HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-2019 Item 17 - Bicycle Transportation Plan Update - Bob Jones Trail Alignment
Department Name: Public Works
Cost Center: 5010
For Agenda of: September 3, 2019
Placement: Business
Estimated Time: 30 min
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Interim Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: BOB JONES TRAIL (CALLE JOAQUIN TO OCEANAIRE) ALIGNMENT –
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Active Transportation Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
amending the Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) and an addendum to the BTP Initial
Study/Negative Declaration changing the alignment and classification of the Bob Jones Trail
Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Connection to an on-street cycle track (“protected bikeway”) along
Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch Way.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Bob Jones Trail Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Connection is a project identified in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP) and the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Master Plan. The project is
intended to serve as a western spur off the primary Bob Jones Trail to provide improved bicycle
and pedestrian connectivity to the residential and commercial uses west of US 101 near
Madonna, Dalidio and Los Osos Valley Roads (LOVR). In the 2017-19 Financial Plan, funding
was allocated to begin preliminary engineering and analysis of the project alignment , and in
2018, a Project Study Report (PSR) was prepared. The PSR summarized potential constraints,
advantages, costs and other characteristics for three project alternatives.
Current Bicycle Transportation Plan Alignment and the Three Project Alternatives
Presented in December 2018
The adopted BTP identifies the general configuration and alignment for this project, which
includes a dedicated off-street multi-use bicycle/pedestrian path that extends through open space
and agricultural land behind the Prefumo Creek Commons Shopping Center (Target) to connect
Calle Joaquin with the Oceanaire neighborhood. The BTP project alignment also includes a
connection further northeast between Oceanaire and Dalidio. That portion of the route will be
completed as part of the Froom Ranch Road extension and is to be constructed by the San Luis
Ranch development. While each of the three alternatives presented in the 2018 PSR included
slight variations to the route alignment shown in the BTP, each complete the connection between
Calle Joaquin and Oceanaire via an off-street multi-use path.
Packet Pg. 159
Item 17
A map showing the alignment of each of these three project alternatives is provided in
Attachment B. On November 15, 2018, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) considered
the three project alternatives and identified Alternative 1 as the preferred option. However, they
recommended that another alternative be explored that is more direct and has more potential to
increase active transportation. At the December 4, 2018 Council Study Session, on the three
project alternatives, Council expressed concern about potential creek impacts, security issues,
and limited utility towards increasing active transportation with each of the three alternatives,
and as recommended by the ATC, directed staff to develop and evaluate a new alternative that
utilizes a more efficient on-street configuration along LOVR to complete this connection.
Analysis of the New Project Alternative (Alternative 4)
Consistent with Council direction, a new project alternative (Alternative 4) has been developed
and the PSR has been updated to include the analysis of design constraints, advantages and
disadvantages, cost estimates and other information as was done with the initial three project
alternatives. Attachment B shows the route alignment for each of the four alternatives.
Attachment C includes the detailed PSR document as updated. Attachment D includes the
conceptual plan drawings for this new project alternative, while Attachment E includes a
reference diagram defining the different types of bikeway classifications.
As proposed, Alternative 4 is a 0.47-mile route which features one-way cycle tracks, also
referred to as “protected bike lanes”, along both sides of LOVR between Calle Joaquin and
Froom Ranch Road. On the east side of LOVR, the cycle track would be constructed at the
sidewalk level, positioned between the sidewalk and the on-street parking lane. Existing street
parking would generally be preserved. On the west side of LOVR, the cycle track would be at
street level with a raised median separating the bikeway from vehicular traffic. This alternative
includes the ultimate signalization and upgrade of the LOVR/Auto Park intersection to a
“protected intersection”, similar to the design planned for LOVR/Froom Ranch Way and
Madonna/Dalidio as part of the San Luis Ranch development. Sidewalks are assumed to be
completed on the west side of LOVR in conjunction with future development of the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan area. The estimated cost for Alternative 4 is $2,890,600.
Alternative 4 integrates well with other planned bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure improvements
that are required by the San Luis Ranch Development, including the previously noted planned
protected intersection at LOVR/Froom Ranch Way and a dedicated multi-use bicycle/pedestrian
path along Froom Ranch Way connecting LOVR with the Oceanaire neighborhood and Dalidio
Drive to the northeast.
Features Include Cycle Tracks on LOVR & a Protected Intersection at LOVR/Auto Park
Packet Pg. 160
Item 17
Alternative 4 – LOVR Cross Section Looking South Near Calle Joaquin
Alternative 4’s Pros and Cons
PROS: Compared to the project alternatives presented in December 2018, Alternative 4 is
anticipated to provide the highest potential for increasing bicycling and walking for
transportation for several reasons: (a) the alignment is the shortest, most intuitive route of the
four alternatives, (b) the alignment would provide access for residents, visitors and employees to
more commercial services and destinations along LOVR (Irish Hills Plaza, Devaul Ranch
Neighborhood, Irish Hills Open Space, future Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area uses, etc.), and
(c) the security concerns (arising from when the path is more isolated) are minimized since this
alignment avoids the creek b y continuing along LOVR with more “eyes on the street”. Unlike
the other alternatives, it would not require the necessity of a bridge over a creek and would not
require loss of agricultural land. The cost is also estimated to be lower than two of the other three
alternatives. Given public requests for a transit stop closer to the Prefumo Creek Commons
Shopping Center, this project would provide an opportunity to study relocating the existing
transit stop near the auto dealerships to a location closer to the retail uses in the center.
CONS: Given the on-street nature of the facility, this alternative would require interface with
sixteen driveways and an intersection at Auto Park Way. To accommodate minor street widening
needed for the cycle tracks, right-of-way would be required in several locations, including in
areas along the west side of LOVR fronting the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. This
alternative will likely encroach somewhat on riparian and wetland areas located along LOVR
between Whole Foods Market and Calle Joaquin, although the extent of such impacts is not yet
known given the high-level nature of the studies completed so far. The PSR cost estimates do not
include costs for purchasing right-of-way for any of the four alternatives, but staff believes this
could add approximately $100,000 to $300,000 to the overall cost for Alternative 4, given the
best estimate available at this time. There may be potential engineering challenges with
realigning the curb and gutter alignments through the LOVR corridor to accommodate drainage,
which may increase cost. Finally, this alternative would likely present the most substantial
disruption to traffic along LOVR during construction. This alternative is not consistent with the
BTP and would require a Plan amendment if it is selected.
Packet Pg. 161
Item 17
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
The project is included in the adopted 2013 BTP approved by Council and was included as part
of the public engagement for that Plan. The initial three project alternatives were presented at a
Council Study Session on December 4, 2018 (see Attachment F), which provided an opportunity
for public input. With selection of a preferred alternative, additional outreach activities will be
conducted as part of the Active Transportation Plan development. Project-focused public
engagement opportunities will also be provided in the future when project development proceeds
to environmental review and detailed design. In addition, a postcard mailer for this meeting was
sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project.
POLICY CONTEXT
This portion of the Bob Jones Trail is identified in the BTP and the Calle Joaquin Agricultural
Master Plan. The intent of the project is to serve as a western spur off the primary Bob Jones
Trail to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the residential and commercial
uses west of US 101 near Madonna, Dalidio and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), including the
San Luis Ranch area. The Environmental Impact Reports for the San Luis Ranch and Prefumo
Creek Commons development projects identified traffic impacts to LOVR and consequent
mitigations through fair share contributions to this portion of the Bob Jones Trail.
CONCURRENCE
The Active Transportation Committee reviewed the initial three project alternatives on
November 15, 2018, and the new alternative (Alternative 4) at their May 16, 2019 meeting. The
ATC ultimately recommended Alternative 4 for further development due to the more direct route
and more likelihood to increase bicycling and walking for transportation. Meeting minutes are
included in Attachment G.
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, was a reviewer of the PSR. Mr. Hill’s preliminary
assessment is that while all four alternatives have impacts either to riparian areas or agricultural
operations, Alternative 4 appears to be the least impactful.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The selection of a preferred concept alternative does not necessarily require focused
environmental study. However, because the recommended action to select Alternative 4 as the
recommended project alternative requires an amendment to the BTP, staff is also recommending
adoption of an addendum to the BTP’s programmatic Initial Study/Negative Declaration as part
of this action. As discussed previously, Alternative 4 does require minor widening on the west
side of LOVR, which may encroach into existing riparian and wetland areas. The potential
impact to these biological resources has already been identified in the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration for the adopted BTP and programmatic strategies were identified to reduce these
potential biological resource impacts to less than significant levels. No new environmental
impacts have been identified with the amendment to the BTP that were not already disclosed and
addressed in the previous environmental review. That said, once a preferred alternative is
Packet Pg. 162
Item 17
selected and designs are refined, focused environmental review will be conducted for the project
as required under CEQA. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the adopted BTP is
provided for reference as Attachment H. The proposed resolution amending the BTP for the Bob
Jones Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Connection project, which includes the addendum to the BTP
Initial Study/Negative Declaration, is provided as Attachment A.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Partially Budget Year: 2019-21
Funding Identified: None
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $0 $0 $0
No funds are requested at this time. The action sought is the approval of a preferred project
alternative. The Active Transportation Plan, currently in development, in conjunction with the
next budget process will determine the priority of this project relative to o ther active
transportation projects in the City. Should this project be prioritized through the Active
Transportation Plan, staff will bring this project back as part of the next budget process for
consideration. Funds are currently being collected for future implementation of this project
through developer mitigation contributions and through the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee
(TIF) program. It should be noted that the preliminary cost estimates for the recommended
project alignment (Alternative 4) are consistent with the costs assumed for this segment of the
Bob Jones Trail in the TIF program.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council may decide not to select a preferred alternative at this time. This is not
recommended, as this could delay implementation of this project, which is a requirement to
mitigate cumulative impacts of several approved development projects.
2. The Council may decide to select one of the initial three project alternatives (Alternative, 1,
Alternative 2, Alternative 3) previously presented at the December 4, 2018 Council meeting
for further development. (See Attachment F for December 4, 2018 Council Agenda Report
for reference).
