Class I
Proposed Bike
Blvd.
PH2 - 43
Intent: Provide a
paved/unpaved bikeway
from Exposition Drive and
Blue Rock Road to Calle
Jazmin as shown in the South
Hills Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan.
Page A-96
PH2 - 44
Intent: Provide Class I connectivity between the
Tank Farm Creek and Acacia Creek Class I
bikeways, per the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Page A-108
PH2 - 45
Intent: Create a bikeway connection between the
proposed eastern extension of Prado Road and Tank
Farm Road, along the western segment of these
roadways.
Page A-108
PH2 - 46
Intent: To provide space for bicyclists and
motorists, and connectivity to bicycling facilities
proposed for Buckley Rd.
Page A-115
Proposed Class I
Proposed Class
II
PH2 - 47
Intent: Create a bike path connection to the Laguna Middle School neighborhood. Overall the Laguna Lake Bikeways A, B, C should create off roadways links between northern and western City neighborhoods, City parks, and Laguna Middle School.
Page A-123
PH2 - 48
Intent: Create a bike path connection to the Laguna Middle School neighborhood. Overall the Laguna Lake Bikeways A, B, C should create off roadways links between northern and western City neighborhoods, City parks, and Laguna Middle School.
Page A-124
PH2 - 49
Planning Commission Recommended Changes
1. Revise Bicycle Transportation Plan map to more closely follow adopted Specific Plan and existing
roadway alignments (ie. Santa Fe).
2. Page 23: Convert text to policy: “Where a bikeway is located within an adopted City planning
area (Specific Plan, Park Plan, Area Plan, etc.) its location shall be as established by that plan”.
3. Page 23: Convert text to policy: “After receiving input from the Bicycle Advisory Committee,
the Public Works Director may approve changes in the location and/or designation of bikeways
to reduce environmental impacts, better serve the needs of bicyclists, or provide a bikeway
connection through a new development.”
4. Implementation Action 1.1.1 (Page 30): Add “It is recommended that the City’s Subdivision
Regulations and Engineering Standards be revised …”
5. Policy 1.8 (Page 31): Add “pursuant to State and local legal requirements”.
6. Policy 1.9 (Page 31): Add “and City standards”.
7. Policy 1.14 (Page 32): Delete “stopping and corner sight distance shall not be blocked by parked
vehicles, trees, transit vehicles or other obstructions”.
8. Policy 1.33 (Page 36): Delete “concrete pads” and replace with “bicycle friendly panels”.
9. Policy 1.45 (Page 38): Delete “Travel lanes are a minimum of 12 ft. wide”.
10. Policy 1.46 (Page 38): Delete “to reduce vehicle speed” and replace with “to channelize
vehicles”
11. Policy 1.51 (Page 40): Delete “safely”.
12. Policy 1.53 (Page 41): Replace “shall” with “should”
13. Policy 4.6 (Page 77): Revise to read, “New bikeways shall be considered a priority for installation
in advance of, or during the first phases of development”.
14. Laguna Lake Bikeways-B (Page A-123): Revise to allow bridge option over Laguna Lake.
PH2 - 50
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
City of San Luis Obispo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 71-13
1. Project Title: 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brian Leveille
bleveille@slocity.org
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
Citywide
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
Contact: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
pmandeville@slocity.org
(805) 781-7590
6. Description of the Project: The project is a comprehensive update to the 2007 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP). The Bicycle Transportation Plan was originally adopted in April,
1985. Since adoption, the plan has been updated in 1993, 2002, and 2007. As with previous
updates, the recommended modifications to the 2007 plan are intended to comply with State
standards in order to be eligible for State Transportation Account (BTA) grants which are a key
source of funding for City bicycle facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation
Plan is used for the planning, development, and maintenance of bicycle facilities and activities in
San Luis Obispo and in adjoining County jurisdiction that is within the City of San Luis
Obispo’s Urban Reserve (anticipated outward limit of City growth).
