HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/19/2017 Item 15, Flickinger
Christian, Kevin
From:Sarah Flickinger <sarah@flickimc.com>
Sent:Tuesday, September
To:E-mail Council Website
Cc:'dgoo805'
Subject:Public Comment re: Avila Ranch Agenda Item from Los Verdes Parks 1 & 2
Attachments:LUCE Circulation.pdf; Constraints Analysis.pdf; FEIR Council LVP Statement.pdf
Good afternoon,
Attached please find a public comment made jointly by the Los Verdes Parks 1 &2 Homeowners’ Associations,
representing more than 350 homeowners and tenant residents in the direct vicinity of this development and its impacts.
If Councilmembers have any questions between now and this evening’s meeting regarding the neighborhoods and/or
residents’ concerns, I am available throughout the day and can be reached by phone or email.
Thank you for your service to our City.
Sincerely,
Los Verdes Parks 1&2 Homeowners Associations
Sarah Flickinger
805.215.2561
sarah@flickimc.com
1
MEMORANDUM
WALLACE GROUP -.
Date: July , 14 2016
iI" IL A.N0
azNSPaKr,+nnN
ENGINEERING
To: Los Verdes Residents
CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT
From: Esau Blanco, P.E.
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
Subject: LOVR Bypass- Constraints Analysis
MECHANICAL
ENGINEERING
Wallace Group is pleased to present this constraints analysis memorandum related to
PLANNING
the conceptual design and analysis of the Los Osos Valley Road Bypass and related
intersections. While the Bob Jones Trail extension is planned along the same corridor
PUBLIC OR oN
neither the trail stud alignment nor the cost analysis area art of this ual
g Y P Y- ConcetP
layouts of the road alignment and profile as well signalized intersection configurations
SURVEYING
GIS SOLUTIONS
are included as attachments to this memorandum (Exhibits 1-5)-
ER RESOURCES
Background
The Los Osos Valley Road Bypass (Bypass) is a future road contemplated by the City
of San Luis Obispo that would connect Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) just east of the
US 101/LOVR interchange to South Higuera Road at the future intersection with
Buckley Road. The Bypass would traverse two parcels (APN 053-161-020 and 076-
081-026) of currently undeveloped farmland adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek. APN
053-161-020 is zoned suburban/low density residential. APN 076-081-026 is zoned
open space. The Bypass is discussed in the City's Land Use and Circulation Element
(LUCE) EIR update of 2014. The findings of the LUCE update conclude that the
Bypass is "an overall net neutral circulation project with a low cost/benefit ratio." The
Bypass was not recommended as a capital project but rather a project to be
implemented "as part of adjacent development" (See the attached LUCE EIR excerpt
attached). This "development" is interpreted to mean the development of the APN's
mentioned above. The LUCE further concludes that "The City shall conduct a detailed
subarea traffic analysis to determine final feasibility of connecting a roadway from US
101 to Higuera Street." The road would cross both City and County of San Luis
Obispo jurisdictions.
Road Cross Section
Because the Bypass crosses both City and County jurisdictions the design standards
and the typical roadway cross section have not been determined at this point- For the WALLACE GROUP
purposes of this constraints analysis, it has been assumed that the County design "^ `°. ".
standards will be met and the road cross section will mimic what is being proposed for 612 CLARION CT
the Buckley Road extension (See Exhibit 1). This approach and the typical cross SAN LUIS OBISPO
section were discussed with Mr. Jeremy Ghent of County Public Works during a CALIFORNIA o�401
meeting on March 30, 2016 and he is in general agreement. T sn§ 544 4) 11
F 805 544-4294
vvww.wali !eUvaua.ue
LOVR Bypass- Los Verdes Residents_
July 14, 2016
Page 2 of 6
Horizontal Alignment
The horizontal alignment of the Bypass was generally based on County of San Luis
Obispo 2014 Public Improvement Standards for Urban Roads in rolling terrain and for
a 40 mph design speed. The alignment of the Bypass was reviewed and it was
decided to place the intersection with LOVR as far from the interchange and
northbound ramps as possible to optimize the traffic operations. Caltrans Highway
Design Manual Section 504.3 requires a local road must be at least 400 feet from a
ramp intersection (mandatory standard) and 500 feet is preferred (advisory standard).
The 400 foot minimum distance can be achieved by pushing the intersection east and
abutting the Los Verdes residential community. By pushing the intersection further
east it also minimizes potential impacts to the creek and keeps as much of the road
out of the floodplain as possible. The Bypass would continue south along the westerly
property line of the Los Verdes Community and then head southeast to the future
intersection of Buckley Road and South Higuera Street (See Exhibit 1). A 50 -foot
buffer was used for the creek top of bank to the road right of way in accordance with
City Zoning Regulation 17.16.025. It's assumed that the detached multi use trail (Bob
Jones Trail Extension) would be constructed separately from the roadway
improvements.
Vertical AlignmentlFlooding
The proposed Bypass is almost entirely in the 100 -yr flood plain. A portion of the road
is also in the floodway where detailed FEMA studies have determined the limits (APN
053-161-020). While the floodway has not been determined within APN 076-081-026
it is likely to cover a good portion of that parcel as well. Most of the land also lies in
the City's Special Floodplain Management Zone which has specific design criteria as
outlined in the City's San Luis Obispo Creek Waterway Management Plan, Drainage
Design Manual (2003). Generally, the City requires that no significant net increase in
upstream or downstream floodwater surface elevations will result as part of
development. The threshold is no more than 2.5 inches in water surface elevation
increase or 0.3 ft./s. in stream velocity increase. Additionally, the City requires a "no
significant net decrease in floodplain storage volume" for all design year storm events.
According to the City's design standards this could be achieved with a "net cut/fill
balance in grading".
A preliminary conceptual profile for the Bypass was developed (See Exhibit 2). The
profile was generally designed to meet County of San Luis Obispo and Caltrans
design criteria. A minimum gradient of 0.40% was used and vertical curves are in
compliance with Caltrans standards for a 40 mph design speed. The critical criteria for
the future final design of the vertical profile of the road will need to closely evaluate
the impacts of flooding relative to development upstream and downstream of the
creek. This analysis will also have to closely assess the Bypass itself and future
development of the parcels it traverses. This analysis will require a flood study and
creek model that is outside the scope of this constraints analysis. For the purpose of
this preliminary analysis, it was assumed that the road will be elevated approximately
1-2 feet above existing grade along the southern portion of the alignment
WALLACE GROUP
LOVR Bypass- Los Verdes Residents
July 14, 2016
Page 3 of 6
(Approximately Station 15+00 to 28+00). This results in a conservative estimate of the
cost of the road as being in fill rather than at grade (cut condition).
Intersections
The LOVR/Bypass intersection was evaluated as a tee -intersection and the
Bypass/South Higuera intersection as a four-way intersection with the future
extension of Buckley Road. Design vehicles were assumed to be either a WB -67 (CA
standard semitrailer) or a standard 40 -ft bus based on preliminary assessments.
Future design vehicle dimensions could impact the overall footprint and layout of the
intersections.
LOVR/Bypass
A conceptual layout showing a signalized tee configuration at the LOVR/Bypass
intersection was developed (See Exhibit 3). A new signal at this intersection would not
require significant reconstruction work assuming no additional widening was needed
on LOVR. This is reasonable given that the recently finished construction at the
interchange and along LOVR is designed for 2035 conditions. Currently there are 2
lanes in each direction on LOVR through this stretch with a left turn pocket for the US
101 northbound on ramp. It is assumed that a signalized intersection would not
require a left turn pocket from westbound LOVR onto the Bypass since South Higuera
would offer the same access to any potential destination. Prohibiting that left turn
movement would make right turn movements onto the Bypass from LOVR virtually
unimpeded and would help the level of service and overall operations of the
intersection.
The current left turn pocket on westbound LOVR onto the US 101 northbound on
ramp is approximately 400 feet long and would need to be shortened. According to
the LOVR Interchange Environmental Document the northbound ramps intersection is
expected to operate at Level of Service (LOS) C at the design year (2035). It is not
clear if this assumes full build out of the City including the Bypass. Peak hour volumes
for the left turn at this intersection were not available to review the general capacity of
the left turn pocket. A general rule of thumb is 1 foot of turn pocket for the peak hour
average number of vehicles making the turn (i.e. 200 peak hour cars would require
about a 200 -ft. long turn pocket). The pocket is relatively long and based on recent
observations, the peak hour volumes making the left turn are relatively low. If buildout
projections do not increase the demand significantly then a shorter pocket may be
adequate. From a conceptual geometrics stand point a signalized tee intersection is
viable at the Bypass/LOVR intersection. An operational analysis would be necessary
to ultimately determine the operational adequacy of a signalized tee intersection at
this location.
A roundabout alternative was also considered as part of this constraints analysis
(Exhibit 5). It was assumed that a two lane roundabout with an inscribed circle
diameter of 200 feet would be required to meet traffic demands. The intersection
footprint for a roundabout would be significantly larger than that of a signalized
WALLACE GROUP
LOVR Bypass- Los Verdes Residents
July 14, 2016
Page 4 of 6
intersection. A roundabout would require quite a bit more reconstruction work along
LOVR and more right of way acquisition. Additional challenges would include staging
construction and traffic handling on a very busy arterial road. Similar to a signalized
intersection, the roundabout would have to be analyzed from a traffic operations WALLACE GROUP,
standpoint to verify the feasibility. Because of the larger footprint the Caltrans
minimum distance from the northbound ramps to the roundabout may be more difficult
to achieve.
Bypass/South Hiquera
For the Bypass/South Higuera intersection the eastbound leg is proposed to be
skewed at a 15 -degree angle which is the Caltrans suggested maximum skew. The
reason for the skew is the alignment of the proposed Buckely Road extension as well
as the proximity to San Luis Obispo Creek. This skew is not ideal as it will effect
turning movements for design vehicles and thus the overall width and lane
configurations. Truck turning analysis shows that this configuration can accommodate
a California Standard 65 -ft. trailer truck for all movements except the eastbound left.
The eastbound left will accommodate a standard 40 -ft. bus. However, we don't'
expect much demand for that movement and larger vehicles would continue their
current route from LOVR to South Higuera Street. The skewed intersection will
require further refinements to ensure adequate sight distance and lane alignments are
achieved. The signal construction would likely only require minor improvements
along South Higuera to connect the eastbound leg. The proposed Buckley Road
extension and Octagon Barn access improvements currently in design would not
require significant reconstruction to accommodate a 4 -way signalized intersection.