Packet Pg. 163
Item 17
Attachments:
a - Resolution Amending the Bicycle Transportation Plan
b - Project Alternatives Map
c - Bob Jones Trail (Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire) Project Study Report
d - Alternative 4 Conceptual Designs
e - Bikeway Classifications Diagram
f- Council Reading File - Council Agenda Report - December 4, 2018
g - Minutes from ATC Meeting - May 16, 2019
h - Initial Study ER 71-13
Packet Pg. 164
Item 17
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _XXX___ (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BICYCLE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (AMENDED 2017) TO UPDATE THE BOB
JONES TRAIL (PRADO TO CALLE JOAQUIN) SEGMENT PROJECT
INCLUDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (GPI/71-13)
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths
and severe injuries by 2030; and
WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20
percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation; and
WHEREAS, the City has had a commitment to completing the Bob Jones Trail connecting
to the County portion of the Trail since at least 1993, and has already constructed a portion thereof;
and
WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
have been evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality act pursuant to an
initial environmental study (ER 71-13) and a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was
adopted by the City Council on November 6, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan currently includes the proposed Bob Jones
Trail (Prado to Calle Joaquin) segment indicating an alignment along the eastern and northern
edges of the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Preserve and crossing Prefumo Creek; and
WHEREAS, the Class IV bikeway (“cycle track” or “protected bike lanes”) on Los Osos
Valley Road between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Road is a proposed segment of the Bob
Jones Trail that is not identified in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation and has been evaluated in an
addendum to the Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2019 the Active Transportation Committee reviewed the Class
IV bikeway on Los Osos Valley Road between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Road at a public
hearing and recommended that the City Council select it as the preferred alternative for
environmental study and amend the Bob Jones Trail (Prado to Calle Joaquin) segment of the
Bicycle Transportation Plan to include the preferred alignment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. This Council, after consideration of the project alternatives for the
segment of the Bob Jones Trail from Calle Joaquin to Prado Road as recommended by the Active
Transportation Committee, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof, makes
the following findings:
Packet Pg. 165
Item 17
Resolution No. _____ (2019 Series) Page 2
1. The preferred alignment of the Bob Jones Trail segment featuring a Class IV protected
bikeway on Los Osos Valley Road between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Road will
promote bicycling and walking by making these activities safer, more accessible, and
attractive;
2. The preferred alignment will further General Plan goals to increase opportunities for
bicycling, walking and other forms of multi-modal transportation;
3. The preferred alignment featuring on-street Class IV protected bikeways on Los Osos
Valley Road will provide greater potential to increase active transportation mode share
than other off-street bikeway alternatives considered due to a more intuitive route with
fewer security concerns and more direct access to existing amenities and destinations.
SECTION 2. Approval. The Bicycle Transportation Plan is hereby amended by the City
Council to update the Bob Jones Trail (Prado to Calle Joaquin) segment to include a Class IV
bikeway on Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch Road as depicted in Exhibit
A.
Section 3. CEQA Determination. The City Council finds that the changed trail alignment
between Calle Joaquin and Froom Ranch Road is not a substantial change to the project and
environmental review previously approved; review of the proposed realignment disclosed no
substantial change in circumstances under which the project will be undertaken or new information
not previously known; the realignment will not result in any additional or more significant effects;
and that the realignment does not require any new or different mitigations, render any previously
infeasible mitigations to be feasible. Thus, the amendments to the Bicycle Transportation Plan do
not trigger any of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and the City
Council hereby adopts the Addendum to the Initial Study / Negative Declaration ER 71-13 as set
forth in Exhibit B.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 166
Item 17
Resolution No. _____ (2019 Series) Page 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 167
Item 17
A-92
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
ImplementationWestern Area
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-93Appendix A: Implementation Projects - Southern Area
Bicycle Transportation
Network1 4 Western Area ProjectsBicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4 Southern Area ProjectsCentral Area Projects Northern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects
Pave. Mgt. Zone 4, 9Pave. Mgt. Zone 5
Segment: Prado to Calle Joaquin
Project Description: Provide Class I Path from Prado Rd., east side
of drainage swale, south to Prefumo Creek and east to Calle Joaquin.
Includes a grade separated crossing of Prefumo Creek to provide
connections to Froom Ranch Way and Oceanaire Drive.
Notes: Various configurations can be considered depending on
development pattern. This project was previously known as “BJT10”.
Project cost responsibility = 100% developer.
School Zones:
C.L. Smith
Class: I
Hwy. 101L
.O
.
V
.
R
.
Madon
n
a
D
a
l
i
d
i
o
OceanaireS. HigueraPrad
o
Tank FarmCalle JoaquinProject Length (feet):
6,260
Estimated Cost:
$1,878,000
South Street Channelization
at Broad Street
Project Description: Install channelization on South at Broad (227)
in both East and West bound directions.
Notes: Relation to the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. Project could
be funded through the Corridor Plan. The project may require right-
of-way (ROW) acquisition. This project was formerly Mis-7 in 2002
Bike Plan.
Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts
with vehicles.Priority:
First
School Zone:
Hawthorne
Class: II
South Street Br
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Santa BarbaraLawtonProject Length (feet):
100
Estimated Cost:
unknown
Bob Jones
City to Sea Trail
i
X
Packet Pg. 168
Item 17
A-92
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
ImplementationWestern Area
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-93Appendix A: Implementation Projects - Southern Area
Bicycle Transportation
Network1 4 Western Area ProjectsBicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4 Southern Area ProjectsCentral Area Projects Northern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects
Pave. Mgt. Zone 4, 9
Segment: Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch
Project Description: Provide a Class IV bikeway (cycle track /
protected bike lane) on Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin
to Froom Ranch Road to provide connections to Oceanaire Drive
and Prado Road. Pursue signalization of Los Osos Valley Road/
Auto Park Way intersection and upgrade to a bicycle protected
intersection configuration.
South Street Channelization
at Broad Street
Project Description: Install channelization on South at Broad (227)
in both East and West bound directions.
Notes: Relation to the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. Project could
be funded through the Corridor Plan. The project may require right-
of-way (ROW) acquisition. This project was formerly Mis-7 in 2002
Bike Plan.
Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts
with vehicles.Priority:
First
School Zone:
Hawthorne
Class: II
South Street Br
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Santa BarbaraLawtonProject Length (feet):
100
Estimated Cost:
unknown
Bob Jones
City to Sea Trail
School Zones:
C.L. Smith
Class: IV
Project Length
(feet): 2,560
Estimated Cost:
$2,890,600
Pave. Mgt. Zone 5
iPacket Pg. 169
Item 17
ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER 71-13
1. Project Title: Bob Jones Trail (Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch Segment); 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update (GPI/ER 71-13)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
afukushima@slocity.org
(805) 781-7590
4. Project Location: Citywide
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
Contact: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
afukushima@slocity.org
(805) 781-7590
6. General Plan Designation: The focus of the addendum is located within the
Service Commercial and Retail Commercial designations.
7. Zoning: The focus of the addendum is located within the C-S (Service
Commercial), C-R (Retail Commercial)
8. Description of the Project:
The Bob Jones Trail (Prado to Calle Joaquin) is a project identified in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan (amended 2017). The addendum proposes to amend the
project as detailed in Figure A. This amendment would support and implement
Bicycle Transportation Policy 1.5, which states that: “With the exception of
Highway 101, all highways and City streets in San Luis Obispo are considered
streets that bicyclists will use. Accordingly, all highways (except Highway 101)
and public streets shall be designed and maintained to accommodate bicyclists.”
This addendum is proposed to address the minor modification of the Plan to
reflect the new alignment of this segment of the trail to better accommodate
bicyclists within and through the project area. The proposed modifications
include:
Packet Pg. 170
Item 17
Addendum to Initial Study ER 71-13
Page 2
Provide a Class IV bikeway along the north and southbound portions of
Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch Road
Copies of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan can be found on the City of San
Luis Obispo’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=19792
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The Bob Jones Trail (Calle Joaquin to
Froom Ranch Road) Connector project is on Los Osos Valley Road in a service
commercial and retail commercial use zones. It is also located adjacent to the
proposed Froom Ranch development area, where a wetland exists in proximity to
Los Osos Valley Road. Except for the area adjacent to the Froom Ranch
development area, the project is located in an urban area along mostly developed
public-right-of-way. In addition, there are developed swales along the Prefumo
Commons and the Irish Hills Plaza commercial areas.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: The City Public Works Department is
requesting approval to amend the alignment of this segment of the Bob Jones
Trail including installation of a Class IV bikeway and additional improvements
within the public right-of-way as noted above. The study area of the Bob Jones
Trail for this segment was included as part of the previously adopted Negative
Declaration for the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan; therefore this Addendum is
proposed to address this minor modification in its alignment in addition to noted
public right-of-way improvements, which are similar to the improvements
described and analyzed in the adopted Negative Declaration.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
12. Previous Environmental Review: On November 5, 2013, the City Council
approved a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an
addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only “minor technical
changes or additions” have occurred in the project description since the initial
study was originally prepared.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Environmental impacts associated with the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan were
evaluated in the Negative Declaration GPI/ER 71-13. The request to revise the Bob Jones
Trail (Prado to Calle Joaquin) project will enable a more direct route with access to more
services and the elimination of a proposed bridge over Prefumo Creek. This route would
mostly utilize already existing public facilities on Los Osos Valley Road. There is
potential that the project may require minor widening into wetland and swale areas.
However, this potential concern was already identified in the previously adopted
Packet Pg. 171
Item 17
Addendum to Initial Study ER 71-13
Page 3
Negative Declaration GPI/ER 71-13 and programmatic strategies were identified to
reduce the potential biological impacts to a less than significant level. Further, the
currently proposed project alignment will result in less encroachment into sensitive
agricultural land and creek areas than the previously considered project. The project
changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts beyond those already
identified and addressed in the previously adopted Negative Declaration.
DETERMINATION:
In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis
Obispo has determined that this addendum to the Bicycle Transportation Plan Negative
Declaration is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the
project description since the Negative Declaration was adopted in 2013. The preparation
of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because:
1. None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the State CEQA
Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental document:
a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental
impacts.
b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require
major changes to the adopted Negative Declaration.
c. The modified project does not require any new mitigation measures.
2. This Addendum addresses a modification to the Bob Jones Trail, a modification to
one project identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan. The proposed modification
to the previously approved component of the Bicycle Transportation Plan is minor
and consistent with the scope of the Plan.
3. The changes are consistent with City goals and policies that promote an integrated
system of bikeways that enable safe and convenient bicycling as a form of transportation
to activity centers.
Packet Pg. 172
Item 17
A-92
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
ImplementationWestern Area
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-93Appendix A: Implementation Projects - Southern Area
Bicycle Transportation
Network1 4 Western Area ProjectsBicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4 Southern Area ProjectsCentral Area Projects Northern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects
Pave. Mgt. Zone 4, 9Pave. Mgt. Zone 5
Segment: Prado to Calle Joaquin
Project Description: Provide Class I Path from Prado Rd., east side
of drainage swale, south to Prefumo Creek and east to Calle Joaquin.