PH2 - 51
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Copies of the public hearing draft of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update can be found
on the City of San Luis Obispo’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/publicworks/documents.asp#bicycle
The main elements of the recommended update include:
New Projects – Eleven new projects are included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan update. The
projects are listed below with corresponding page number in the Public Hearing draft 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Project Name: Page:
Jennifer St. bridge, access to Morro St. Bicycle Boulevard A17
Boysen Ave. Connection A27
Santa Rosa at Boysen, Grade Separated Crossing A28
North Chorro Intersection Enhancement A32
Cuesta Park/Loomis St. S. Bound Hwy. 101 Exit A35
Southwood Sharrows A69
Spanish Oaks Underpass Ramp A71
Class II Connection to Prado (Part of Bob Jones Trail) A87
LOVR grade separated crossing east of LOVR interchange A90
Industrial to Bougainvillea A106
Industrial/Tank Farm Class I Bypass A107
Madonna to Laguna Lake Traverse, Class I Path A126
Plan Format – Plan topics are now organized in chapters rather than appendices. Objectives and
Policies are found within chapters and definitions are included on page sidebars. Plan requirements
relative to California Streets and Highways Code are included in a separate contents page.
Implementation Actions – Implementation actions have been added to identify steps needed to
implement Plan policies. Implementation actions are located in policy sections for each chapter
where a relationship exists with the stated policy.
Project Ranking and Presentation – The Plan update uses the same criteria used for the 2007 plan.
In the “Bicycle Transportation Network” chapter there is a discussion of the top two ranked projects
by facility type. Graphics are included to depict the location of each project in the City.
PH2 - 52
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
2007 BTP Accomplishments and 2013 BTP Modifications – A listing of accomplishments is
provided which summarizes implementations of bicycle related projects from the 2007 Bicycle
Transportation Plan. A synopsis of additions and modifications from the previous plan provides
information to compare the recommended 2013 BTP update with the 2007 BTP.
The projects and policies contained in the BTP are intended to support the planned expansion of the
City’s bicycle facility network. Table 1, below, summarizes existing and proposed BTP network
mileage.
Table 1.1 - Existing and Proposed Bicycle Transportation Network Mileage (as of December 2012)
Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics
Facility Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total Mileage
Class I Bike Paths 7.2 (22%) 26.1 33.3
Class II Bike Lanes 29.7 (62%) 17.9 47.6
Class III Bike: Routes
Sharrows
Boulevards
Subtotal
20.6 (100%)
2.9 (58%)
0.5 (8%)
24.0 (75%)
0
2.1
5.9
8.0
20.6
5.0
6.4
32.0
Total 60.9 (54%) 52.0 112.9
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The recommended Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) Update requires Planning Commission
review and City Council Approval. The Planning Commission will review the BTP as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and recommend action to the City Council.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan 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.
PH2 - 53
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
X
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
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
X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
PH2 - 54
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
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.
X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, AICP For: Derek Johnson
Deputy Director of Community Development Community Development Director
PH2 - 55
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the 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) 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.
PH2 - 56
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
14 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
3 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) update would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas. Planned locations of
bicycle paths are generally located at grade and could not impact scenic vistas. In locations where there are grade separated
crossings any planned bridge structures would be subject to review for conformance with Community Design Guidelines and
would be subject to Architectural Review. The Community Design Guidelines of San Luis Obispo contain requirements that
proposed improvements such as bridge structures must be designed to minimize visual impacts and be compatible with the
character of the site and surroundings. Less than Significant Impact.
d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any proposed bicycle
facilities are also subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum
illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. All bicycle
facilities included in the plan will be required to conform to standards of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Class I
bike path lighting is required to comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement is required to 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. The project does not have the potential to adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
12
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use?