Utilities
It is anticipated that all standard public utilities will be needed along the proposed
Bypass. The extents and sizes of these utilities will depend on future development of
the adjacent parcels. For the purposes of this constraints analysis and for estimating
rough construction costs the following wet utilities were assumed to be in the road:
• Domestic Water
• Recycled Water
• Sanitary Sewer
Some of these utilities will have nearby service connection points and others will not.
Only the cost of the utilities in the Bypass itself were considered as part of this
constraints analysis. Offsite utility improvements and connection costs are not
included in this analysis. Dry utilities are not included in this estimate and will vary
depending on development. These costs may be absorbed by the utility agency or
may be shared with the developer depending on any service agreements.
Cost for wet utilities have been estimated for the entire roadway length
(Approximately 2500 feet). Line sizes have been assumed and standard depths have
also been assumed. It is possible that sanitary sewer could pose significant
challenges based on the terrain and available connection points. City utility atlases
LOVR Bypass- Los Verdes Residents
July 14, 2616
Page 5 of 6
show an existing 10 -inch sewer line in APN 053-161-020 that flows south and then
turns west across Highway 101 in a 12 -inch line. The atlas maps indicate the pipe is
about 12 feet deep and also serves as a connection point for the Los Verdes
Community. It seems reasonable to anticipate that this line would be relocated to the WALLACE GROUP
Bypass and possibly need to be upsized depending on capacity. However, because
APN 076-081-026 is approximately 10 feet lower in elevation it will be difficult to serve
that parcel from the existing sewer via a gravity -only system. For the purposes of this
analysis, the cost of relocating the 10 -inch line to the Bypass roadway has been
included in the cost. It is assumed that development of APN 076-081-026 to the south
would be conditioned to build a private sewer collection system with lift station and
force main to connect to the future configuration of the gravity line.
Structures
Structures, such as bridges or large retaining walls, are not anticipated to be a part of
the roadway improvements. A screen/sound wall along the westerly and a portion of
the southerly property line of the Los Verdes Community may be necessary to
mitigate visual and noise impacts from the Bypass. For the purposes of estimating
construction cost we have assumed an 8 ft. tall masonry block sound wall
approximately 1250 feet long will be required with the roadway construction.
Construction Cost Estimates
Construction costs were estimated based on the conceptual layouts shown in Exhibits
1-5. These costs should be considered planning level estimates based on the
preliminary nature of the analysis. For the Bypass mainline road, unit costs were
developed for major roadway items and additional ancillary cost were assigned as a
percentage of the major roadway items in accordance with the Caltrans Project
Development Procedures Manual (PDPM). Other items such as wet utilities were
estimated based on linear footage of improvements with a unit cost increase for
service connections and appurtenances. Signal and roundabout intersection costs are
lump sum estimates based on Wallace Group recent similar project experience and
similar recent public bid data. A unit cost of $2 per square foot was assumed for right
of way acquisition purposes. All subtotals were then assessed a 25% contingency at
this stage of development.
Tables 1 and 2 on the next page provide a summary of the of the estimated
construction costs. A spreadsheet breakdown of these costs is attached at the back of
this memorandum.
LOVR Bypass- Los Verdes Residents
July 14, 2016
Page 6 of 6
Table 1. Construction Cost - LOVR Bypass, Mainline Road
Item/Description i Cost
I
Roadway/Drainage $4,000,000
StructuresNNallsi $ 0052 00
Utilities { $1,000,000
i
Right of Way $500,000
} Total 1 - $5,750,000
i
Table 2. Construction Cost- Intersections
Intersection Cost
i
LOVR Bypass/South { $250,000'
Higuera Street- i
Signal
LOVR _ $500,000
Bypass/LOVR-Signal
LOVR Bypass/South $3,000,000
Higuera Street-
i
Roundabout
*Assumed to be a signal modification to an add eastbound leg to the future Buckley
Road extension
For capital support costs such as engineering, environmental clearance, permitting,
inspection and management we recommend budgeting 40% of construction costs
(see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of these percentages).
WALLACE GROLIN
gB
joi
io Jr:
_ j
APPROXIMATE 50 -FT.
CREEK SETBACK LINE
LIMITS OF DETAILED
FLOODWAY STUDY
APH 076-081-026
OVA
0
ti
Is?
Al
NZFCA-LEY ROAD
�f -
SO.,;I,f
1
APPROX. 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE
APN 053-161-020
ot
25
kP
I i
30
APPROX. LOCATION OF 8 FT.
' SOUNDWALL
i LOS VERDES
y� COMMUNITY
say►
F ..
RAW
TYPICAL STREET CROSS SECTION
NTS
WALLACE GROURD
GNILAIIDT3VSWR�ATN#1 ENGIK'fliING
LPItf6UY+EAPGIITEGTtAiE
MELXNJRS1LENaNCQVING
PU WING
PUGUG WORKS ADMIMSIRATCN
WATER RESOIMGES
612 CLARION COURT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93461
T805544 -0O11 F8055444294
...Hamgrwp.m
07
J
fn Q
07 Z_
d < F-
rUm0
�z2Q
> L LI
0�
z
0
JOB No.:
1293-0002
DRAWING:
LAYT
DRAWN BY: JC
DATE:
7115/2016
SCALE:
1'=200'
SOUTH HIGUERA
STREET
U
>
N
j M
CO
M
W N
N
N
M
>
M
140
W
o -
120
A
FGloo
150'
VC
_- -
F-
-
-- - --
-- - --0 401 -
1.00%
�.-
-- - -
-- -- --- --�_- T - --
12
13
14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
61
N 1 6)
M
0� >
NQ)
t W
PR
SCALE.
LOS OSOS
VALLEY ROAD
U
>-
N�
C,
In
o
0 j
co
>
O
J
�f
>
w
O
Ih
Q
zo
O
p
M
Q
c
0-1
+
-
t
W
w
> co
m
>
0
a)
co
O
N
O
+
+
L+3
W
W
-----------T—
_
-
-
- --
- --- --
:200'
LOS OSOS
VALLEY ROAD
U
>-
N�
C,
In
o
0 j
co
O
Lo
co
o
w
N
O
Ih
�
�O
In
+
O
LO
a)
+
rn
+
�+
La
W
w
> co
—
m
o +
140
�... j 120
X500 VC . -- 1 .461 - 0
t - 2,49% --2 96% 1 0
-__T-—
200' vc
-
_!.—_3
26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 37
o.
WALLACE GROUP®
QVLLNO9NNSWRAl10N ETGNE811NG
CUISIRVLTOM AWJAGEMEM
WIWLJFEA(611F_CIUHE
MEQ VNYClL61(iIiEEWNG
aueucwoRxsawamsxanory
WAm R+aMR1 Stunona
WAI£R R6WRCE5
612 CL ON COURT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, G 93901
T 805599-0011 FB05599Jt299
WWW llamgrou m
U)
i
� J
Q
Z N
aQH-j
mU)mLL
Z=O
O<Wa
J
Z
O
U
JOB No.: 1293-0002
DRAWING: LAYT
DRAWN BY. JC
DATE: 52412016
SCALE: ASSHOWN
Lo
to
L�
0
W
v
rn
>
0
+�
a)
> co
—
m
o +
w
tcx
—
+
L+3
o.
WALLACE GROUP®
QVLLNO9NNSWRAl10N ETGNE811NG
CUISIRVLTOM AWJAGEMEM
WIWLJFEA(611F_CIUHE
MEQ VNYClL61(iIiEEWNG
aueucwoRxsawamsxanory
WAm R+aMR1 Stunona
WAI£R R6WRCE5
612 CL ON COURT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, G 93901
T 805599-0011 FB05599Jt299
WWW llamgrou m
U)
i
� J
Q
Z N
aQH-j
mU)mLL
Z=O
O<Wa
J
Z
O
U
JOB No.: 1293-0002
DRAWING: LAYT
DRAWN BY. JC
DATE: 52412016
SCALE: ASSHOWN
\\�PROPOSED AVILA
RANCH
LL JJ��JJ IMPROVEMENTS
K3
APPROX. 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE
ROW \
�r�=g
'SPG
OB ," .
5A� BU'S a r
:7
ROW /
/ BOCKLEY /TOAD EXTENS/OX
F
PARCEL
LINE
15
4
:7
ROW /
/ BOCKLEY /TOAD EXTENS/OX
F
PARCEL
LINE
15
r
R O i"i
SDUTN y/(/ERA
OCTAGON
BARN
DWY
<, 1
'1
R
E
i
WALLACE GROUP®
=LPIIDTMASPGiTAT 6YGMEp M
CpVSlfl11::IlON tNN1AC$dEN!
4 LN'dSCPPEMQ(IECRURE
v 1tL11M9ULENCiNEEiiING
RAIBllhG
zusJcwwacsaaniwsrtunoru
satrnncis saunoxs
VJpTERflFSWRCES
612 CLARION COURT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
7805644-4011 F8056944294
www..]], .gO .Us
`V`/ ^
V/ v/
fnzth W
m m =
z _
W �
c~n a
z a_
O m
U
JOB No.:
1283-0002
DRAWING:
SGNL1
DRAWN BY: JC
DATE:
92412616
SCALE:
1'=W
�
r
P,
AI
�
/
/
gWz 0 DETAILED
FmmAYSTUDY
/
/
/
/
�APPROX. ,m >
/
�
ROW
kR FLOOD ZONE
1 %
'-9
I
PARCEL LINE •...,,
s�
i VERDES COMMUNITY
p
WALtACE GROUP®
1ANp5C6PEML1 WT RE
MEGN W CPL ENf�INE611NG
GtAMVING
STIRVTNGIG6Spttll oO
WAi RESIXR S
612 CARION COURT
SAN LUIS osmP0, CA 93401
7605544-4011 F605544-0204
vnvw.wallacegrwp.us
'VJ
VJ
U) Q LL
U)Zd
QQ O
I LZ = Q
>OfLw�
O F— W
Z
O
JOB Nm:
12930002
DRAWING:
SGNL2
DRAWN BY:
JC
DATE:
524 016
SCALE:
1'=50'
�_ NI ` .•S w lY.
i
1
YG
V y
i 1
v /
i
f,. a
I 149' �
LIMITS OF DETAILED
FLOODWAY STUDY
1
' � 1
/ BOB JONES TRAIL EXTENSION
APPROX. 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE
CURRENT LOVR g
ROADWAY
PARCEL LINE
/ I
DOUBLE -LANE ROUNDABOUT
,,y • j
40 40"MI4MrMl6
,
WALLACE GROUP®
GVRaYDTRANSPORtwTOx ENOPIFFAWG
CONSiRVLiION M4fJwGEMEM
IANOS:MPEARCHIiECIVRE
MELHMIIGALENGINEFA�NG
PUWN�rvG
PUBllG W0 IGSSODUSONTON
WATER RESOURCES GN5
WATER RESOURCES
512 CLARION COURT
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
T 805 5444011 F 805 544-4294
a avW,'.Kxe9'oup..