Includes a grade separated crossing of Prefumo Creek to provide
connections to Froom Ranch Way and Oceanaire Drive.
Notes: Various configurations can be considered depending on
development pattern. This project was previously known as “BJT10”.
Project cost responsibility = 100% developer.
School Zones:
C.L. Smith
Class: I
Hwy. 101L
.O
.
V
.
R
.
Madon
n
a
D
a
l
i
d
i
o
OceanaireS. HigueraPrad
o
Tank FarmCalle JoaquinProject Length (feet):
6,260
Estimated Cost:
$1,878,000
South Street Channelization
at Broad Street
Project Description: Install channelization on South at Broad (227)
in both East and West bound directions.
Notes: Relation to the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. Project could
be funded through the Corridor Plan. The project may require right-
of-way (ROW) acquisition. This project was formerly Mis-7 in 2002
Bike Plan.
Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts
with vehicles.Priority:
First
School Zone:
Hawthorne
Class: II
South Street Br
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Santa BarbaraLawtonProject Length (feet):
100
Estimated Cost:
unknown
Bob Jones
City to Sea Trail
i
X
Packet Pg. 173
Item 17
A-92
Introduction
SanLuisObispo
Cityof
ImplementationWestern Area
2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
A-93Appendix A: Implementation Projects - Southern Area
Bicycle Transportation
Network1 4 Western Area ProjectsBicycle Parking and
Support Facilities2 Bicycling Education
and Promotion3 Implementation and
Funding4 Southern Area ProjectsCentral Area Projects Northern Area Projects Eastern Area Projects
Pave. Mgt. Zone 4, 9
Segment: Calle Joaquin to Froom Ranch
Project Description: Provide a Class IV bikeway (cycle track /
protected bike lane) on Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin
to Froom Ranch Road to provide connections to Oceanaire Drive
and Prado Road. Pursue signalization of Los Osos Valley Road/
Auto Park Way intersection and upgrade to a bicycle protected
intersection configuration.
South Street Channelization
at Broad Street
Project Description: Install channelization on South at Broad (227)
in both East and West bound directions.
Notes: Relation to the South Broad Street Corridor Plan. Project could
be funded through the Corridor Plan. The project may require right-
of-way (ROW) acquisition. This project was formerly Mis-7 in 2002
Bike Plan.
Intent: Improve bike travel through the intersection. Reduce conflicts
with vehicles.Priority:
First
School Zone:
Hawthorne
Class: II
South Street Br
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
Santa BarbaraLawtonProject Length (feet):
100
Estimated Cost:
unknown
Bob Jones
City to Sea Trail
School Zones:
C.L. Smith
Class: IV
Project Length
(feet): 2,560
Estimated Cost:
$2,890,600
Pave. Mgt. Zone 5
iPacket Pg. 174
Item 17
µ
0 400 800200FeetFuture Bike Path
Alignment Option 1
Alignment Option 2
Alignment Option 3
Alignment Option 4
Future Protected Intersection
Bridge
Bike/Ped Access to Oceanaire
Creeks
Bob Jones Trail Alternatives Map
Garcia OceanaireFr oomRanch
Pico
Sola
Cayuco
sPere
i
ra HuasnaLos Osos
Va
l
leyLosOsosValleyVicente
Auto P
a
r
k
Lima
Calle Joaq
u
i
n
Fut ure FroomRanch Way
Proposed San
Luis Ranch
Residential
Future
Agricultural
Reserve
Froom Ranch
Ag Reserve
BMW
Pacific
Beach
High
School
Home
Depot
Whole
Foods
Market
Dick's
Sporting
Goods
Target
Olive
Garden
Coast
Nissan
Perry
Auto
Sunset
Honda
Toyota
AAA
Motel
6
Mercedes
Benz
Packet Pg. 175
Item 17
Project Study Report
Bob Jones Trail Oceanaire to
Calle Joaquin Connection
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by
Cannon
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Althouse and Meade, Inc.
1602 Spring Street
Paso Robles, CA 93446
Earth Systems Pacific
4378 Old Santa Fe Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Packet Pg. 176
Item 17
Project Study Report
Bob Jones Trail Oceanaire to Calle Joaquin
Administrative Draft
August, 2019
Prepared By:
Packet Pg. 177
Item 17
Contributors
City of San Luis Obispo
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation
Manager
Jake Hudson, Transportation Manager
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager
Earth Systems Pacific
Robert Down, Vice President, Senior Engineer
Cannon
Larry Kraemer, Director, Public Infrastructure
Chenin Otto, Civil Associate Engineer
Althouse and Meade, Inc
LynneDee Althouse, Principal Scientist
Darcee Guttilla, Senior Biologist
Packet Pg. 178
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 1
August 2019
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Overview ........................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Study Area ..................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Trail Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................ 3
2 Design Standards ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 City of San Luis Obispo Standards .......................................................................... 4
2.2 California HDM ........................................................................................................... 4
2.3 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Design Guidance 4
2.4 City of San Luis Obispo 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan ................................... 4
2.5 Bob Jones City-To-Sea Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan, 2002 ........................... 5
3 Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints ...................................................................... 5
3.1 Previous Studies ........................................................................................................ 5
3.2 Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Agricultural Resources.............................................................................................. 6
3.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................. 6
3.5 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................... 7
3.6 Trail Connection Opportunities ................................................................................ 7
3.7 Right of Way Constraints .......................................................................................... 8
4 User Needs .......................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Bicycle and Walking Experience .............................................................................. 8
4.2 Facilities, Activity Nodes and Destinations............................................................. 8
5 Analysis of Trail Alternatives............................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Trail Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 9
5.1.1 Alternative 1: Trail Along Agricultural Access Road ........................................ 11
5.1.2 Alternative 2: Trail along Creek ....................................................................... 11
5.1.3 Alternative 3: Trail along Creek all the way to Calle Joaquin .......................... 11
5.1.4 Alternative 4: Protected Bike Lanes along Los Osos Valley Road ................. 12
5.2 Analysis of Existing Bridge Structure and Condition .......................................... 12
5.3 Cost Analysis ........................................................................................................... 12
6 Alignment Selection ......................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Advisory Body Input and Community Input .......................................................... 21
7 Preferred Alignment ......................................................................................................................... 21
7.1 Consultant Recommendations ............................................................................... 21
8 Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................... 21
List of Figures
1. Bob Jones Trail City of San Luis Obispo
Overview
2. Bob Jones Trail Typical Cross Section
3. Alignment Alternatives Overview
List of Tables
1. Summary of Cost Comparison
2. Alignment Alternatives Matrix
3. Alignment Alternatives Cost Comparison
4. Alignment 1 Cost Estimate
5. Alignment 2 Cost Estimate
6. Alignment 3 Cost Estimate
7. Alignment 4 Cost Estimate
Packet Pg. 179
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 2
August 2019
1 Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
The Bob Jones Trail is a regional pathway intended to connect the City of San Luis Obispo’s downtown
core to Avila Beach. The Bob Jones Trail is comprised of numerous segments within the City of San Luis
Obispo and unincorporated County of San Luis Obispo. As a critical piece in the City’s 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (City Bike Plan) as well as the County Bikeways Plan, the Trail provides a
transportation and recreation corridor and a connection to the state-legislated California Coastal Trail.
Several segments of this trail have been constructed and several more are in the planning and design
phase. The Bob Jones Trail segments within the City of San Luis Obispo are highlighted in Figure 1
below.
The extension of the Bob Jones Trail along Prefumo Creek from the end of Oceanaire Avenue (Segment
3), near Froom Ranch Way, to the northern end of Calle Joaquin is identified in the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan, as well as the Agricultural Master Plan (Ag Plan) for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural
Reserve. However, both documents indicate differences in the alignment of the trail; depending on which
alignment is constructed the trail will be approximately 2,500 to 3,500 feet long. Near Oceanaire Avenue
the trail will cross Froom Ranch Road and then cross over Prefumo Creek via a propose d
bikeway/pedestrian bridge. From the creek crossing, the trail will generally follow the creek or existing
agricultural dirt roads until it connects to Calle Joaquin.
Figure 1: Bob Jones Trail City of San Luis
Obispo Overview
Segment 1: Marsh Street to Prado Road
Segment 2: Prado Road to Los Osos Valley
Road
Segment 3: Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire
Ave/Froom Ranch Way
Segment 4: L.O.V.R. to South Higuera (City
Octagon Barn Connection)
Segment 5: Octagon Barn to Avila Beach
(County of San Luis Obispo)
Packet Pg. 180
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 3
August 2019
1.2 Purpose and Scope
The goals of this project study report are to evaluate alignment alternatives, review constraints and
opportunities, and select a preferred alignment for the extension of the Bob Jones Trail from Calle
Joaquin to Oceanaire. The report also presents a concept design for the preferred alternative to further
the “readiness” of this project to compete for grants funding for final design and construction, and help
inform the environmental documentation of the project. An effort has been made to analyze how the trail
alignment interfaces with potential future development in the area, which will include the extension of
Froom Ranch Way over Prefumo Creek.
After preliminary review of three alternative alignments along the creek, a fourth option became apparent.
The fourth option is to use the existing Los Osos Valley Road corridor and Froom Ranch W ay to connect
the proposed start and end points of Segment 3 of the trail. Advisory bodies voted to explore an option to
provide safe bicycle access along these existing corridors in coordination with improvements being
planned for adjacent development.
1.3 Project Study Area
The specific focus of this project study is from the southern end of Oceanaire Drive to Calle Joaquin. The
first three trail alternatives start at the end of Oceanaire Drive and traverses through City-owned land and
right-of-way dedicated by the Prefumo Creek Commons development. Once the trail crosses the creek to
the east bank, the trail will be within the City-owned agricultural reserve. The agricultural reserve is
adjacent to Prefumo Creek and the proposed San Luis Ranch development, which includes an
agricultural reserve dedication directly adjacent to the existing reserve. The San Luis Ranch
development project may include a construction access road along the east border of the City reserve
which may ultimately be dedicated as an access easement for a shared agricultural access road for both
parcels. It is also important to note that this area is entirely contained within the 100-year flood plain and
it is not feasible to fill within the area because of impacts to the floodplain and historical drainage path.
The alternatives for a connection to Calle Joaquin are discussed in detail later in this report, but
Alternative 3 crosses back to the west side of Prefumo Creek to follow the creek corridor through four
private properties.