X
Evaluation
a) b) c) No new paths are proposed to be located on properties used for agricultural purposes or which contain prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The BTP update would not conflict with any existing zoning for
agricultural uses and would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts. The BTP update involves no other changes to the
existing environoment which could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Conclusion: No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
2 X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
X
PH2 - 57
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
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)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The 2013 BTP update will have the effect of increasing bicycle ridership which will have a potential benefit of
producing a positive impact on air quality. There is no potential the implementation of the proposed update to the 2013 BTP
update would have a potentially significant effect on air quality, pollutant concentrations, or objectionable odors. No Impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
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?
1, 10
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
3
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected 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?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 10
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) In cases where proposed Class 1 bicycle facilities are located in areas which contain riparian habitat, or are
located within creek setbacks, Creek setback regulations of the City’s Zoning Regulations would apply. In addition to standard
City policies and regulations, the previous 2007 BTP and update 2013 BTP include policies and standard mitigation for
locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impact to less than significant levels. Existing City policies and
standards would apply to any proposed facilities which could have a potential impact which would reduce potential biological
resource impacts to less than significant levels. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
PH2 - 58
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
16 X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d). 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 Resource Preservation 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. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion:
Less than significant impact.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4 X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
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?
X
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c). 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. Less than significant impact.
d), e). 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. Less than significant impact.
PH2 - 59
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Conclusion:
Less than significant impact.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
X
a) b) The State of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California
Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of
California. Updates to the Bicycle Transportation Plan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gases since they support
alternatives to use of motor vehicles by enhancing facilities which can be used for bicycles. Updates to the Bicycle
Transportation Plan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
8
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
4
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update has no potential to expose the public to hazardous materials. The project
would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. No Impact.
PH2 - 60
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
e), f) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update has no potential to result in an airport related safety hazard for people using the
bicycle facilities in the plan which may be within the airport land use area. No impact.
g), h) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not impede access for emergency response. In the case of Class 1 bike paths,
the dimensions are sufficiently wide to accommodate most emergency vehicles, and their construction would pave a positive
impact on emergency access. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
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 or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on or off site?
3
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
10
X
h) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
X
i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h), i). 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. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
PH2 - 61
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plans?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed
deviations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans
or community conservation plans which would be affected by the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of “unacceptable” noise
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?
7
X
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
X
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
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?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d). Implementation of projects related to the Bicycle Transportation Plan update would not expose people to
unacceptable noise levels and would not generate noise levels in excess of the City’s noise ordinance. Construction activities
generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction,
including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance, which regulates
time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise
standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant
impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
PH2 - 62
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
Evaluation
a), b). 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. The update to the Bicycle Transportation plan will not induce population growth or displace existing housing.
No Impact.
Conclusion: No 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
f) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) 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.
Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
X
Evaluation
a) Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan will have a positive effect on recreational opportunities within San Luis
Obispo. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
PH2 - 63
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components
of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use
Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a
change in air traffic patterns?
X
Implementation of facilities included in The Bicycle Transportation Plan are required to comply with City design standards and
would not introduce dangerous design features or incompatible uses. Bikeways included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan
Update are anticipated to have an overall positive impact on transportation and circulation by providing an alternative means of
transportation to private vehicles. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded
entitlements needed?
X
e) 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 commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X
PH2 - 64
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
related to solid waste?
Evaluation:
a), b), c), d), e), f), g). Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not impact City utilities for water and
wastewater and will not generate solid waste or create additional demand on landfill facilities. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
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?
X
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have any effects on habitat for fish and wildlife species and will not
impact historic resources. Less than significant impact.
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, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
X
The Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have cumulatively considerable impacts and will not result in potential effects
from probable future projects. Less than significant impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not have environmental effects which could case substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact.