JOB No.: 1293-0002
DRAWING: RDBT2
DRAWN BY: JC
DATE: 7/15/2016
SCALE: 1"=50'
h
U
s-
me
o e
m C
d
U
r
v U
3 m 3
E -
U
U
v \
a'aEc2i
S �
m
q
0
o
m w ~
m
U
E S m
E s
o'
E
3
rc
U
�
0
V K 7
4'
o
U N
U
N
m
O
E E C
F
= E U
o - m
w w
rc
ry
n
a'
a'
m
o a a m
E
E
E
m
O
3 w ¢
v
a '
=
C
N
�
m
U
m w w w w w
m
w w wl
m
»»
»I»
r.
o
m
m
V � U � ILLL
W W N
� W W W
•-
E E
f
E
m! f
E E E E
tm-
0
s
S
E
E
_
-
E
is
m
a
mE
ry m a»
m n m
7
.- t2
a
O
U
O
�
4
U
me
Uw
m C
d
U
r
v U
3 m 3
E -
U
U
v \
a'aEc2i
S �
m
0
o
m w ~
m
U
o'
E
3
rc
U
0
V K 7
4'
U
w » w
U
n
n
N
d
U
r
E
E -
U
U
v \
a'aEc2i
0
w U K
m
U
Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
Los Verdes Park 2 Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
attn: Sarah Flickinger, Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
c/o: Farrell Smyth
21 Santa Rosa Street, Ste. 250
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
September 19, 2017
re: City Council Agenda Item, Avila Ranch FEIR and Development Agreement
To the City of San Luis Obispo Councilmembers:
This correspondence is made as a joint statement of the two Homeowners’ Associations for the two Los
Verdes Park developments located on either side of Los Osos Valley Road within the southern limits of
the City of San Luis Obispo. Our neighborhoods are planned urban developments (PUDs)—not unlike the
proposed Avila Ranch Development—of single family homes on individual lots, with several commonly
held parcels for communal facilities. Our homes are neither condominiums nor townhomes as
characterized in the documentation for the proposed development. Between the two existing
residential neighborhoods, we represent more than 175 individual parcels as well as the common
interest parcels, and are in direct proximity of the impacts of this development.
We recognize the additional residential needs outlined in the LUCE and General Plan updates as vital to
the long-term sustainability of our community and its shift toward a multimodal future. Our primary
concerns are real and immediate impacts to the safety, health and quality of life of our residents, whose
homes became a part of this City as early as 1974. CEQA requires that impacts to existing neighborhoods
affected by projects be addressed in EIR documents, which our neighborhoods feel still has not been
done adequately in the FEIR on a multitude of impacts, and in some cases, has been done
inappropriately. Other CEQA-required considerations are being addressed and/or altered through the
development agreement, outside of prescribed public processes and input. The EIR documents should
include more specific analysis of impacts to ours and additional neighborhoods in the vicinity, followed
by a new release of the DEIR through the CEQA clearinghouse for additional public comment on these
new analyses.
The following are specific concerns formally adopted by both HOA boards, with suggestions for
amenable mitigations. We have been and continue to be willing to work directly with the developer and
the City to work through issues in the appropriate manner.
1). First and foremost, the proposed mitigation measure of a second lane on Los Osos Valley Road was
the subject a settlement agreement between the two HOAs, the City of San Luis Obispo and CALTRANS,
when it was proposed as part of the LOVR Interchange Project. Its impacts compromised noise levels, air
quality and safety of residential living spaces and safety of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle travel into, out
of and in the vicinity of our neighborhoods beyond acceptable levels. It also caused degradation of
access for public safety vehicles and put children loading and unloading at school bus stops at the
intersection of Los Verdes Drive and Los Osos Valley Road at risk. The settlement was reached in good
faith by all parties, and any proposed changes to the agreed upon striping and road alignments requires
specific notification prior to consideration (including scoping and DEIR release) under the terms of the
settlement agreement.
Recognizing the response that this mitigation is being proposed for some point following project
completion does not make it any more acceptable to our neighborhoods. We are doing our best to
address cumulative impacts in a way that serves our communities, the City at large as well as
commuters to and from the airport and other adjacent county development areas. There is a long-term
solution available, and additional lanes in a residential area (between our two neighborhoods) is not a
solution. This has been tried and is now being corrected or has previously been corrected on South
Street, Johnson, portions of Broad Street, and many others. Laurel Lane is being taken up for the same
later this week. In some of those cases injuries and/or loss of life were prerequisites for the corrections.
We are trying to prevent the same from happening in our neighborhood.
This mitigation measure should be removed from the development plan as it presents a real and
significant hazard to citizens’ well-being. A suitable alternative mitigation measure for this area must be
considered in lieu.
2). We appreciate that restriping for additional lanes would not require an adjustment to existing
planted medians, as is consistent with our settlement agreement. However, we still find an additional
northbound lane on LOVR to be a hazard to our residents, including those travelling by bicycle and
motor vehicle in the vicinity.
3). The intersection of Los Verdes Drive at Los Osos Valley Road is not evaluated nor discussed in the
DEIR. While the document does include impacts at the intersection of LOVR and S. Higuera and the
segment of LOVR from the intersection at S. Higuera to 450’ past the intersection of Los Verdes Drive, it
never specifically addresses or evaluates impacts to the intersection at LOVR and Los Verdes Drive,
which serves as the sole vehicular and bicycle entrance and exit points to our residential neighborhoods.
There are two school bus stops and City bus stops serving several additional neighborhoods in the
greater area at this intersection, which also go unaddressed. This is also the single access point for public
safety vehicles traveling to homes within the neighborhoods. That this intersection and impacts to
access and public services caused by the addition of project traffic are not discussed at all in this
document makes it insufficient as those impacts are real and immediate as early as grading and Phase 1.
The addition of project traffic, both near and long term is significant and will have impacts to the safety
of Los Verdes Park residents at the intersection of Los Verdes Drive and Los Osos Valley Road for both
vehicular and bicycle travel. The impacts further compromise the already failing LOS at the unmentioned
and unmitigated intersection and the direct and indirect safety and wellbeing of residents, public
servants, service providers (mail, utilities, contractors) and others who travel through this intersection.
The addition of project traffic should warrant signalization at Los Verdes Drive prior to completion of
Phase 1 to ensure the continued safety of Los Verdes residents and others who travel in and around our
neighborhoods. In a meeting between our representatives and City staff held June 20, 2017, the
addition of a HAWK signal for bicyclists and pedestrians at Los Verdes Drive / Los Osos Valley Road was
suggested by City traffic staff. While any improvement to the situation would be welcomed and
appreciated, our neighborhoods maintain that an on-demand signal (like the one for the MindBody
campus) for residents and others who frequent the neighborhoods would be the safest alternative
serving all modes of travel equitably. We would support a bike/ped HAWK signal, but would prefer a full
signal that is triggered by demand for all movements from Los Verdes Drive.
There has been discussion of the proximity of this intersection to the intersection of Los Osos Valley
Road and S. Higuera as an impediment to full signalization. However, from looking at a map printed as
part of the LOVR Interchange Improvement Project (during the aforementioned meeting with City traffic
planning staff), the distance between these intersections is equal to or greater than the distance
between Calle Joaquin and the Southbound US-101 on/off ramps intersections which are both
signalized. Other areas around the City have as close or closer signal spacing as is being proposed.
Special consideration to address a cumulative problem should be made for safety’s sake and to prevent
future accidents before they happen. Even if this developer is not liable for more than fair share,
including such a signal in the plan updates and creating a fee program would allow other improvement
or traffic impact funds to be used for this purpose at City Council’s direction.
4. It appears that the traffic study and findings on several mitigation measures and their benefits may be
inherently flawed. Please see the letter to Planning Commissioners from Melissa Streder, Caltrans
District 5 dated June 28, 2017 for several specific flaws, particularly those relating to the LOVR
Interchange Improvement Project. Referencing again the aforementioned settlement agreement, many
of the yet uncompleted mitigation measures from the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project that
were taken into account in that project’s environmental documents and the subsequent settlement are
being proposed as separate mitigations within the Avila Ranch project’s DEIR. As the traffic study is
based on the assumed outcomes of a completed LOVR Interchange Project—including said mitigation
measures—to show them as having a new additional benefit on the additional traffic generated by the
Avila Ranch project as Avila Ranch mitigation measures would effectively attribute their benefits at
twice the level they will actually achieve. These include, but are not limited to, retiming at the signal of
LOVR and S. Higuera, adjustments to US 101 signage, etc.
The City is required to provide these mitigation measures as part of the LOVR Interchange Project, and
should have done so according to the schedule outlined in the settlement agreement. Their benefits
should not be leveraged as mitigation measures in the Avila Ranch Project as their completion are
already part of the existing condition. The LOVR Interchange Project was completed November 2015,
and the traffic study in the Avila Ranch DEIR appendix is annotated as February 2016.
5. The environmental impacts to our neighborhoods of additional project traffic on Los Osos Valley Road
with regard to noise, light pollution and air quality are not adequately addressed nor mitigated in this
project. The proposed additional project traffic between our neighborhoods is significant to our
residents particularly in the near term and cumulative scenarios, as are the impacts to residents living in
close proximity to it, and it should be quantified and mitigated in the EIR. We would propose a
mitigation of acoustic and light-blocking (read: solid, noise- absorbing, deflecting and/or dampening
materials) sound wall along both Los Verdes parks’ frontages facing LOVR prior to completion of Phase
1. Landscape features may be used in addition to the sound walls to further mitigate air quality, noise
and light impacts as warranted by future phases. Future monitoring throughout the duration of buildout
and at specified points thereafter of sound and air quality in the existing neighborhoods should be
incorporated in future EIR documents.