As a fourth alternative, this report proposes Class IV protected bike lanes along the Los Osos Valley
Road corridor. This alternative would meet up with a multi-use trail proposed by the San Luis Ranch
development along Froom Ranch Way to connect to Oceanaire Drive.
1.4 Trail Goals and Objectives
The goal of Trail Segment 3 of the City of SLO portion of the Bob Jones Trail is to provide a safe and
convenient bicycle and pedestrian connection between Calle Joaquin through the agricultural reserve to
the residential and commercial developments adjacent to Prefumo Creek to the south of Madonna Road.
The trail should integrate with adjacent developments and the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Environmental,
cultural, biological, and agricultural impacts as well as construction costs should be minimized as much as
possible to increase the likelihood for funding and feasibility of construction.
Some additional overall objectives for the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail are listed below from the Bob
Jones City-To-Sea Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan, 2002.
Trail Alignment Objectives
• Minimize trail encroachment into creek setback areas. Encroachment should only occur where
physical constraints prevent placement outside of the setback area or where encroachment into
the setback area is deemed the most appropriate location for the trail f acility
• Avoid encroachment into the creek channel and riparian habitat where possible.
• Look for opportunities to support and enhance recreational users.
• Look for important connections - align trail with other bike routes, urban uses and residential
areas.
Packet Pg. 181
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 4
August 2019
• Avoid vehicle and pedestrian conflicts to the greatest extent possible.
• Minimize creek and drainage crossings.
• Look for good connections for law enforcement and maintenance access.
• Utilize signalized intersections at street crossings where possible.
• Align trail to allow for logical placement of staging areas.
• Avoid areas of extreme topography.
• Maintain consistency with the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Trail Design Objectives
• Provide secure and controlled access for:
o Police and Fire Support
o Trail Maintenance
• Reduce potential for vandalism, theft and trespass.
• Provide for directional and safety signage.
• Provide securit y lighting at staging areas and road crossings.
• Locate staging areas at appropriate locations along trail that provide:
o Restrooms
o Telephone
o Drinking water
o Bike racks and lockers
o Trash receptacles
o Shelter / seating
o Information kiosks
• Provide Informational Kiosks at major staging areas for:
o Rules of trail use and hours of operation, directional signing (“you are here”)
o Location map for nearby services, significant information references, and mapping
• Provide interpretive exhibits at appropriate locations along the trail corridor for:
o Environmental and historical information
• Incorporate consistent design character for all areas of the trail corridor.
• Choose appropriate landscape materials, such as local native plants, for all new landscape and
enhancement areas.
• Provide for physical buffers between trail and adjacent uses or habitats.
• Use fences and/or other barriers:
o As a separation between the trail and sensitive riparian habitat
o As a separation from adjacent land uses
2 Design Standards
2.1 City of San Luis Obispo Standards
The Trail design should be consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo Standards for Class I Bikeways,
which generally provides for a 12’ wide solid surface trail with two-foot shoulders on each side
2.2 California HDM
The trail should follow design guidelines provided by the California Highway Design Manual.
2.3 National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Design Guidance
The City has adopted NACTO as a primary design guide for development of bicycle facilities. The trail
should use best practices from this design guidance as possible.
2.4 City of San Luis Obispo 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City’s Bike Plan provides general route and design guidelines; some importance design guidance
that applies to this project include:
Packet Pg. 182
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 5
August 2019
• Where a bikeway extends along a creek, a four-foot tall split rail or wood and wire fence shall be
installed at the inside edge of the bikeway to discourage trail users from entering the creek.
• Bikeways that cross or border agricultural land shall be fenced and signed to discourage
trespassing onto adjoining areas.
2.5 Bob Jones City-To-Sea Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan, 2002
The Bob Jones Trail Plan describes a scenic bike path along the creek corridors from the City of San Luis
Obispo to Avila Beach. The plan designates the “Bob Jones” standard as a 12’ wide asphalt Trail outside
the creek setback (or an 8’ wide Trail within the creek setback) with two-foot shoulders.
Figure 2: Bob Jones Trail Typical Section
Source: Adapted from Bob Jones City-To-Sea Preliminary Alignment Plan, 2002
3 Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints
3.1 Previous Studies
Previous studies for this project area include:
Agricultural Master Plan for
the City of San Luis Obispo’s
Calle Joaquin Agricultural
Reserve, 2011
City of San Luis Obispo
Bicycle Transportation Plan,
2013
Bob Jones City-To-Sea Trail
Preliminary Alignment Plan,
2002
Packet Pg. 183
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 6
August 2019
Additional studies reviews for this project include:
• Environmental Impact Report for the San Luis Ranch Project, 2017
3.2 Land Use
Figure 3 shows the three trail alignment alternatives along with a fourth alternative for Class IV protected
bike lanes along Los Osos Valley Road. Starting from the north end of the project, the trail begins at the
south end of Oceanaire Drive, which services Low Density Residential to the North west of Prefumo
Creek. A Class I trail would cross City right-of-wa y dedicated for the extension of Froom Ranch Way and
connect to City-owned property zoned for Conservation/Open Space dedicated as part of the Prefumo
Creek Commons commercial project to the west. This area is currently developed as a park and creek
Open Space area. Once the trail crosses to the east of Prefumo Creek the Trail runs through City-owned
property zoned for Conservation/Open Space bordered by Highway 101 to the east, Tourist Commercial
to the South, Prefumo Creek to the East and residential/future Froom Ranch Right of Way to the North.
Properties adjacent to the creek south of the City owned property area are zoned for commercial. At this
time, the properties are mostly used for automotive sales, service, and associated businesses. The Bear
Valley Center hosts a variety of commercial and retail services.
3.3 Agricultural Resources
A large portion of this trail will run through or adjacent to existing agricultural land. Agricultural operations
in this area date back to approximately 1900. Most of this land is currently being cultivated for row crops.
The soils where crops are currently planted are considered prime agricultural soils . The only constraint is
that some soils may become unworkable in the wet season and the farm road on the eastern border of
the City’s agricultural reserve can become inaccessible with heavy rains. The Trail should be aligned to
minimize impacts to cultivation and farming access.
The 25-acre existing Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve was dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo as
part of the preservation of agricultural land requirement when adjacent agricultural land was developed.
With the development of the San Luis Ranch parcel, the agricultural reserve will more than double. The
current plan for San Luis Ranch includes a shared farm access road to be constructed on the San Luis
Ranch parcel for the benefit of the existing reserve and the reserve dedicated by that project. The Calle
Joaquin Agricultural Reserve Master Plan includes provisions for the Bob Jones Trail along the creek
corridor. Plans for the property are to lease 20 acres of cultivatable land to a nonprofit for production with
plans for a light processing facility and an education center. Maintenance of the creek corridor, Bob
Jones Trail, and other small areas will be maintained by the City. Since the master plan was developed,
Central Coast Grown has secured a 20-year lease on the property and plans are developing as
anticipated.
3.4 Biological Resources
Most of the alignment of the trail will run along the Prefumo Cre ek Corridor. In the vicinity of this project,
Prefumo Creek is carrying water from Laguna Lake to San Luis Obispo Creek. Some man-made
concrete structures, irrigation lines, storm drain outlets and other evidence of human management of this
creek is present. Significant amounts of trash and evidence of human habitation within the creek corridor
were observed during site visits for this project. It also appeared that stormwater runoff from some of the
commercial properties on the south end of the project may be going directly into the creek. In a 2016
Biological Assessment Report for San Luis Ranch by Althouse and Meade Prefumo Creek’s riparian
corridor was described as “…dominated by arroyo willow but is invaded by non-native trees such as
Canary Island date palm which have encroached from residential yards on the west side of the creek.
The eastern creek bank is lined with mature blue gum eucalyptus. Prefumo Creek is an important
connection between San Luis Obispo Creek and Laguna Lake. It is often s easonally dry, and water flow
is subsurface during summer months.”
In the Environmental Impact Report for San Luis Ranch, Rincon Environmental staff reported t hat the
project site contains suitable habitat for sixteen special status animal species, but no special status plant
species. The creek corridor is a potential habitat for some of the special status species, though none of
these species were detected during the study. Other species, such as various birds and monarch
Packet Pg. 184
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 7
August 2019
butterflies identified within the report, are specific to grasslands and tree stands that are not within the
bikeway project area. During the San Luis Ranch project study, as well as site vi sits for this project,
standing pools of water were observed near the proposed bridge crossing of Froom Ranch Way.
According to Althouse and Meade’s report at the time they were observed in May 2016 the pools
contained a sufficient amount of cover, protective canopy, and depth to support California red-legged frog
breeding; and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) documents an occurrence of CRLF just
north of the confluence of Prefumo Creek and San Luis Obispo Creek, approximately one-half mile
downstream from the project site. In January 2018, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that “San
Luis Ranch may affect but is unlikely to adversely affect the federally threatened California red-legged
frog (Rana draytonii).”
The report also notes that Prefumo Creek is a federally-designated critical habitat for the south-central
California Coast distinct population segment (DPS) steelhead. According to the 2011 Agricultural Master
Plan for the San Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (Ag Plan), the water quality within the project vicinity is
inferior and steelhead do not stay within this area; they only migrate through the area when the creek
flows during the rainy season. In November 2017, the National Marine Fisheries Services stated that the
San Luis Ranch Project would not have a direct effect to steelhead trout: “Because usable habitat for
steelhead within the action area persists for only a few months during the wet season (e.g.,
December through May) and no work would occur during this period or when water is present in the
creek, no direct effects to steelhead are anticipated to occur fro m the proposed action.”
The Prefumo Creek riparian zone (willow woodland vegetation) is considered Waters of the State on the
banks, and Waters of the U.S. and the State below the ordinary high-water mark in the channel and within
adjacent wetlands that contain hydric soil, wetland vegetation, and exhibit wetland hydrology. Impacts to
Waters of the State and outside of federal jurisdiction require authorization under the Porter Cologne Act
and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement under Fish and Game Code 1602.
Potential wetland habitat occurs on the east side of Prefumo Creek near the proposed bridge for
Alignment 3. This habitat was identified in the Ag Plan as an area that is prone to flooding and would
likely be a feature regulated as a Water of the State and Water of the U.S. (special aquatic site).
This area is identified on Figure 3.
3.5 Cultural Resources
The alignment of this project is proposed to cross existing developed land, adjacent to a creek corridor,
and through established agricultural land. There are no known major items of cultural or historical
significance on the current City property. No disturbance to cultural resources is anticipated with this
project, however areas within 150’ of Prefumo Creek are considered sensitive archeological sites and so
the City policy requires a Phase I Archeological Resources Inventory for permitting of construction within
this area.