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.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006
2. SLO County Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009
3. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, August 2012
PH2 - 65
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # 71-13, 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005
5. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, revised April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010
7. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
8. Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
12. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
14. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
15. Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005
16. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010
PH2 - 66
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2013 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING THE 2013
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (GPI/ER 71-13)
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 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan approved by Resolution No. 9899
needs to be updated and certified by the State in 2013 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 developed a comprehensive update to the
2007 Plan over a two year period based on input received from the Bicycle Advisory Committee
and members of the public, and
WHEREAS, in May 2013, a public hearing draft of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
was published and placed on the City’s web site for public review, and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation
Plan have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant
to an initial environmental study (ER 71-13) and the Community Development Department
Director recommends adopting a Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2013 the Planning Commission reviewed the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan and Negative Declaration at a public hearing and has recommended
that the City Council approve the Plan and its Negative Declaration as forwarded by the Bicycle
Advisory Committee and revised by the Planning Commission, and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on November 5, 2013 and has
considered the testimony of interested parties, the Planning Commission hearing and action, the
Negative Declaration prepared by staff and recommended by the Planning Commission, and the
evaluation and recommendation of staff.
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’s Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the project
and reflects the independent judgment of the Council. The Council hereby approves said
Negative Declaration.
PH2 - 67
Resolution No. _____ (2013 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan as recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and Planning
Commission, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan 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 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan 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 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan will provide new and improved bicycling
facilities which further 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 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan is hereby approved and
Resolution Number 9899 (2007 Series) approving the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan is hereby
superseded and the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan shall hereafter be the official Plan of the
City of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2013.
____________________________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Anthony J. Mejia
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PH2 - 68
Resolution No. _____ (2013 Series)
Page 3
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
PH2 - 69
Page intentionally left
blank.
PH2 - 70
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mejia, Anthony
Thursday, October 3l-, 2013 9:L4 AM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: Bicycle Transportation Plan
Agenda Correspondence,
Item
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
tel | 805.781..7t02
-----Origina I Message-----
From: David Abrecht Imailto:daveabrecht@me.com]
Sent: Thursday, October3I,2Ol3 9:07 AM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Cc: Brooks Lea; Rivoire Dan
Subject: Bicycle Transportation Plan
Dear Mayor Marx and San Luis Obispo City Council Members,
On behalf of the 600-plus members of the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club, I urge you to approve the updated Bicycle
Transportation Plan at your meeting on November 5. This plan, created by your city staff, members of your Bicycle
Advisory Committee and local bicycle advocates, is a roadmap for improving our bicycle infrastructure throughout San
Luis Obispo. These improvements will encourage more people to leave their cars at home and use bicycles for
commuting, short errand trips and recreation, ln addition, the use of bicycles is a form of active transportation that
reduces carbon emissions and will improve the health of our community,
Thank you for your commitment to bicycling as an important and viable form of transportation.
Sincerely,
David Abrecht
Bicycle Advocate
San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club
805.801.9211
1
OcT 3 I 2013
ï\lF
rìKI ¡{--Lt_9_-sL0 Í*T*r\_/r-.J, I y
Goodwin, Heather
From: Mejia, Anthony
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Bike Plan Update
Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk
(A (IV Of SAT) ILill, 0131SIiCl
990 Palos Street
Sari i uis Obispo, CFA 9340-1
(el 1805,781,7102
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 4 :04 PM
To: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: FW: Bike Plan Update
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Steve Hilty [doctorhilty a gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 03:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Marx, Jan
Subject: Bike Plan Update
Hi,
F - WED
04 2013
TY CLERK
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date 11 Item# -0Z-
Thank you for all you do. I support the SLO Bicycle Coalition and love to see our community becoming more
and more bike friendly. Please approve the Bike Plan Update.
Steve Hilty & family
4631 Poinsettia Street
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anthony J, Mejia I City Clerk
{rL\' {)[. s*n lurs *1ìr9p()
99* Palnr Slrcrt
San Luis CIbirpo, CA g:l4o:
tel |8n5.78r.7ro:
Mejia, Anthony
Monday, November 04,20131-0:38 AM
Goodwin, Heather
FW: SLO City Council on Tue: Grade separated ped/bike connection from Orcutt to
LOVR and Laguna?
r.iËCFTVM
NOv 0 4 2013
sl-ei c TTY CLERI(
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCË
From: Christianson, Carlyn
Sent: Monday, November 04,20L3 10:37 AM
To: Eiud@calpoly.edu
Cc: Mejia, Anthony
Subject: FW: SLO City Council on Tue: Grade separated ped/bike connection from Orcutt to LOVR and Laguna?