If developer fair share funding is not sufficient for addressing these issues, impact fees from this and
other developments throughout the airport area that have impacted this corridor could be used.
6. The added traffic, including construction traffic during the early phases of grading and construction,
from the project onto Suburban Road is significant in nature and its impacts to adjacent residents should
be evaluated and included in the FEIR prior to certification. These maps should not be drafted outside of
public processes within the Development Agreement. Suburban Road tees into the side of Los Verdes
Park 1, with several residences with bedrooms and living spaces (both indoor and outdoor) in close
proximity to the intersection. Impacts to these residences should be quantified and mitigated as part of
this project. The existing wrought iron fencing and aging hedge at this location are likely insufficient in
addressing the additional noise, light and air quality impacts from the addition of Avila Ranch project
traffic, including during the construction phase.
These impacts should be mitigated with acoustic and light-blocking sound walls and landscape features
along the Los Verdes Park 1 frontage in direct and near proximity to the Suburban Road and S. Higuera
intersection prior to the beginning of Phase 1. This would effectively include from the beginning of the
Los Verdes Park 1 property north of the intersection to some point past the intersection to the south
along S. Higuera.
As there are noise, air quality and light pollution impacts on residences facing S. Higuera from the
addition of project traffic throughout the S. Higuera corridor in growing significance as phases progress,
this mitigation should likely be extended to include the entirety of the Los Verdes Park 1 frontage facing
S. Higuera from the northern corner of the property up to and around the corner of the property at the
intersection of LOVR and S. Higuera. Additional study on these impacts should be included in the DEIR.
If developer fair share funding is not sufficient for addressing these issues, impact fees from this and
other developments throughout the airport area that have impacted this corridor could be used.
7. We understand that there are significant traffic issues at the intersection of LOVR and S. Higuera in
need of correction, both as part of the existing condition as well as with this—and later additional—
developments. As discussed in the DEIR neither those measures nor the proposed extension of Buckley
beyond S. Higuera to connect to LOVR, known in the LUCE and DEIR as the LOVR Bypass, are currently
programmed for TIF, and either would require advancement under updates related to development to
proceed. It is also unclear in the EIR whether or not the cumulative assessments assume the LOVR
Bypass as complete as part of the full buildout of the General Plan scenario, so the findings derived from
the project’s impacts with and without the LOVR Bypass and related mitigations may be inherently
flawed as currently evaluated. The EIR does base findings on a full interchange at Prado Road, which is
not currently fully evaluated or approved.
As other mitigation measures for this intersection may be flawed and are infeasible under the terms of
the settlement agreement, the alternative mitigation of the LOVR Bypass should be advanced as part of
the mitigations for Avila Ranch traffic impacts, with a specific fee program established for fair share
contribution by the developer. The LUCE specifically allows the Bypass to be advanced to determine final
feasibility with or without development of the parcels it crosses. We have attached a memorandum
regarding LOVR Bypass – Constraints analysis to this letter for your review and consideration. This
document assesses and presents a version of the LOVR Bypass that is possible and amenable to our
homeowners’ associations’ concerns regarding long term planning as the City continues to grow.
During the Planning Commission hearings for Avila Ranch, a discussion regarding the either/or scenario
for advancement of the Bypass or restriping within our neighborhoods happened. We strongly urge City
Council to condition advancement of the Project with advancement of the LOVR Bypass as the preferred
mitigation subject to fair share contribution and establishment of a fee program. The LUCE found this
new roadway to provide regional benefits to circulation and recommended its advancement be
dependent on development of the Creekside Parcels and/or as needed to support
Beyond addressing our neighborhood’s concerns, it addresses concerns of SLOCOG and SLO County
relating to regional circulation for commuter traffic, it provides an attractive green gateway to the
southern portions of San Luis Obispo, it serves tourism interests in the airport and Edna Valley areas,
and supports business and agricultural interests in the vicinity. It is the right long-term, sustainable
solution to many entities’ concerns.
This roadway addresses concerns of regional commuting, neighborhood preservation and much more in
a way that fixes an existing deficiency while supporting future growth. We need to begin its funding
sooner, rather than later to begin to address circulation issues in this area.
The statement in Circulation Element regarding the LOVR Bypass reads:
[less table formatting, which didn’t copy over]
“LOVR Bypass - As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area, the project shall analyze impacts of a
new roadway connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road to Higuera; and/or
The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis to determine final feasibility of connecting a
roadway from US 101 to Higuera Street. Issues to be studied should include, but are not limited to
impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture operations, open space, creek, traffic and biological
resources.
City Developer Const. Dev. Impact Fees Grant Funding General Fund”
This roadway is needed to address past, current and future planned developments throughout the City.
Our neighborhoods remain open and available to support the City and developers in achieving the goals
of the General Plan through collaborative efforts that serve existing and contemplated developments, as
well as the greater communities of the City and County of San Luis Obispo.
Sincerely,
Los Verdes Park 1 Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
Special Board Member
Sarah Flickinger
Los Verdes Park 2 Homeowners’ Association, Inc.
Special Board Member
Darrell Goo
Chapter 2
CIRCULATION
Adopted: December 9, 2014
(Council Resolution No. 10586, 2014 Series)
Chapter 2
Page 2-2
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the
Strategic Growth Council. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the City of San Luis Obispo and
not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The
Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for
the information contained in this report.
Circulation Element
Page 2-3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of San Luis Obispo would like to thank and recognize the efforts of those involved in the development of the Land
Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update and associated Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
City of San Luis Obispo
Citizens of San Luis Obispo The residents of the City who participated in the development of the LUCE
update.
City Council Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
John Ashbaugh
Dan Carpenter
Andrew Carter (Former)
Carlyn Christianson
Dan Rivoire
Kathy Smith (Former)
Planning Commission John Larson, Chairperson
Michael Multari,
Vice Chairperson
Hemalata Dandekar
Michael Draze
John Fowler
Ronald Malak
Eric Meyer (Former)
William Riggs
Airlin Singewald (Former)
Charles Stevenson (Former)
TF-LUCE Walter Bremer
Russell Brown
Carlyn Christianson (Former)
Chuck Crotser
Hemalata Dandekar
Jon Goetz
Dave Juhnke
Stephan Lamb (Former)
Eric Meyer, Chairperson
Dean Miller (Former)
Michael Multari
Matt Quaglino
Pierre Rademaker
Chris Richardson
Rob Rossi
Sandra Rowley
Carla Saunders
Sharon Whitney
City Manager Katie Lichtig City Manager
Chapter 2
Page 2-4
Please see the next page.
Circulation Element
Page 2-5
CHAPTER 2 – CIRCULATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 2-3
CHAPTER 2 – CIRCULATION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 2-5
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-7
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-7
1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 2-9
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-9
1.1. Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-9
1.2. History ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-9
1.3. Public Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 2-9
1.4. For More Information .................................................................................................................................... 2-9
1.5. Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-9
1.6. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 2-10
1.7. Transportation Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 2-10
2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-13
2.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-13
3. TRANSIT SERVICE ................................................................................................................................................ 2-14
3.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-14
3.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-14
4. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................ 2-16
4.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-16
4.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-17
5. WALKING ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-18
5.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-18
5.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-19
6. MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION ............................................................................................................................. 2-20
6.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-20
6.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-21
7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 2-22
Overall Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-22
7.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-22
7.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-22
Types of Streets ........................................................................................................................................................... 2-27
7.3. Design Standards ......................................................................................................................................... 2-27
8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 2-29
8.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-29
8.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-30
9. STREET NETWORK CHANGES .............................................................................................................................. 2-31
9.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-31
9.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-31
Chapter 2
Page 2-6
10. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................................................. 2-36
10.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-36
10.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-36
11. AIR TRANSPORTATION ....................................................................................................................................... 2-38
11.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-38
11.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-38
12. RAIL TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................................................... 2-39
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity ................................................... 2-39
12.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-39
12.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-39
13. PARKING MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2-40
Commercial Parking .................................................................................................................................................... 2-40
13.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-40
13.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-40
14. Neighborhood Parking Management .................................................................................................................. 2-41
14.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-41
14.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-41
15. SCENIC ROADWAYS ............................................................................................................................................ 2-42
15.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-42
15.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-44
16. CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT ..................................... 2-45
16.1. Policies ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-45
16.2. Programs ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-45
APPENDIX A. RESOLUTION 10586 .............................................................................................................................. A-1
APPENDIX B. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................... B-1
Multimodal LOS Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................................... B-1
Urban Streets Methodology from the 2010 HCM ......................................................................................................... B-1
Pedestrian LOS Factors .................................................................................................................................................. B-2
Bicyclist LOS Factors ...................................................................................................................................................... B-2
Transit Passenger LOS Factors ...................................................................................................................................... B-3
Appendix C. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ C-1
Appendix D. Summary of Circulation Element Projects and Programs ........................................................................ D-1
Appendix E. Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures) .......................................................................................... E-1
Appendix F. Existing Intersection LOS ......................................................................................................................... F-1
Circulation Element
Page 2-7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Street Classification Diagram ................................................................................................................... 2-25
Figure 2 Designated STAA Truck Routes ................................................................................................................ 2-37
Figure 3 Scenic Roadways ...................................................................................................................................... 2-43
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Modal Split Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 2-11
Table 2. MMLOS Objectives and Service Standards............................................................................................... 2-20
Table 3. Modal Priorities for Level of Service ........................................................................................................ 2-20
Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards ..................................................................................... 2-27
Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects ................................................................................................................ 2-32
Chapter 2
Page 2-8
Please see the next page.
Circulation Element
Page 2-9
1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Purpose
The City's general plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The
general plan is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. This
Circulation Element describes how the city plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within
San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond.
While the Land Use Element describes the city's desired character and size, the Circulation Element describes
how transportation will be provided in the community envisioned by the Land Use Element. The vision of San
Luis Obispo described by the Land Use Element is influenced by the layout and capacity of streets and the
location of other transportation facilities described in the Circulation Element. Transportation facilities and
programs influence the character of neighborhoods, the location of specific land uses, and the overall form of the
city.