3.6 Trail Connection Opportunities
This section of the trail is a critical link in the City’s Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail which is intended to
connect the west end of the downtown San Luis Obispo to the southwest corner of the city limits with
connection to the County portion of the trail beyond, ultimately connecting to Avila Beach. This section is
intended to connect the Laguna Lake (Oceanaire) residential neighborhood through the retail commercial
area south of Froom Ranch Road to Calle Joaquin with a connection to the future extension of Froom
Ranch Way East of Prefumo Creek. The Class I trail would end at Calle Joaquin and the bikeway will
continue via surface streets to another Class I connection planned to the Octagon Barn, which is the
City’s southernmost portion of the trail. Proposed development (San Luis Ranch) to the north east of the
trail will provide a Class I connection to Madonna Road and ultimately a better connection to downtown
San Luis Obispo. The proposed development will have a direct link to this section of the Bob Jones Trail
at the proposed Froom Ranch Way bridge crossing.
Packet Pg. 185
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 8
August 2019
3.7 Right of Way Constraints
Alignments 1 and 2 are contained within city property and right-of-way. Alignment 1 is proposed to run
along the eastern border of the existing city-owned agricultural reserve. In this area there is a 10’ PG&E
pole line and Public Utility Easement that may restrict how close the trail can be to the property line,
which may push the bike path into the cultivatable land and cause an impact to the existing lease on the
property. Alignment 2 will run adjacent to an existing landscape easement in favor of the adjacent
commercial properties along Calle Joaquin.
Alignment 3 passes through five separate private properties. There is an existing drainage and Public
Utility Easement that is 90’ wide centered on the creek through these properties, so some of the
development is set back far enough to provide space for a trail between the developed facilities and the
creek. However, there will be some impacts to existing facilities adjacent to the creek and easements will
need to be obtained. Alternative 3 reaches Calle Joaquin on the inside of a roadway curve, and a safe
connection will be needed to the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road. This connection can be contained
within existing City right-of-way, but it may require relocation and reconstruction of some existin g facilities.
Alignment 4 is primarily contained within the City right-of-way with minimal acquisition required from five
separate private properties. The protected bike lanes for alignment 4 are proposed to run along Los Osos
Valley Road, and small areas of right-of-way will need to be acquired at the driveway entrances to the
Prefumo Creek Commons shopping plaza and the bus stop at the Irish Hills Plaza. Minor right-of-way
widening along LOVR will also be required at the Froom Ranch Area. However, this right-of-way is
expected to be obtained with the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan.
4 User Needs
4.1 Bicycle and Walking Experience
According to a bicycle user survey conducted by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG), 64.5% of residents would use a bicycle more if there were more low-stress bicycle facilities
that provide more separation from cars or lower traffic speeds. Each alternative provides physical
separation from motor vehicle traffic, which provides to most comfortable and safe user experience. The
Class I alternatives along the creek (alternatives 1-3) also have the benefit of reduced traffic noise.
Alternative 4 maintains separation of bicycles and pedestrians which provides the best experience for a
variety of users. Alternative 4 enhances the existing bicycle facilities along Los Osos Valley road, and
therefore captures a group of riders that are currently using this route and has the potential to encourage
new riders.
4.2 Facilities, Activity Nodes and Destinations
This segment of the Bob Jones Trail serves a few different destinations including: three schools in the
Laguna Lake area, commercial areas along Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Road, the City Farm
and education center on the agricultural reserve, and the Octagon Barn on South Higuera. The trail will
be portion of a connection for residents from the east side of Highway 101 to businesses and schools on
the west side and vice versa. For example, a student who lives in the Los Ranchos development may
use the trail along their wa y to C.L. Smith Elementary school. The trail could also be used by residents
and workers from future development along the southern end of Calle Joaquin to access the Madonna
Plaza, and someday destinations east of Highway 101 via the Prado Road Overpass. The trail will help
connect users to the City Farm, the Octagon Barn, and ultimately to Avila Beach via the County of San
Luis Obispo’s portion of the trail system.
5 Analysis of Trail Alternatives
This section presents the alignments that were reviewed as a part of this analysis and the pros and cons
of each of those alternatives. See Figure 3 for the Trail alternatives.
Packet Pg. 186
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 9
August 2019
5.1 Trail Alternatives
The alternatives presented here stemmed out of the two design documents, the City’s 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan and the Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve. Some
potential new alignments became apparent upon preliminary review of the two published alternatives.
The first three alternatives begin on the northern end at an existing connection to Oceanaire Drive. From
here the Trail proceeds south across a proposed extension of Froom Ranch Way and through existing
recreation facilities adjacent to the Prefumo Creek Commons development to a creek crossing location.
The crossing location and the extension of the trail to Calle Joaquin has three main alternatives presented
below. The fourth alternative presents an option for protected bike lanes along Los Osos Valley Road to
connect to the future Class I trail along Froom Ranch Way. See Table 2 for a matrix review of the
alternatives. The alternatives within this report will be presented for public outreach and review by
appropriate advisory bodies to help select the best one.
Packet Pg. 187
Item 17
B
A
D
N
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863
Figure 3: Trail Alignment Alternatives
Packet Pg. 188
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 11
August 2019
5.1.1 Alternative 1: Trail Along Agricultural Access Road
This alignment was indicated in the City’s 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. On the east side of Prefumo
Creek the trail follows an existing agricultural access road south-east on the north-eastern border of the
Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve toward the north end of Calle Joaquin.
This alignment provides a fairly direct, flat and scenic route with one creek crossing. There appears to be
adequate width to meet design recommendations for a 12’ wide path. This route runs between two
agricultural fields which may have more impact to agricultural operations and cause more exposure for
the users of the trail to agricultural equipment. The route likely has the least impact to the creek corridor,
but it does not benefit from the shade of the trees along the creek. Some users may prefer to ride closer
to the natural edge of the creek. The end of this trail takes users right past the City Farm and provides
good connectivity to that site, however the Trail does not align with the preliminary plans for developing
the City Farm facilities. The Trail would run parallel to the eastern property line of the existing city
agricultural reserve. There is an existing PG&E pole line and Public Utility Easement that spans this
property line, so the trail may be pushed into agricultural operations in the existing leased property.
Alternative 1 would minimize impacts to riparian vegetation with a perpendicular c rossing near the
proposed Froom Ranch Way Bridge. State agency authorization for the bridge and approach ramps
would be required from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
5.1.2 Alternative 2: Trail along Creek
This alignment is indicated in the Agricultural Master Plan for the Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve (Ag
Plan). The trail follows the same general alignment as Alternative 1 on the west side of Prefumo Creek at
the Prefumo Commons, but it continues south to a creek crossing shown in the Agricultural Master Plan.
From the bridge the trail follows the creek south along the border of the riparian zone from the bridge
crossing to the edge of the City’s property. Alternative 2 would be placed on the edge of approximately
1100 feet of riparian habitat and would avoid permanent impacts to most of the riparian habitat. From the
south side of City Farm, the trail shown on the Ag Plan continues to generally follow the border of the
property all the way to the cul-de-sac at the north end of Calle Joaquin.
This trail also provides a relatively flat and pleasant user experience with one creek crossing. This
alignment also appears to provide adequate width to meet design recommendations for a 12’ wide path,
though as the design is developed there may be more challenges to providing a wide flat trail adjacent to
the creek bank. This option utilizes more of the existing recreation facilities adjacent to the Prefumo
Creek Commons project, but it also requires more modification of the existing trail to provide adequate
width for the trail. This trail is a little less direct, however the trail is consistent with the vision for the Bob
Jones trail under the shade and along the creek corridor. To provide the most direct route possible and
prevent shortcutting some agricultural land will be split by the trail near the end. The existing operations
of the City Farm and agricultural lease have provided for this alignment with a 20’ buffer from the edge of
agricultural operations to the edge of the creek riparian habitat and the trail will provide good access for
the City Farm. State agency authorization would be required for biological impacts such as prun ing to
the edge of riparian for installation of the bike path (without removing riparian vegetation) and installation
of the creek crossing at bridge site B.
5.1.3 Alternative 3: Trail along Creek all the way to Calle Joaquin
Alignment 3 follows the Alternative 2 toward the City Farm and diverges where Alternative 2 heads away
from the creek and Alternative 3 continues along the cr eek corridor. As this alignment was developed it
was determined that the west creek bank provided the most room for the trail. There is an existing
drainage and Public Utility Easement that is 90’ wide centered on the creek through these properties, so
most of the development is setback far enough to provide space for a trail between the developed
Packet Pg. 189
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 12
August 2019
facilities and the creek. However, there will be some impacts to existing facilities adjacent to the creek
and easements will need to be obtained. The trail crosses back over the creek where it follows the creek
corridor out to Calle Joaquin through private property. Alternative 3 would be placed in or on the edge of
approximately 2750 feet of riparian habitat. Along Calle Joaquin there is a potential to provide a trail out
to Los Osos Valley Road by widening the sidewalk or possibly by providing a two-way cycle track.
This alternative provides the most direct and possibly the most pleasant user experience along the creek
corridor. However, this alignment would require two creek crossings and the trail would likely need to be
narrowed to 8’ to minimize impacts to the creek and adjacent properties. The City does not currently own
the right-of-way for this entire trail and easements would be needed through five separate private
properties. The trail could provide a potential benefit to adjacent property owners with fencing and
lighting enhancements. There may also be the potential to reduce creek pollution by providing a buffer
between adjacent properties and the creek bank. This trail is the most expensive of the three alternatives
and it would also have the most impact to the creek and adjacent properties.
5.1.4 Alternative 4: Protected Bike Lanes along Los Osos Valley Road
This alternative provides one-way Class IV protected bike lanes on each side of Los Osos Valley Road.
This design will reconfigure the sidewalks and landscape strips along Los Osos Valley Road from Calle
Joaquin to Froom Ranch Way to allow the bike lanes to be at sidewalk level with landscaped buffers
between the roadway and bikeways. Where parking exists, the protected bike lanes will be adjacent to
the sidewalk and buffered from travel lines by the parking. Although the raised bike lanes are adjacent to
vehicular traffic or parking, the physical separation provides a the most comfortable and safe route
possible within a shared corridor.
This route is the most direct and has the least environmental impact; however, some right-of-way will
need to be acquired from the adjacent shopping plazas at the driveways and bus stops. The protected
bike lanes would start at Calle Joaquin and connect to multi-use trail along Froom Ranch Way through a
protected bicycle intersection proposed as part of the San Luis Ranch development. The report does not
include costs and design for facilities proposed in the San Luis Ranch plans.