Hi Eugene,
Thanks for your input; your effort is appreciated as always, I've cc'd city staff so that your comments can be paft of the
public record.
Thanks again, and have a safe trip,
Carlyn
Carlyn Christianson
Member, San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street, SLO 93408
cchristi@slocity.org
805-550-9320 cell
805-752-1021 home (for city calls)
From: Eugene H. Jud [ejud@calpoly.edu]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2013 9:54 PM
To: Max, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy
Subject: SLO City Council on Tue: Grade separated ped/bike connection from Orcutt to LOVR and Laguna?
Dear members of the City Council,
The new bicycle plan contains a lot of hard work and good ideas, and we can be proud of it.
Today we have the silver designation for bike facilities. However, for the gold designation we would probably
need a grade separated east-west ped/bike connection from the Orcut Area over to LOVR and Laguna
Lake. This would replace some of the plarmed east west ped/bike connections immediately adjacent to Prado-
and Tank Farm Roads, which are even designated as (noisy and stinky!) truck routes. This alignment would be
1
away ftom all this noise- and air pollution and would probably go through Meissner lane. In my opinion this is
technically needed to reach the20o/o modal split.
Other towns build such facilities. I understand that recently the Planning Commission found a few good words
for such an idea. After all, the ped/ bike bridge over the railroad at Orcutt is already in the plans. I will be out
of town, but I hope that somebody will bring this up and show the plan, It would at least be worth a preliminary
study. I am afraid the current road concept of SLO South is too much of the Los Angeles type decorated with
ped/bike facilities of questionable quality and dangerous at-grade crossings. We are also missing a convincing
public transport concept to the area including the airport (attractive busses or even modern light rail?).
Thanks for nurturing some bold visions - at least for 2050!
eugene jud
Eugene Jud, Fellow Institute of Transportation Engineers ITE
At:
Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering
. California Polytechnic State University
San Luis Obispo, CA93407-0353
Phone : (8 05 ) 7 5 6 -1 7 29 ; E-mail : eiud@calpoly. edu
http ://ceenve3. calpoly. edt"r/jud
Or:
Jud Consultants
POB 1145
San Luis Obispo, CA93406-1145
Phone and Fax: (805) 549-8185;
E-mail: iud4 com
wwwjudcons.com
2
Goodwin, Heather
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Begin forwarded message:
Mejia, Anthony
Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:15 PM
Goodwin, Heather
Fwd: Please Approve the SLO Bike Plan this Tuesday
PFCFIVI=D
NOV 04 2013
41.0- C€ ..Ei .l�
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date-! Item #4�
From: "Marx, Jan" <jmarx a,slocity.org>
Date: November 2, 2013 at 3:40:51 PM PDT
To: 'Michael Whitney' <mjwhitney09kgmail.com >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmith e,slocity.org >,
"Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristi(&slocity.or >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpentgslocity.org >,
"Ashbaugh, John" <jashbaug_a,slocity.org>
Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <ameiiagslocit�.or >
Subject: RE: Please Approve the SLO Bike Plan this Tuesday
Thanks for your message. I am including our city clerk in this response so your message id
posted on our website as agenda correspondence.
Best
Jan Marx
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Michael Whitney [mjwhitne 09 ,gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: Please Approve the SLO Bike Plan this Tuesday
Dear Council Member(s),
The long term direct and indirect benefits from expanding our bike lanes as quickly as feasible
are significant.
Please give us your support. It will be very much appreciated. Thanks you,
Yours respectfully,
Michael J.(Mike) Whitney
1005 Goldenrod Lane
SLO, CA. 93401
Phone:207- 659 -9874
email: miwhitney09ggmail.com