1.2. History
The City adopted a master plan for streets and highways in 1953 and in 1962. In 1973, it adopted its first
Circulation Element which was completely revised in 1982 and again in 1994. This Circulation Element is a
revision of the 1994 Element. This Element's preparation was coordinated with the preparation of a revised Land
Use Element.
1.3. Public Participation
Before adopting or revising any general plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council hold public
hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten
days before they are held. Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the
expected consequences of its planning policies before a general plan element is adopted. The Planning
Commission and City Council reviewed an administrative draft of this Circulation element at public meetings
between 2012 and 2014. A public hearing draft of the Element was published for public review in January 2014.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the effects of both this Circulation Element and a revised
Land Use Element, was published for public review in June 2014. In September and October 2014 the Planning
Commission held public hearings to review the Circulation Element and EIR and forwarded recommendations to
the City Council. In September 2014, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the Circulation and Land Use
Elements as accurate and complete. In September through December 2014, the City Council held public hearings
to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element. The City Council adopted this Circulation Element on
December 9, 2014.
1.4. For More Information
For more current or detailed information concerning this element, contact the Public Works Department at 919
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805) 781-7210.
1.5. Definitions
Terms used in this chapter are included in the glossary section of this document.
Chapter 2
Page 2-10
1.6. Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the community's
preferences for current and future conditions and directions. In the following statements, San Luis Obispo
means the community as a whole, not just the city as a municipal corporation.
1.6.1. Transportation Goals
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing
dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal
health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses
and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation.
4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will cause no
significant, long-term environmental problems.
5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.
6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.
7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San Luis Obispo County,
Cal Trans, and Cal Poly.
8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, telecommuting, creative
transportation demand management, and compact work weeks.
9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
1.6.2. Overall Transportation Strategy
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by:
1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element;
2. Funding alternative forms of transportation;
3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities;
4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes;
5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety.
1.7. Transportation Objectives
1.7.1. Encourage Better Transportation Habits
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Table 1) and depend less on the
single-occupant use of vehicles.
2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and
support programs that reduce the interregional use of single-occupant vehicles and increase the use of
alternative forms of transportation.
Circulation Element
Page 2-11
Table 1. Modal Split Objectives
Type of Transportation
% of City (1)
Resident
Trips
Motor Vehicles 50%
Transit 12%
Bicycles 20%
Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 18%
1.7.2. Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed
parts of the city by 2035, and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by 2035, and
provide service to new growth areas.
3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction programs.
4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than the
single-occupant vehicle.
1.7.3. Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development to the rates and levels
stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing regulations. Limit increases in ADT and VMT to
the increase in employment within the City's Urban Reserve.
2. Support county-wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county-wide travel demand.
3. Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing road system and
reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of transportation throughout the
city and connect with Regional Routes and Highways.
5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic
periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe
conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists.
6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently
served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.
7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood-serving business and provide parks and
recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by pedestrians or bicyclists.
8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or controlling traffic routing,
volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets.
9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of land uses around the
airport to avoid noise and safety problems.
Chapter 2
Page 2-12
1.7.4. Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of air pollution.
(a) The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas and biodiesel
fueling stations, EV recharging stations, and other alternative fuel stations in the San Luis Obispo area.
(b) When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City will consider purchasing
alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution.
(c) The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis.
2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of information to substitute
for travel to work or meetings. Develop goals and policies for City employee participation in
telecommuting systems.
3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of innovative transportation
technologies in San Luis Obispo.
4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and other transportation
corridors.
1.7.5. Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation.
San Luis Obispo will:
1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Table 1 and bi-annually
review and adjust transportation programs if necessary.
1.7.6. Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors.
The City will:
1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that create safe, attractive,
and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining land uses and the traveling public.
Circulation Element
Page 2-13
2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION
As part of the General Plan Update, integrating the concept of sustainability was an important aspect of
the State grant. In reviewing the General Plan, a number of sustainability practices were already
included in the General Plan. For existing and new policies and programs that support sustainability,
this icon is shown at the end of the policy / programs title. See Policy 2.1.3 below as an example.
The small city character of San Luis Obispo is an important quality to maintain. This section presents policies and
programs for reducing the use of automobiles and emphasizing alternative forms of transportation.
2.1. Policies
2.1.1. Multi-level Programs
The City shall support county-wide and community-based efforts aimed at substantially reducing the number
of vehicle trips and parking demand.
2.1.2. Flexible Work Schedules
The City shall support flex time programs and alternative work schedules to reduce peak hour traffic demand.
2.1.3. Work-based Trip Reduction
The City shall encourage employers within the city limits and work with the county to work with employers
outside of the City limits to participate in trip reduction programs.
2.1.4. Downtown Congestion
Within the Downtown the City shall establish and promote programs aimed at reducing congestion in a way
that supports the long-term economic viability of the downtown.
2.1.5. Long-term Measure
The City shall support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades
below legal standards or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent
measures to achieve its transportation goals.
2.2. Programs
2.2.1. Agency Cooperation
In coordination with county agencies, the City shall support efforts in establishing county-wide trip reduction
programs.
2.2.2. City Trip Reduction
The City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City employees.
2.2.3. Large Employers
The City shall work with employers to establish a voluntary commuter benefit options program that provides
commute options for employees.
2.2.4. Incentives for Educational Institutions
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to provide
incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.
Chapter 2
Page 2-14
3. TRANSIT SERVICE
3.1. Policies
3.1.1. Transit Development
The City shall encourage transit accessibility, development, expansion, coordination and marketing
throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broad range of local and regional transportation needs.
3.1.2. City Bus Service
The City shall improve and expand city bus service to make the system more convenient and accessible for
everyone. Transit services owned and operated by the City shall endeavor to maintain and improve all
system-side transit standards identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.
3.1.3. Paratransit Service
The City shall continue to support paratransit service for seniors and persons with disabilities by public,
private, and volunteer transportation providers.
3.1.4. Campus Service
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand the "fare subsidy program" for campus
affiliates. The City shall work with Cuesta College and other schools to establish similar programs.
3.1.5. Unmet Transit Needs
The City shall work with SLOCOG to identify and address Unmet Transit Needs.
3.1.6. Service Standards
The City shall implement the following service standards for its transit system and for development that is
proximate to the transit network:
A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems should be coordinated
to encourage use of buses.
B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of existing businesses or
dwellings.
C. In City expansion areas, employment-intensive uses or medium, medium-high or high density residential
uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route.
D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation.
3.1.7. Transit Service Access
New development should be designed to facilitate access to transit service.
3.2. Programs
3.2.1. Transit Plans
The City shall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5-year time frame) and coordinate with
SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit Plan (20-year time frame). The Plans shall consider funding
partnerships to continue the Downtown Trolley service as part of the overall transit system as funding
permits.
3.2.2. Bulk Rate Transit Passes
The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to all groups.
Circulation Element
Page 2-15
3.2.3. Commuter Bus Service
The City shall work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to maintain and expand
commuter bus service to and from the City of San Luis Obispo during peak demand periods consistent with
the Short Range Transit Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.
3.2.4. Transit Service Evaluation
The City shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the
benefits and drawbacks of consolidated service.
3.2.5. Marketing and Promotion
The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive marketing and promotion program to reach individual
target audiences.
3.2.6. Short Range Transit Plan
The City shall update its Short Range Transit Plan to evaluate adding mass transit stops at the high school and
the middle school.
3.2.7. New Development
When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
3.2.8. Regional Transit Center
The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional transit center downtown.
Chapter 2
Page 2-16
4. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION
4.1. Policies
4.1.1. Bicycle Use
The City shall expand the bicycle network and provide end-of-trip facilities to encourage bicycle use and to
make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.
4.1.2. Campus and School Site Trips
The City shall encourage the use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational facilities.
4.1.3. Continuous Network
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to
support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way in the City as they become
available.
4.1.4. New Development
The City shall require that new development provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and
showers consistent with City plans and development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the
City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
4.1.5. Bikeway Design and Maintenance
The City shall design and maintain bikeways to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.
4.1.6. Bikeway Development with Road Improvements
The City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan 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.
4.1.7. Education and Safety
The City shall support education and safety programs aimed at all cyclists and motorists.
4.1.8. Bicycle Transportation Coordinator
The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle
transportation plan policies and programs.
4.1.9. Traffic Law Compliance
The City shall continue to seek compliance with its traffic laws through enforcement and education.
4.1.10. Right-of-way Acquisition
The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right-of-ways needed to implement the projects
identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.
4.1.11. Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation
The City shall support allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement bicycle transportation
policies and programs.
4.1.12. Bike Parking
The City shall facilitate development of conveniently located bike parking so as not to impede pedestrian
walkways.
Circulation Element
Page 2-17
4.1.13. Campus Coordination
The City shall consider the Cal Poly and Cuesta Master Plans to better coordinate the planning and
implementation of safe and convenient bicycle access and facilities to local college campuses.
4.2. Programs
4.2.1. Bike Share
The City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and other educational institutions.
4.2.2. Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Bicycle Transportation Plan as needed to reflect changes in
state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation
Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan shall consider Safe Routes to School.
4.2.3. Campus Master Plans
The City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to de-emphasize the use of automobiles and promote
the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans.
4.2.4. Zoning Regulations
The City shall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for secured bicycle parking and
ancillary facilities.
4.2.5. 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.
4.2.6. Bicycle Friendly Community
The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a gold
level designation.
4.2.7. Regional Coordination
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to
support a regional bicycle network.
4.2.8. Bicycle Licensing
The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to address bicycle loss,
theft, and safety problems.
Chapter 2
Page 2-18
5. WALKING
5.1. Policies
5.1.1. Promote Walking
The City shall encourage and promote walking as a regular means of transportation.
5.1.2. Sidewalks and Paths
The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network connecting residential areas with major activity
centers as well as trails leading into city and county open spaces.
5.1.3. New Development
New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs
and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service
analysis.
5.1.4. Pedestrian Access
New or renovated commercial and government public buildings shall provide convenient pedestrian access
from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from driveways and vehicle entrances.
5.1.5. Pedestrian Crossings
To improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections, the City shall institute the following:
A. Install crossing controls where warranted by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street.
B. In the downtown, install traffic-calming features such as textured cross walks and bulb-outs, where
appropriate.