5.2 Analysis of Existing Bridge Structure and Condition
The City currently has a bridge in storage that may be useful for this project. The bridge is in two pieces
that are approximately 50’ long each, together they could span 100’. The crossing proposed for
Alternatives 2 and 3 may be able to use this bridge, however the cost associated with designing and
constructing connections and abutments for this bridge versus a new bridge have not been evaluated at
this time.
5.3 Cost Analysis
A preliminary costs analysis was completed for the four alternatives. The cost estimates are based on the
preliminary alignment length, bridge crossings, and preliminary design. Maintenance and right-of-way
acquisition were not included in the estimates. See Tables 3-6 for cost estimates for each alternative.
Table 1: Summary of Cost Comparison
TOTAL TRAIL
LENGTH (ft) TOTAL COST
ALIGNMENT 1 - ALONG AG ACCESS ROAD TO CUL-DE-SAC 4,490 $2,927,700
ALIGNMENT 2 - ALONG CREEK TO CUL-DE-SAC 4,670 $2,271,300
ALIGNMENT 3 - ALONG CREEK TO CALLE JOAQUIN 3,720 $4,302,200
ALIGNMENT 4 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES ALONG LOVR 3,630 $2,719,300
Packet Pg. 190
Item 17
1
ALONG AG ACCESS ROAD TO CUL-DE-SAC
2
ALONG CREEK TO CUL-DE-SAC
3
ALONG CREEK TO CALLE JOAQUIN
4
PROTECTED BIKE LANES ALONG LOVR
• Moderate-High user experience: scenic, flat, straight, downside may
be no shade
• Good access and exposure to City Farm & Ag Center
• Moderate-High user experience: scenic, relatively flat, shaded,
potential for bird watching and Creekside recreation
• Good access and exposure to City Farm & Ag Center
• DESIGN OPTION: Design shown slight modification from Ag Plan to
prevent shortcutting
• DESIGN OPTION: With Bridge at Location B, promotes use of
previously installed improvements
• Moderate-High user experience: scenic, relatively flat, shaded,
potential for bird watching and Creekside recreation
• Appears to be most direct with potential for the longest separated
low-stress path
• DESIGN OPTION: Less exposure to Ag Center, but there may be
an option to put a trail spur in
• Moderate user experience: protected bike lanes provide the best
possible experience on a shared roadway corridor. They provide the
highest degree of comfort while maintaining a direct route.
• Not a recreational facility, less of a scenic and stress-free
experience than a separated class I pathway
• Moderate-High safety: good visibility
• Potential exposure to agricultural sprays and agricultural equipment
• High/Good connectivity on both ends
• Moderate-High safety: perception of safety may be decreased with
narrow corridor in an area with high transient traffic; however,
increased access for police patrol and increased number of users
may reduce the transient use and may increase the overall safety of
the creek corridor
• Potential exposure to agricultural sprays, but separated from
agricultural equipment
• High/Good connectivity on both ends
• Moderate-High safety: perception of safety may be decreased with
narrow corridor in an area with high transient traffic; however,
increased access for police patrol and increased number of users
may reduce the transient use and may increase the overall safety of
the creek corridor
• Potential exposure to agricultural sprays, but separated from
agricultural equipment
• Most direct connection for Class I trail alternatives
• Moderate-High safety - protected bike lanes provide the highest
degree of safety within a shared roadway corridor. Higher potential for
conflicts with cars than a separated Class I facility
• High level of connectivity - most direct trail for all alternatives along
this segment with the greatest potential to serve commuters.
Connects directly through proposed protected bicycle intersections
and Class I facilities
• Minimal impacts to riparian habitat at creek
• Moderate potential for riparian habitat impact
• Potential for CDFW to require maintenance permit with mitigation to
prune riparian vegetation along the corridor. City could amend its
existing LSAA for this purpose.
• DESIGN OPTION: Depending on bridge location, may be able to
minimize impact by avoiding mature stands of riparian trees
• High potential for riparian habitat impact
• Potential for CDFW to require maintenance permit with mitigation to
prune riparian vegetation along the riparian corridor
• Jurisdictional agencies will likely not support two crossings over one
• Minimal impacts to swale along western commercial development
• Low-Moderate impact to useable agricultural land, some impact at
bridge
• Moderate potential impact to operations if route is needed for ag
equipment. Creates a separation between two ag parcels.
• Moderate potential impacts from off-leash animals
• Low-Moderate impact to usable agricultural land: 20’ buffer has
been set between cultivation and creek
• Low-moderate impact to agricultural operations: some impact at
bridge entrance
• DESIGN OPTION: With shortcut there is the potential to cut off a
portion of cultivatable land (not currently used)
• Low-Moderate impact to usable agricultural land: 20’ buffer has
been set between cultivation and creek
• Low-moderate impact to agricultural operations: some impact at
bridge entrance
• No Impacts
• Moderate-minimal difficulty
• All City-owned land
• Requires coordination with Ag Lease and agricultural equipment
routing
• DESIGN OPTION: Potential for coordination with San Luis Ranch
grading access road and connection to development
• DESIGN OPTION: Potential to use Sanitary Sewer Easement on
SLR property to gain access for the City to manholes
• Moderate difficulty
• All City-owned land
• Requires more coordination with jurisdictional agencies (runs
adjacent to more jurisdictional boundary)
• Topography may be slightly more difficult to design a path through
(curves and dips next to creek)
• Highest Difficulty
• Requires lease or land acquisition from 5 property owners
• Utility and Signage Relocation on sidewalk along Calle Joaquin
• Moderate difficulty
• Minimal work outside of City right-of-way at Target property
• Complex construction area within high-speed corridor
• Existing utilities relocations and coordination
USACE CWA
Section 404 Not Required Not Required Required if fill proposed in federal wetland feature
Required if fill proposed in federal wetland features located on west
side of LOVR. May be minimized with detailed topographic survey
wetland mapping and design that avoids fill (e.g., short gravity wall
(<2 feet), or small "bridge" or deck to avoid impacts to less than 300
linear feet of drainage/wetland feature). Need detailed jurisdictional
delineation of the current boundary of Waters of the U.S. (including
adjacent wetland, a special aquatic site under the Clean Water Act).
Need survey good to the nearest 6 inches in that area. If less than
300 linear feet is impacted, a Nationwide Permit would apply (9
months). If more than 300 linear feet of drainage is impacted, an
Individual Permit would apply (1.5 to 2 years, full NEPA process).
USFWS
(ESA)
Consultation not required. "Take" of listed species (e.g. California
Red-legged Frog) not authorized. Avoidance required.
Consultation not required. "Take" of listed species (e.g. California
Red-legged Frog) not authorized. Avoidance required.
If a 404 permit is required, ESA consultation with USFWS will be
requested by USACE
If a 404 permit is required, ESA consultation for California Red-
legged Frog with USFWS will be requested by USACE
NMFS
(ESA)
Consultation not required. "Take" of listed species (e.g. South-Central
California Steelhead Distinct Population Segment) not authorized.
Avoidance required.
Consultation not required. "Take" of listed species (e.g. South-Central
California Steelhead Distinct Population Segment) not authorized.
Avoidance required.
If a 404 permit is required, ESA consultation with NMFS will be
requested by USACE
If a 404 permit is required, ESA consultation with NMFS for Southern
Steelhead will be requested by USACEEnvironmental Permitting1Consideration
Pathway User
Experience
Pathway User
Safety and
Connectivity
Potential Impact
to Biological and
Cultural
Resources
Potential Impact
on Agricultural
Resources and
Operations
Ease of
Implementation
Table 2: Alignment Alternatives Matrix
Packet Pg. 191
Item 17
1
ALONG AG ACCESS ROAD TO CUL-DE-SAC
2
ALONG CREEK TO CUL-DE-SAC
3
ALONG CREEK TO CALLE JOAQUIN
4
PROTECTED BIKE LANES ALONG LOVR
RWQCB
CWA
Section 401
Not required Not required Required if fill proposed in federal wetland feature Required if fill proposed in federal wetland feature
RWQCB
NPDES
Permit
Required for impacts to riparian zone Required for impacts to riparian zone
Not required if a 401 is needed. An individual WDR would be applied
for, not the streamline version, if more than 300 linear feet of riparian
habitat is permanently impacted.
Not required if a 401 is needed. An individual WDR would be applied
for, not the streamline version, if more than 300 linear feet of riparian
habitat (that is not federal wetland) is permanently impacted. This
process takes 1.5 to 2 years, minimum.
CDFW
LSAA Required for impacts to riparian zone Required for impacts to riparian zone Required for impacts to riparian zone and Waters of the State (e.g.
federal/state wetland feature)
Required for impacts to riparian zone and Waters of the State (e.g.
federal/state wetland feature)
Permit
Timing
4 to 6 months (allow for approximately 45 days after CEQA
document complete). The RWQCB strongly recommends that
applicant makes initial telephone or personal contact with RWQCB
regulatory staff to discuss a proposed new discharge before
submitting application.
(Same as Alternative 1)
1.5 years if more than 400 linear feet of riparian zone impacted and a
USACE 404 permit not required (allows for minimum of one hearing
in front of the Water Board). If 404 required, allow approximately 6 to
12 months for a standard 404 and 401 plus LSAA. Provide
alternatives analysis to demonstrate how this project is the least
damaging project alternative. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to
Waters of the U.S. would be required, and a conservation easement
placed over the mitigation area.
(Same as Alternative 3)
Partial List
of
Documents
Required
Jurisdictional delineation of state and federal features, biological
report that covers state and federally protected species, hydrologic
analysis (for bridge crossings and any proposed fill on floodplain), and
wetland/riparian mitigation and monitoring plan.
(Same as Alternative 1 with a compelling reason for impacts to
riparian zone that are larger than Alternative 1).
Jurisdictional delineation of state and federal features, biological
assessment with an effects analysis for federally listed species (for
federal agencies) and biological report that covers state and federally
protected species (for state agencies), hydrologic analysis (for bridge
crossings and any proposed fill on floodplain), biological report that
covers state and federally protected species (for state agencies),
hydrologic analysis, cultural resources study, and wetland/riparian
mitigation and monitoring plan.
Jurisdictional delineation of state and federal features, biological
assessment with an effects analysis for federally listed species (for
federal agencies) and biological report that covers state and federally
protected species (for state agencies), hydrologic analysis (for bridge
crossings and any proposed fill on floodplain), biological report that
covers state and federally protected species (for state agencies),
hydrologic analysis, cultural resources study, and wetland/riparian
mitigation and monitoring plan.
CLASS I: 2,560 LF
CLASS II: 1,200 LF (On Calle Joaquin, not in cost)
CLASS III: 720 LF (On Calle Joaquin, not in cost)
TOTAL: 4,480 LF
CLASS I: 2,750 LF
CLASS II: 1,200 LF (On Calle Joaquin, not in cost)
CLASS III: 720 LF (On Calle Joaquin, not in cost)
TOTAL: 4,670
CLASS I: 3,320 LF
CLASS I/CLASS IV: 400 LF (On Calle Joaquin)
TOTAL: 3,720 LF
CLASS I: 1,070 LF (Future by others)
CLASS IV: 2,560 LF
TOTAL: 3,630 LF
$2,911,500 $2,270,200 $4,137,300 $2,890,600
• BASELINE • BASELINE
• DESIGN OPTION: Bridge location B may require demo of existing
facilities on the west side of the creek to bring up to Class I standards
• Addition of one bridge
• Increased construction costs with retaining walls and constraints
• Longest total path length
• Additional cost for potential sidewalk or street reconfigure
• Reconfigure street and sidewalks along LOVR to install protected
bike lanes
• Moderate maintenance needed with potential crossing by
agricultural equipment
• Moderate-Minimal maintenance, CDFW may require pruning
mitigation
• Moderate-Minimal maintenance, CDFW may require pruning
mitigation
• Longer length for maintenance and pruning
• Minimal maintenance, street sweeping required within protected
lanes
1. Environmental Permitting Notes
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers - Clean Water Act Section 404 (Nationwide Permit 14. Linear Transportation Projects. Activities required for the construction, expansion, modification, or improvement of linear transportation)
Nationwide Permit would not apply if over 300 linear feet of impact is proposed to Waters of the U.S.--an individual permit would be required, a process that requires an alternatives analysis and a full NEPA review, including publication in Federal Register.
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service - Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 (or Section 10 if a federal permit nexus is not used)
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service - Endangered Species Act Section 7 (or Section 10 if a federal permit nexus is not used)
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board - Clean Water Act Section 401 (Water Quality Certification required to authorize federal 404 permit)
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board - NPDES Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR for STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WATER QUALITY ORDER NO. 2004-0004-DWQ).
This WDR restricted to dredged or fill discharges of not more than two-tenths (0.2) of an acre and 400 linear feet for fill and excavation discharges.
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA; Fish and Game Code 1602)
Length of Trail
(off road)
Consideration
Environmental Permitting, Contd.Cost
*Excludes
Permitting and
acquisition
Maintenance
Packet Pg. 192
Item 17
Sheet 1 of 6
PROJECT:Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek to Calle Joaquin PROJ. NO.:170211
PHASE:ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EST./CHK.:WC/CO
CLIENT:City of San Luis Obispo DATE:7/29/2019
TRAIL
LENGTH (ft)TOTAL COST
ALIGNMENT 1 - ALONG AG ACCESS ROAD TO CUL-DE-SAC 4,490 $2,927,700
ALIGNMENT 2 - ALONG CREEK TO CUL-DE-SAC 4,670 $2,271,300
ALIGNMENT 3 - ALONG CREEK TO CALLE JOAQUIN 3,720 $4,302,200
ALIGNMENT 4 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES ALONG LOVR 3,630 $2,719,300
ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
THIS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST HAS BEEN PREPARED USING STANDARD ENGINEERING ESTIMATE PROCEDURES AND IS BASED ON PLANS AND DOCUMENTS 10/4/2018.
CANNON HAS NO CONTROL OVER ACTUAL CONTRACTOR COSTS, BIDDING, OR MARKET CONDITIONS.
OPINION OF PROBABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
DESCRIPTION:
1. Based on SLO County Unit Costs, Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study, and recent contractor bids as applicable.
2. County unit costs have been escalated to 2019 Q1 Caltrans Cost Index. Escalation between 2011 baseline costs and 2019 Q1 is 1.86.
6. All quantities and costs are approximate and subject to change during detailed design.
5. Costs not included: Design fees, agency fees, right-of-way acquisition, assessments, inspections, maintenance, permits, environmental
mitigation, site furniture, bike racks, etc.
Alternatives Comparison
3. Unit costs from the Bob Jones Trail Study have been escalated from May 2013 to April 2019 by a factor of 1.18 using ENR's cost index history.
4. All unit costs from recent contractor bids have been escalated to April 2019 using ENR's cost index history.
Table 3: Alignment Alternatives Cost Comparison
Packet Pg. 193
Item 17
PROJECT:Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek to Calle Joaquin PROJ. NO.:170211
PHASE:ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EST./CHK.:WC/CO
CLIENT:City of San Luis Obispo DATE:7/29/2019
ALIGNMENT 1 - ALONG AG ACCESS ROAD TO CUL-DE-SAC CLASS I PATH LENGTH (LF) 2,570
CLASS II/III PATH LENGTH(LF) 1,920
DESCRIPTION:SITE PREPARATION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Mobilization Level 1 1 LS $3,500.00 3,500$
Clearing and Grubbing 41,200 SF $0.06 3,000$
Excavation 2,100 CY $27.93 58,700$
SUBTOTAL 65,200$
DESCRIPTION:SLO CITY CLASS I BIKEWAY (7040)QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
4" AC 30,900 SF $4.60 $142,200
12" Class II base (under pavement)30,900 SF $2.50 $77,300
16" Class II Base Shoulder 7,710 SF $3.33 $25,700
Flush Curb 5,200 LF $47.92 $249,200
13' Wide Geogrid 2,800 SF $1.86 $5,300
Chain Link Fence 0 LF $65.17 $0
42" Rail Fence 3,700 LF $11.00 $40,700
Striping (City 7040, 3 stripes)7,710 LF $2.23 $17,300
SUBTOTAL $557,700
DESCRIPTION:TRAFFIC CONTROL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Signage (City 7210) - 1 at each end of trail 2 EA $357.00 $800
Enhanced Crossing with HAWK system and crosswalk at grade 1 LS $153,000 $153,000
Construction Signage 1 LS $11,800 $11,800
SUBTOTAL $165,600
DESCRIPTION:MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bridge A 100 LF $7,000.00 $700,000
Culvert (3 x 18" Pipe)0 LF $111.71 $0
Retaining Walls (3' tall)0 SF $52.13 $0
Lighting (City 7905)2 EA $3,000 $6,000
Reestablish Access Road (20' MIN width, 22" Base)40,000 SF $8.38 $335,143
SUBTOTAL $1,041,143
TOTAL:1,829,700$
$ 457,500
$ 183,000
183,000$
274,500$
2,927,700$
CM and Administration (15%)
Total Cost
THIS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST HAS BEEN PREPARED USING STANDARD ENGINEERING ESTIMATE PROCEDURES AND IS BASED ON PLANS AND DOCUMENTS 10/4/2018.
CANNON HAS NO CONTROL OVER ACTUAL CONTRACTOR COSTS, BIDDING, OR MARKET CONDITIONS.
Sheet 2 of 6OPINION OF PROBABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Environmental Permitting (10%)
Survey and Design (10%)
Construction Contingency (25%)
Table 4: Alignment 1 Cost Estimate
Packet Pg. 194
Item 17
PROJECT:Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek to Calle Joaquin PROJ. NO.:170211
PHASE:ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EST./CHK.:WC/CO
CLIENT:City of San Luis Obispo DATE:7/29/2019
ALIGNMENT 2 - ALONG CREEK TO CUL-DE-SAC CLASS I PATH LENGTH (LF) 2,750
CLASS II/III PATH LENGTH(LF) 1,920
DESCRIPTION:SITE PREPARATION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Mobilization Level 1 1 LS $3,500.00 3,500$
Clearing and Grubbing 44,000 SF $0.06 3,000$
Excavation 2,200 CY $27.93 61,500$
SUBTOTAL 68,000$
DESCRIPTION:SLO CITY CLASS I BIKEWAY (7040)QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
4" AC 33,000 SF $4.60 $151,800
12" Class II base (under pavement)33,000 SF $2.50 $82,500
16" Class II Base Shoulder 8,300 SF $3.33 $27,700
Flush Curb 5,500 LF $47.92 $263,600
13' Wide Geogrid 3,000 SF $1.86 $5,600
Chain Link Fence 530 LF $65.17 $34,600
Split Rail Fence 2,600 LF $11.00 $28,600
Striping (City 7040)8,300 LF $2.23 $18,600
SUBTOTAL 613,000$
DESCRIPTION:TRAFFIC CONTROL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Signage (City 7210) - 1 at each end of trail 2 EA $357.00 $800
Enhanced Crossing with HAWK system and crosswalk at grade 1 LS $153,000 $153,000
Construction Signage 1 LS $11,800 $11,800
SUBTOTAL 165,600$
DESCRIPTION:MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bridge B 80 LF $7,000.00 $560,000
Culvert (3 x 18" Pipe)60 LF $111.71 $6,703
Retaining Walls (3' tall)0 SF $52.13 $0
Lighting (City 7905)2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000
SUBTOTAL 572,703$
TOTAL:1,419,400$
$ 354,900
$ 142,000
142,000$
213,000$
2,271,300$
Environmental Permitting (10%)
CM and Administration (15%)
Total Cost
THIS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST HAS BEEN PREPARED USING STANDARD ENGINEERING ESTIMATE PROCEDURES AND IS BASED ON PLANS AND DOCUMENTS 10/4/2018.
CANNON HAS NO CONTROL OVER ACTUAL CONTRACTOR COSTS, BIDDING, OR MARKET CONDITIONS.