C. On Arterial Streets, Parkways or Regional Routes with four or more travel lanes, install medians at
pedestrian crossings where roadway width allows.
5.1.6. Downtown Commercial Core
The City shall require that pedestrian facilities in the downtown be designed in accordance with the
Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines to allow a clear path of travel and include conveniently located
rest areas with shade and seating.
5.1.7. Sidewalks
As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider neighborhood character including
topography, street design, existing density and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation
of sidewalks.
Circulation Element
Page 2-19
5.2. Programs
5.2.1. Downtown Pedestrian Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage walking and to expand
facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The plan shall include pedestrian safety
assessments in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
5.2.2. Pedestrian Network
For areas outside of the Downtown, the City shall implement its program for the installation of a continuous
and connected pedestrian network giving areas with the heaviest existing or potential pedestrian traffic
priority in funding.
5.2.3. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
The City shall continue to implement its annual program of enhancing existing curbs with ADA compliant
ramps.
5.2.4. Safe Routes to School
The City shall continue to coordinate with SLOCOG and local schools to pursue Safe Routes to School
programs and grant opportunities.
5.2.5. Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide
Pedestrian Plan.
Chapter 2
Page 2-20
6. MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION
Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes.
6.1. Policies
6.1.1. Complete Streets
The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and travel
for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.
6.1.2. Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria
The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all
four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per Table 2 and the Highway Capacity
manual.
Table 2. MMLOS Objectives and Service Standards
Travel Mode LOS Objective Minimum LOS Standard
Bicycle 1 B D
Pedestrian 2 B C
Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower
Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes)
Notes:
(1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan.
(2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with
neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density.
(3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.
6.1.3. Multimodal Priorities
In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, multimodal service levels should be prioritized in
accordance with the established modal priorities designated in Table 3, such that construction, expansion, or
alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. 1
Table 3. Modal Priorities for Level of Service
Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking
Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Vehicle
Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicle
2. Bicycles 4. Transit
Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit
2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians
Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles
2. Transit 4. Pedestrians
Notes:
(1) Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area
character, topography, street design, and existing density.
Circulation Element
Page 2-21
6.1.4. Defining Significant Circulation Impact
Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal
priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2. If the level of service degrades below thresholds established
in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, it shall be determined a significant impact for purposes of environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For roadways already operating below the
established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant
impact under CEQA.
Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in
Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately served through other
means e.g., another parallel facility or like service. Based on this determination, a finding of no significant
impact may be determined by the City.
6.1.5. Mitigation
For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required.
Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to:
A. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased
sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved
crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing
distance.
B. Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle
traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path,
reducing intersection crossing distance.
C. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any
infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops,
transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization,
provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes.
6.1.6. City Review
When new projects impact the existing circulation system, the City shall review the effectiveness and
desirability of “direct fix” mitigation improvements to address MMLOS impacts. Where a significant impact is
found, alternative system-wide project mitigations may be submitted for consideration to the City in
accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2. Exceptions shall be based on the
physical conditions of the right-of-way to support additional improvements. If the right-of-way in question
cannot address on-site mitigation, appropriate off-site improvements that have direct nexus to and
effectively address the specific impacts created by the project may be considered.
6.2. Programs
6.2.1. Traffic Count Program
As funding permits the City shall biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians, bikes, vehicles
and transit to maintain and update its database of transportation conditions and to evaluate the state of the
transportation system in accordance with the established modal priorities and standards.
Chapter 2
Page 2-22
7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
City, County and State governments maintain a network of public streets that provide access throughout the community.
How these streets are designed, constructed and managed can affect levels of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution,
the economic viability of commercial areas, and the quality of living throughout the city. The following policies and
programs spell out how the City intends to manage the community's street system.
Overall Purpose
The primary purpose of street corridors is to enable the movement of people and goods across all modes of
transportation. The design and use of streets should relate to and respect the character and type of surrounding land
uses. If residential areas are to maintain their character, they cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or
industrial areas.
7.1. Policies
7.1.1. Peak Hour and Daily Traffic
The City shall cooperate with County and State government to institute programs that reduce the levels of
peak-hour and daily vehicle traffic.
7.1.2. Street Network
The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table 2 are
not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit
development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by
strengthening alternative modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. Where feasible, roundabouts shall
be the City’s preferred intersection control alternative due to the vehicle speed reduction, safety, and
operational benefits of roundabouts.
7.1.3. Growth Management & Roadway Expansion
The City shall manage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular
traffic associated with development planned for in the Land Use Element and under the City’s growth
management policies and regional transportation plans.
7.1.4. Transportation Funding
In order to increase support for non-automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding
across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown in Table 1.
7.1.5. Vehicle Speeds
To the extent permitted under the CVC, the City shall endeavor to maintain and reduce speeds where
possible in residential neighborhoods.
7.2. Programs
7.2.1. Traffic Reduction Priority
Those traffic programs identified in the Circulation Element that have the greatest potential to reduce traffic
increases shall have priority for implementation.
Circulation Element
Page 2-23
7.2.2. Transportation Monitoring
As funding permits the City shall implement an ongoing and comprehensive transportation monitoring
program that, at a minimum, will keep track of (on a bi-annual basis):
A. Changes in traffic volumes throughout the city.
B. Changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial streets, regional routes and highways.
C. Traffic speeds.
D. Changes in the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
E. Changes in streetscape features.
F. The location, type and frequency of accidents.
7.2.3. Transportation Survey
The City shall regularly, as funding permits, conduct a travel behavior survey of residents to estimate their
use of different types of transportation.
7.2.4. Transportation Model
The City will maintain a travel demand model of the City's circulation system and coordinate with SLOCOG in
support of the county-wide travel demand model for San Luis Obispo County.
7.2.5. Cooperative Street Design
The City shall work with the County to jointly develop and adopt design and construction standards for
streets within the City's Urban Reserve.
7.2.6. Subdivision Regulations
The City shall revise its Subdivision Regulations to include right-of-way and design standards for each type of
street shown in Figure 1 and Table 4.
7.2.7. Traffic Access Management
The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of
driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway
including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the
transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be considered as part
of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan.
7.2.8. State Highway HOV Lanes
The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional
capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use.
7.2.9. Transportation Funding
The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.0.4 concurrent with the 2015-17
Financial Plan. In meeting the “approximately proportional” goal of the policy, the guidelines may take into
consideration such factors as the need for multi-year planning and budgeting, the recognition that projects
may benefit multiple modes, that non-city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for
particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major interchange improvements) may be
identified as special cases, that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special
treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes.
Chapter 2
Page 2-24
Please see the next page.
Circulation ElementPage 2-25 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!£¤101UV227£¤101£¤1B R O A D
O R C UTTBUCKLEYTANK FARMJO H N S O N
MILLC H O R R O
PISMOLOS OSOS VALLEYFOOTHILLHIGUERA SHIGHMARSHLEFFISLAYHIGHLANDHIGUERAF LOR A
FOOTHILL WTO RO
O S O S
SOUTHGRANDC A LIF O R N IA BUCHONSANTA ROSA NS A N T A RO S A
PEACHMONTEREYMADONNASAN LUISELLABISHOPA U G U S T A
EVANSPRADOBRANCHPOINSETTIALAURELH IL L HOOVERDIABLOLUNETACALLE JOAQUINVI A CA R T A
DEL RIOPALMVACHELLM O U N T B IS H O P
O C EANAIR EVALLE VISTAROYALPOLY CANYONC A S A LIZZIELINCOLNSACRAMENTOJEFFREYELKS LNSUBURBANLIM A
GATHES H I GU E R A S TWOODBRIDGESLACKROCKVIEW AIRPORTLONGHAYSTIBURONINDUSTRIALBEEBEELOOMIS STDANASANTA FELAWRENCEMEISSNER STNASELLAUPHAMPRADO RDSPANISH OAKSELMV IC T O R IA
VIA LAGUNA VISTAK E N TUC K Y SOUTHWOODMARGARITAKENDALLHANSENBU LL OC K L N IRONBARKC H O R R O N MURRAYM IS S IO N
K L A M A T H
HE LE NA
DALYISABELLAD E E R
ETOT ON IN ICAUDILLFELTONCLARIONLA ENTRADASERRANOCLOVERB U L L O C K ALDERFIEROEMILYMEINECKEC U EST A ALRITAFARMHOUSEJESPERSONSOUTH PERIMETERESPERANZATWIN RIDGEGARFIELDLOS PALOSDAVENPORT CREEKSPOONERPINEDALIDIO DRHORIZONH O L L Y H O C K
RACHELCONEJOVISTA LAGOHIDDEN SPRINGSJ A N E
L O S C E R R O S LOS VERDESCORDOVABONETTICYPRESSDUNCANMELLOTHREADEL CAPITANOAKRIDGEPACIFICPHILLIPSKENTWOODAUTO PARKSAN SIMEONBROOKCARLAFROOM RANCHDAHLIAPALMPACIFICFigure 1LegendExistingUrban ReserveLUCE SOI Planning Subarea!!City LimitRailroad TrackLagunaLakeAirport Runway010.5MileStreets Classification DiagramProposedFreewayHighway/ Regional RouteArterialParkway ArterialCommercial CollectorResidential ArterialResidential CollectorLocalPrivateSource: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012
Chapter 2Page 2-26 Please see the next page.
Circulation Element
Page 2-27
Types of Streets
7.3. Design Standards
The City’s roadway system is shown in Figure 1. The City shall require that improvements to the City’s
roadway system are made consistent with the following descriptions and standards:
7.3.1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
The total number of vehicles that use a particular street throughout the day (24 hours).
7.3.2. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS)
Level of service is a letter grade representation of the quality of traffic flow based on congestion.
A. Level of Service (LOS) "A" is free-flowing traffic while LOS "F" is extreme congestion.
B. At LOS "D," the recommended standard, drivers can expect delays of 35 to 55 seconds and sometimes
have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Vehicle may stack up at intersections but
dissipate rapidly.
C. At LOS "E," delays increase to 55 to 80 seconds and drivers frequently have to wait through more than
one cycle of a traffic signal. Stacked lines of cars at intersections become longer.
Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards
Descriptions1 of Street Types
Maximum
ADT/LOS
Desired maximum
Speeds2
Local Commercial Streets directly serve non-residential development that
front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets (reference
black line streets on Figure 1).
5,000 25 mph
Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front
them and channel traffic to residential collector streets (reference black
line streets on Figure 1).
1,500 25 mph
Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and
channel it to arterials. 10,000 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets collect traffic from residential areas and
channel it to arterials. 3,000 3 25 mph
Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where
preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for
traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled.
LOS D CVC*
Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and
residential areas
LOS E
(Downtown)
LOS D
(other routes)
CVC*
CVC*
Parkway Arterials are arterial streets with landscaped medians and
roadside areas, where the number of cross streets is limited and direct
access from fronting properties is discouraged
LOS D CVC*
Highway/Regional Routes connect the city with other parts of the county
and are used by people traveling throughout the county and state and are
designated as primary traffic carriers. Segments of these routes leading
into San Luis Obispo should include landscaped medians and roadside
areas to better define them as community entryways
LOS D CVC*
Freeway is a regional route of significance where access is controlled. LOS D CVC*
*Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC).
Chapter 2
Page 2-28
Notes:
(1) To determine the classification of a particular street segment, refer to Figure 1: Streets Classification Map and Appendix E. Appendix E
includes the most recent traffic counts and estimates of level of service (LOS). Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a
particular street. In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic
flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this
table. Note that all ADT should reflect volumes typically experienced when all schools are in session. To account for seasonal shifts ADT
shall be calculated using an annual average daily traffic (AADT) for individual volumes and the threshold shall be adjusted up to 15%.
(2) Desired maximum speed means that 85% of motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal
shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted up by 2.7 mph.
(3) For Chorro and Broad Streets (north of Lincoln Street), and Margarita Avenue the maximum desired ADT goal is 5,000 ADT.
Circulation Element
Page 2-29
8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
8.1. Policies
8.1.1. Through Traffic
The City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways,
Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of
Collectors and Local streets.
8.1.2. Residential Streets
The City should not approve commercial development that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to
use Residential Local or Residential Collector streets.
8.1.3. Neighborhood Traffic Speeds
To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code, the City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain
vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods.
8.1.4. Neighborhood Traffic Management
The City shall ensure that neighborhood traffic management projects:
A. Provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all residential neighborhoods.
B. Provide for adequate response conditions for emergency vehicles.
C. Provide for convenient and safe through bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
8.1.5. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines
The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and
implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program.
8.1.6. Non-Infill Development
In new, non-infill developments, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway
Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards
can be met without the use of noise walls.
8.1.7. New Project Evaluation
The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential
neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that significantly exceed the thresholds established in Table 4
except as provided under CEQA. The City shall also not approve development which significantly worsens
already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Table 4 except as provided
under CEQA. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut-
through traffic.
Chapter 2
Page 2-30
8.2. Programs
8.2.1. Traffic Management Plans
As funding permits the City shall provide neighborhood traffic management services for residential areas that
have traffic volumes or speeds which exceed the thresholds established in Table 4.
8.2.2. Traffic Control Measures
The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes
exceed standards set by Table 4, Street Classification Descriptions and Standards.
8.2.3. Quality of Life
The City shall analyze residential streets for their livability with regards to multi-modal traffic noise, volumes,
speed, and safety as well as the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and potential excess right-of-way
pavement. Traffic calming or other intervening measures may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality
of life. The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds.
8.2.4. Regional Cut-Through Traffic
The City shall identify and address regional cut-through traffic issues in the City.
Circulation Element
Page 2-31
9. STREET NETWORK CHANGES
9.1. Policies
9.1.1. New Development
The City shall require that new development assumes its fair share of responsibility for constructing new
streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bus turn-outs or reconstructing existing facilities.
9.1.2. Public Participation
The City shall provide for broad public participation in the planning and design of major changes to the street
network.
9.1.3. Arterial Street Corridors
The City shall seek to improve the livability of existing arterial streets through redesign of street corridors.
9.1.4. Project Implementation
Street projects should be implemented in the appropriate sequence to ensure that development does not
precede needed infrastructure improvements.
9.1.5. Right-of-Way Reservation
The City shall require rights-of-way to be reserved through the building setback line process or through other
mechanisms so that options for making transportation improvements are preserved.
9.2. Programs
9.2.1. Building Setback Lines
The City will establish building setback lines for routes listed on Table 5.
9.2.2. Prado Road Improvements
The City shall ensure that changes to Prado Road (Projects 1, 2, and 19 on Table 5) and other related system
improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area
development.
The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange or
overpass (Project 19 on Table 5) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report
for the interchange project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California
Department of Transportation.
9.2.3. Street Amenities Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a plan and standards for the installation and maintenance of
landscaped medians, parkways, signs, utilities, street furniture, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Within the
Downtown the street amenities shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines.
9.2.4. Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center
The City will evaluate complete street designs that maximize the shared right of way for all users as a method
for achieving the overall objective of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center to improve the
pedestrian environment in the downtown.
9.2.5. San Luis Ranch/Dalidio Development
As part of any proposal to further develop the Dalidio-Madonna Area, the alignment and design of extensions
of Froom Ranch Way connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) shall be evaluated and established if
consistent with the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle Joaquin Reserve.
Chapter 2
Page 2-32
Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Extensions
1
Prado Road
Extension West
Extend and widen Prado Rd. as an Arterial street
with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible)
from US 101 to Madonna.
City
Caltrans
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
2
Prado Road
Extension East
Widen and extend Prado Rd. as an
Highway/Regional Route Arterial with 2 lanes in
each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped
median, Class II bike lanes, sidewalks and Class I
bike lanes (where feasible) from US 101 to Broad
Street. ROW Limitations east of Higuera outside of
the MASP area may limit the City’s ability to install
Class I facilities. (See MASP)
City
Caltrans
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
3 Buckley Road
Extension
Extend Buckley Road as an Arterial street from
Vachell Lane to Higuera Street. (See AASP)
City
County
Developer Const.
4 Bullock Lane
Extension
Widen and extend a residential collector to connect
Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road. (See OASP)
City Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
5
Santa Fe Road
Extension
Realign and Extend Santa Fe Road as a Commercial
Collector from Hoover Avenue to Prado Road
including construction of a new bridge at Acacia
Creek and round-a-bout at Tank Farm Road. (See
AASP)
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
6
Bishop Street
Extension
Extend Bishop Street west over R.R. tracks. The
City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis
to determine if secondary measures can be made to
allow for elimination of the Bishop Street Extension
and protection of neighborhood traffic levels; and
recommend improvements, if any.
City Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
7
Mission Plaza
Expansion
Expand Mission Plaza to East to Monterey and
Nipomo and Broad Street from Higuera to Palm St.
Some areas of the expansion will have vehicle
permitted pedestrian zones to maintain access to
adjacent properties.
City Grant Funding
General Fund
8
Victoria Ave.
Extension
Extend Victoria Ave. from Woodbridge to High
Street.
City Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
Circulation Element
Page 2-33
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Widenings
9
Mid Higuera
(Marsh to High
Street)
Acquire property and widen to allow four travel
lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc. & implement
Downtown Plan concepts (See Mid-Higuera Plan)
City Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
10
Orcutt Road Widen Orcutt Road as an Arterial Street with 2 lanes
in each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped
median, Class II bike lanes and sidewalks from UPRR
to Johnson (See OASP)
City Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
11
Tank Farm Road Widen Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial with 2
lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible)
from Higuera to Broad. (See AASP)
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
12
South Higuera Widen Higuera to 4 lanes, with a center turn lane,
Class II bikeways from Madonna to southern City
Limits
City
CalTrans
Grant Funding
General Fund
New Connections
13
Hwy 1 (Santa
Rosa)
Construct a non-vehicle grade separated crossing at
Boysen and Hwy 1 (Santa Rosa).
City
CalTrans
CalPoly
Regional Funds
Grant Funding
General Fund
14
Tank Farm to
Buckley
Collector
Construct a new North / South collector between
Tank Farm Road & Buckley Road in the vicinity of
Horizon Lane.
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
15
LOVR Bypass As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area,
the project shall analyze impacts of a new roadway
connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road
to Higuera; and/or
The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic
analysis to determine final feasibility of connecting
a roadway from US 101 to Higuera Street. Issues to
be studied should include, but are not limited to
impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture
operations, open space, creek, traffic and biological
resources.
City Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
16
Froom Ranch
Road
Construct a new collector between Prado/Dalido
Rd. and Los Osos Valley Road.
City
County
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
Chapter 2
Page 2-34
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Interchange Upgrades
17
Highway 1
(Santa Rosa) &
US 101
Interchange
Upgrade
Construct some form of interchange upgrade
consolidating ramps. (See Hwy 1 MIS report)
City
CalTrans
Regional Funds
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
18
Broad St. & US
101 Interchange
Closure
Close NB & SB Broad street ramps at Highway 101.
Highway 1 & 101 project is a prerequisite until
otherwise addressed.
City
Caltrans
Regional Funds
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
19
Prado Road &
US 101
Interchange
Build full interchange at 101. Development of San
Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area shall include a circulation
analysis of alternatives to a full access interchange,
an analysis of compact interchange designs that
minimize open space / ag. land impacts, and an
analysis of potential incremental phasing of the
interchange elements.
City
Caltrans
County
Regional Funds
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
Reconfigurations
20
Monterey
Street Right of
Way
Preserve right-of-way on Monterey Street from
Santa Rosa to Grand for the purposes of expanding
to four travel lanes and/or bicycle & pedestrian
facilities
City Developer Cooperation
General Fund
21
Prefumo
Canyon Rd.
Median
Install landscaped median on Prefumo Canyon Road
between Los Osos Valley Road and Hedley Dr.
City Grant Funding
General Fund
22 Garden Street
Makeover
Reconfigure Garden Street to a one-way street with
pedestrian enhancements.
City Developer Const.
23
Marsh &
Higuera 2-Way
Conversion
Convert Marsh & Higuera Streets between Santa
Rosa & Johnson to 2-way flow.
City Grant Funding
General Fund
24
Chorro, Broad,
& Boysen
Realignments
Redevelopment of University Square shall
incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access
management analysis for the intersections of
Boysen & Santa Rosa (Potential Grade Separated
Crossing / Restriction) Foothill & Chorro, and
Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points
along adjacent roadways; and recommend
improvements, if any.
City Developer Const.
General Fund
25
Madonna/
Higuera
Realignment
As part of redevelopment of the properties north or
south of Madonna Road west of Higuera, or as part
of update to the Mid Higuera Plan, analyze
potential relocation of Madonna Road at Higuera
Street.
City Developer Const.
General Fund
26
Pismo/Higuera/
High Street
Redevelopment of properties at the intersection of
High & Pismo at Higuera shall incorporate a detailed
traffic analysis and evaluation of intersection
realignment; and recommend improvements, if any.
City Developer Const.
General Fund
Circulation Element
Page 2-35
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
27
Various
Intersection
Upgrades
Grand & Slack, California & Taft, Grand & US 101 SB,
San Luis & California, Higuera & Tank Farm, Broad &
High, Broad & Rockview, Broad & Capitolio, Johnson
& Orcutt, Broad & TankFarm, Broad & Airport.
City
CalTrans
Dev. Impact Fees
Developer Const.
Grant Funding
General Fund
Ancillary Plans
28
Various Specific
Plans
Margarita Area, Airport Area, Orcutt Area, Broad
Street Corridor, R.R. Dist., Mid-Higuera, Downtown
Concept, and Future Plans as Adopted.
City
County
CalTrans
CalPoly
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
29
Various Trans.
Plans
Bicycle Plan, Downtown Pedestrian Plan, Short
Range Transit Plan, Access & Parking Mgmt. Plan,
and Future Plans as Adopted.
City
County
CalTrans
CalPoly
Developer Const.
Dev. Impact Fees
Grant Funding
General Fund
9.2.6. Streetscapes and major roadways
In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways / regional
routes and arterial streets), the City shall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways
or corridors that promote the city’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate
roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City shall:
A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways;
B. Establish that where feasible roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection alternative due to
improved aesthetics, reduction in impervious surface areas, and additional landscaping area;
C. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings;
D. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way;
E. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient height, spread,
form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from
adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as
recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.
F. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving,
arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to enhance the streetscape
appearance, comfort and safety.
G. Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians, wayfinding and
welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features, sidewalks, and different
crosswalk paving types.
H. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures.
I. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single, low-profile standard.
J. In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan.
Chapter 2
Page 2-36
10. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION
The delivery of most goods and materials to businesses in San Luis Obispo is done by trucks. Delivery services are
essential to the functioning of the City. However, commercial trucks can cause traffic congestion in the downtown, and
create noise and safety problems in residential areas.
The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage delivery services so that problems
associated with truck transportation are minimized.
10.1. Policies
10.1.1. Truck Routes
The City shall require STA-sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 2.
10.2. Programs
10.2.1. Idling Trucks
Trucks should turn off motors when parked. The City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
for guidance in establishing standards that address air and noise pollution from idling trucks.
10.2.2. Home Occupations
The City's Home Occupation Permit Regulations should be amended to ensure that commercial trucks are not
used to make regular deliveries to home occupations in residential areas.
10.2.3. Commercial Loading Zones
The City shall continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in appropriate downtown areas.
10.2.4. Truck Circulation
The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles.
Circulation Element
Page 2-37
£¤1
£¤101
£¤101
UV227
Laguna
Lake BROAD STBUCKLEY
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
D
ORC
U
T
T
R
D
J
OHNSON AVEH IG U E R A S T
M ILL S T
P IS M O S TM A R S H ST
HIGUERA S STCHORRO ST
M A D O N N A R D
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
N
S
T
F O O T H IL L W B L V D
FOOTHILL BLVD
PRADO RD
HIGH ST
SOUTH ST MONTEREY STHIGHLAND DR
HOOVER CAL
I
F
ORNI
A BL
VDRAMONA DR
AUGUST
A ST
LAUREL LNGRAND AVEOSOS
ST
BISHO P STD
A
LIDIO
MARGARITA AVE
E
L
M
E
R
C
A
D
O HIDDEN SPRINGS ORCUTT RDBROAD STFigure 2
Legend
Existing Truck Route
Future Truck Route
City Limits
Streams
Water Body Major Road
Street
Railroad
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012
010.5
Miles
Designated STAA Truck Routes
Chapter 2
Page 2-38
11. AIR TRANSPORTATION
The City and County of San Luis Obispo are served by the county-owned airport located off Broad Street near Buckley
Road. The airport allows people to fly private aircraft and to use commercial carriers to connect with national and global
commercial carriers.
The following policies and programs address the continued use of the county airport. Additional policies and programs
can be found in the City’s Land Use Element.
11.1. Policies
11.1.1. Interstate Air Service
The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services. as forecasted in the Airport
Master Plan and approved by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).
11.1.2. County Aircraft Operations
The City shall work with the County to continue to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety
problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use
Element.
11.1.3. Public Transit Service
The City shall encourage improved public transit service to the County airport soon as practical.
11.2. Programs
11.2.1. Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft
The City shall work with the County Airport to encourage the use of quieter and more environmentally
sensitive aircraft.
11.2.2. Airport Facilities Development
The City shall work with the County Airport to support the further development of airport facilities and
attract additional passenger airline services. Possible improvements include, but are not limited to:
instrumented landing systems, radar, and improved passenger waiting facilities.
11.2.3. Airport Funding
The City shall work with the County Airport to pursue funding opportunities, such as Airport Improvement
Program grants.
11.2.4. Update of the Airport Land Use Plan
The City shall work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to complete updates of the Airport Land
Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Airport in regard to significant changes in noise, adjacent land
impacts, and safety zones.
Circulation Element
Page 2-39
12. RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity
The Union Pacific Railroad owns and maintains railroad tracks that extend through the county. AMTRAK uses the Union
Pacific line to provide passenger service to San Luis Obispo with connections to the San Francisco and Los Angeles
metropolitan areas, and other coastal cities.
Rail transportation is energy efficient and can provide convenient connections to destinations throughout the state. The
following policies identify how the city supports rail service.
12.1. Policies
12.1.1. Passenger Rail Service
The City shall support the increased availability of rail service for travel within the county, state and among
states.
12.1.2. State and Federal Programs
The City shall support Regional, State and Federal programs for the expansion of passenger rail service to San
Luis Obispo.
12.1.3. Transit Service Connections
The City shall provide transit service to and from the train station in accordance with its Short Range Transit
Plan and work with the train station management to upgrade the facility and visitor services.
12.1.4. Intra and Inter-city Transportation Needs
The City supports using the railroad right-of-way to help meet multimodal intra and inter-city transportation
needs.
12.2. Programs
12.2.1. Daily Train Connections
The City supports maintaining and increasing daily train service connecting San Luis Obispo with points north
and south, with departures and arrivals in the morning, mid-afternoon and evening.
12.2.2. Intra-county Rail Service
The City shall support San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in evaluating the feasibility of passenger rail
service to connect points within the county.
12.2.3. Interagency Cooperation
The City shall coordinate railroad facility infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and the
Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and others
to discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.
12.2.4. Railroad Hazards Reduction.
The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that
may impact the safety and well-being of residents of the community including the transport of combustible
materials.
12.2.5. Transport of Combustible Materials
The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.
Chapter 2
Page 2-40
13. PARKING MANAGEMENT
San Luis Obispo's central business district includes the highest concentration of commercial, office and governmental uses
in the city. Parking is needed for patrons of downtown businesses, tourists and employees.
Use of curb-side parking in residential areas can affect the character of these areas. The following policies identify the
City's role in providing and managing downtown parking and addressing neighborhood parking needs.
Commercial Parking
13.1. Policies
13.1.1. Curb Parking
The City shall manage curb parking in the downtown to encourage short-term use to those visiting businesses
and public facilities.
13.1.2. City Parking Programs
City parking programs shall be financially self-supporting.
13.2. Programs
13.2.1. Parking Management Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan (every 5 years)
including parking demand reduction strategies and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled
parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs.
13.2.2. Monitor Public Parking
The City shall regularly monitor the use of public parking in the downtown.
13.2.3. Park and Ride Lots
The City shall coordinate with SLOCOG during periodic updates to SLOCOG’s Park and Ride Lot Development
report to evaluate the need for and location of park-and-ride lots to serve commuters.
13.2.4. Public Parking Structures
The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after considering the findings
and results of a parking supply and demand study.
13.2.5. Curb Parking Evaluation
The City shall continue to work with the Downtown Association to evaluate the use of curb space in the
downtown and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces.
13.2.6. Downtown Trolley
The City shall continue to operate the downtown trolley as a parking management tool to reduce congestion.
Circulation Element
Page 2-41
14. Neighborhood Parking Management
14.1. Policies
14.1.1. Residential Parking Spaces
Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City's standards that specify the
number, design and location of off-street residential parking spaces.
14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection
The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill-over parking from adjacent high
intensity uses.
14.1.3. Neighborhood Parking District
The City’s Residential Parking District Program shall be updated to review the criteria and clarify the process
for establishing a district. (Note: This is not a financing district.)
14.2. Programs
14.2.1. Neighborhood Parking Permits
Upon request from residents or other agencies, the City will evaluate the need for neighborhood parking
permit programs or other parking management strategies in particular residential areas.
14.2.2. Financing Districts
The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing districts.
Chapter 2
Page 2-42
15. SCENIC ROADWAYS
The following provisions address the scenic importance of local roads and highways in the San Luis Obispo area.
15.1. Policies
15.1.1. Scenic Routes
The route segments shown on Figure 3 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element –
Scenic Roadways Map --are designated as scenic roadways.
15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes
The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development
along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views.
A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and
require architectural review.
B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be
considered a significant environmental impact.
D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views.
E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light
standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations
where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns.
F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per
the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance.
15.1.3. Public Equipment and Facilities
The City and other agencies should be encouraged to avoid cluttering scenic roadways with utility and
circulation-related equipment and facilities.
A. Whenever possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single low-profile
standard.
B. Public utilities along scenic highways should be installed underground.
C. The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic Routes. Clustering of
street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an alternative to uniform spacing.
D. Traffic signals with long mast arms should be discouraged along scenic roadways.
15.1.4. County Role
The City shall work with the County to protect and enhance scenic roadways that connect San Luis Obispo
with other communities and recreation areas.