OPINION OF PROBABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Construction Contingency (25%)
Survey and Design (10%)
Sheet 3 of 6
Table 5: Alignment 2 Cost Estimate
Packet Pg. 195
Item 17
PROJECT:Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek to Calle Joaquin PROJ. NO.:170211
PHASE:ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EST./CHK.:WC/CO
CLIENT:City of San Luis Obispo DATE:7/29/2019
ALIGNMENT 3 - ALONG CREEK TO CALLE JOAQUIN CLASS I PATH LENGTH (LF) 3,320
CLASS I/IV PATH LENGTH (LF) 400
DESCRIPTION:SITE PREPARATION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Mobilization Level 2 (includes streetside construction)1 LS $4,700.00 4,700$
Clearing and Grubbing 53,200 SF $0.06 3,000$
Excavation 2,700 CY $27.93 75,500$
SUBTOTAL 83,200$
DESCRIPTION:SLO CITY CLASS I BIKEWAY (7040)QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
4" AC 39,900 SF $4.60 $183,600
12" Class II base (under pavement)39,900 SF $2.50 $99,800
16" Class II Base Shoulder 10,000 SF $3.33 $33,300
Flush Curb 6,700 LF $47.92 $321,100
14' Wide Geogrid 3,900 SF $1.86 $7,300
Chain Link Fence 990 LF $65.17 $64,600
Split Rail Fence 2,000 LF $11.00 $22,000
Striping (City 7040, 3 stripes)10,000 LF $2.23 $22,400
SUBTOTAL 754,100$
DESCRIPTION:TRAFFIC CONTROL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Signage (City 7210) - 1 at each end of trail 2 EA $357.00 $800
Enhanced Crossing with HAWK system and crosswalk at grade 1 LS $153,000 $153,000
Construction Signage 1 LS $11,800 $11,800
SUBTOTAL $165,600
DESCRIPTION:MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Bridge B 80 LF $7,000.00 $560,000
Bridge D 100 LF $7,000.00 $700,000
Culvert (3 x 18" Pipe)60 LF $930.95 $55,900
Retaining Walls (3' tall)980 SF $52.13 $51,100
Lighting (City 7905)2 EA $3,000 $6,000
SUBTOTAL $1,373,000
DESCRIPTION:MULTI-USE PATH ALONG CALLE JOAQUIN QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Path Length 400 LF
Demo C&G 400 LF $9.18 $3,700
Demo Street 40 CY $27.53 $1,200
Demo Sidewalk 3800 SF $2.04 $7,800
Driveway Approaches 384 SF $18.36 $7,100
Sidewalk (12')4800 SF $8.93 $42,900
Stamped Concrete (2.5')1000 SF $27.93 $28,000
Curb and Gutter 400 LF $45.37 $18,200
Relocate Utilities 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
New ADA Ramp 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000
Striping (1 CL Stripe)400 LF $2.23 $1,000
Signal Modification 1 LS $100,000.00 $100,000
SUBTOTAL $312,900
TOTAL:2,688,800$
$ 672,200
$ 268,900
268,900$
403,400$
4,302,200$
Environmental Permitting (10%)
CM and Administration (15%)
Total Cost
THIS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST HAS BEEN PREPARED USING STANDARD ENGINEERING ESTIMATE PROCEDURES AND IS BASED ON PLANS AND DOCUMENTS 10/4/2018.
CANNON HAS NO CONTROL OVER ACTUAL CONTRACTOR COSTS, BIDDING, OR MARKET CONDITIONS.
Sheet 4 of 6OPINION OF PROBABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Construction Contingency (25%)
Survey and Design (10%)
Table 6: Alignment 3 Cost Estimate
Packet Pg. 196
Item 17
PROJECT:Bob Jones Trail - Prefumo Creek to Calle Joaquin PROJ. NO.:170211
PHASE:ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES EST./CHK.:WC/CO
CLIENT:City of San Luis Obispo DATE:7/29/2019
ALIGNMENT 4 - PROTECTED BIKE LANES ALONG LOVR CLASS I PATH BY OTHERS LENGTH (LF) 1,070
CLASS IV PATH LENGTH (LF) 2,560
DESCRIPTION:SITE PREPARATION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Tree Removal/Relocation 8 EA $558.57 4,500$
Concrete Pavement Removal 32,000 SF $2.04 65,300$
Concrete Curb & Gutter Removal 3,200 LF $9.18 29,400$
AC Pavement Removal 1,200 CY $27.53 33,100$
Agg. Base Removal 4,800 CY $27.53 132,200$
SUBTOTAL 264,500$
DESCRIPTION:ROADWAYS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
6" AC Pavement (Roadway)18,700 SF $3.73 $69,800
8" PCC Pavement (Roadway)3,600 SF $7.94 $28,600
23" Agg. Base (Roadway)18,700 SF $4.79 $89,600
6" Agg. Base (Roadway)3,600 SF $1.26 $4,600
Bus Pad 1,200 SF $37.73 $45,300
Cross Gutter and Spandrel 1,950 SF $21.41 $41,800
Concrete Sawcut 110 LF $7.45 $900
AC Sawcut 5,200 LF $4.04 $21,100
Concrete Truck Apron 880 SF $7.94 $7,000
SUBTOTAL 308,700$
DESCRIPTION:ROAD EDGES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Concrete Driveway Approach 2,000 SF $18.36 $36,800
ADA Ramp 22 EA $3,000.00 $66,000
Curb & Gutter 4,700 LF $45.37 $213,300
Curb 2,200 LF $47.92 $105,500
AC Dike 950 LF $18.62 $17,700
Concrete Sidewalk 23,900 SF $8.93 $213,500
4" AC Pavement (Bikeway)31,600 SF $4.60 $145,400
12" Agg. Base (Bikeway)31,600 SF $2.50 $79,000
Relocate Bus Shelter 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
SUBTOTAL $887,200
DESCRIPTION:TRAFFIC CONTROL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Thermoplastic Striping & Markers
White Dashed Laneline (Caltrans Detail 9)5,700 LF $1.79 $10,300
White Dashed Lane Drop Line (Caltrans Detail 37B)400 LF $2.96 $1,200
White Channelizing Line (Caltrans Detail 38)500 LF $1.79 $900
White Right Edgeline (Caltrans Detail 27B)1,700 LF $1.53 $2,700
White Dashed Right Edgeline (Caltrans Detail 27C)900 LF $1.53 $1,400
White Bike Lane Line (Caltrans Detail 39)300 LF $1.79 $600
White Dashed Bike Lane Line (Caltrans Detail 39A)800 LF $1.79 $1,500
Paint Curb Red 500 LF $2.35 $1,200
Remove Striping 6,100 LF $5.59 $34,100
Thermoplastic Crosswalks 1,100 SF $11.22 $12,400
Thermoplastic Markings 500 SF $11.22 $5,700
Green Bike Lane Paint 1,500 SF $3.32 $5,000
Relocate Signs 19 EA $230.00 $4,400
Traffic Control 1 LS $55,000.00 $55,000
SUBTOTAL $136,400
DESCRIPTION:UTILITIES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Relocate Fire Hydrant 7 EA $4,245.14 $29,800
Relocate Water Meter 13 EA $744.76 $9,700
Relocate Storm Drain Inlet 12 EA $7,261.43 $87,200
Relocate Power Pole 2 EA $27,928.57 $55,900
SUBTOTAL $182,600
DESCRIPTION:MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL
Landscape and Irrigation 23,100 SF $3.72 $86,100
Erosion Control 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
SUBTOTAL $96,100
OPINION OF PROBABLE LAND DEVELOPMENT COSTS Sheet 5 of 6
Table 7: Alignment 4 Cost Estimate
Packet Pg. 197
Item 17
TOTAL:1,779,400$
$ 444,900
$ 178,000
50,000$
267,000$
2,719,300$
CM and Administration (15%)
Total Cost
THIS OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST HAS BEEN PREPARED USING STANDARD ENGINEERING ESTIMATE PROCEDURES AND IS BASED ON PLANS AND DOCUMENTS 10/4/2018.
CANNON HAS NO CONTROL OVER ACTUAL CONTRACTOR COSTS, BIDDING, OR MARKET CONDITIONS.
Construction Contingency (25%)
Survey and Design (10%)
Environmental Permitting
Packet Pg. 198
Item 17
Bob Jones Trail
Prefumo Creek Connection to Oceanaire
Specification No 91374
Project Study Report
City of San Luis Obispo Page 21
August 2019
6 Alignment Selection
6.1 Advisory Body Input and Community Input
The first draft of this report only included Alternatives 1-3. Upon first review of the report, the Active
Transportation Committee and the City Council advised City Staff to explore Alternative 4. The amended
report will now be circulated for Advisory body and community input.
7 Preferred Alignment
The preferred alignment should be chosen based on input from the consultants collaborating on this
report, advisory body input, and comm unity input. Only consultant recommendations are included at this
time.
7.1 Consultant Recommendations
Of the three Class I trail alternatives, Alignment 2 appears to be the best trail option; Alignment 2 best
balances user experience with impacts to agricultural and biological resources with the cost and ease of
implementation. The trail along the creek will be shady with a pleasant nature-rich feel, which matches
the original intent of the Bob Jones trail to provide a recreational connection between San Luis Obispo
and Avila Beach via the drainage channel. The trail will provide better access to the creek for monitoring
overgrowth, and according to some law enforcement officers, routes like this provide better “eyes on the
creek” to report and prevent illegal activity. The route is already accommodated within the current lease
on the city’s agricultural reserve and will provide good access to the City Farm and education center.
This route has less of a potential for conflicts with farming equipment and less of an impact to cultivatable
land than Alternative 1. The alignment with bridge location B leaves open the possibility of using the
bridge the city currently has in storage.
When comparing all four alternatives, Alignment 4 appears to be the best option. Although Alignment 4 is
closer to vehicle traffic, the protected bike lanes still offer a safe and comfortable experience along the
most direct route. A comfortable and direct route will serve the most people by increasing the experience
of riders who currently use this corridor and attracting new riders that may not have otherwise felt safe
traveling through this area. This alternative creates the least impact to the environment by modifying a
developed roadway and utilizing facilities proposed by adjacent development. It is also one of the least
costly options and likely requires the least amount of maintenance.
Regarding user experience, Class I trails provide the most stress-free route. However, it is likely that
because the Class I alternatives are not the most direct route, the trail would be used mostly by
recreational users. Although Alignment 3 arguably provides the best user experience and most direct
route of the Class I alternatives, the implementation would be very difficult and costly. The cost could be
double that of other routes.
Regarding biological impacts and permit costs, Alignment 4 is the least impactful. Of the three Class I
alternatives, the leader is Alignment 1, with Alignment 2 close behind. Permit timing would require four to
six months for the first two alternatives. Alignment 3 would significantly impact the Prefumo Creek
riparian corridor on the west side of the creek and permitting would likely take over 1.5 years. If
Alignment 4 requires fill in federal wetland, permitting will take about 1.5 years.
8 Next Steps
This report will be brought to the appropriate City advisory bodies to help select the best alternative.
Once the alternative is selected, design drawings, environmental review, and any permitting and
acquisitions can begin.
Packet Pg. 199
Item 17
1050 Southwood Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
P 805.544.7407 F 805.544.3863
Attachment 3, Page 1 of 1
Packet Pg. 200
Item 17
Packet Pg. 201
Item 17
Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of May 16, 2019 Page 1
Minutes
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was called to order
on Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Brooks.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Paul Orton, Jonathan
Roberts, Vice Chair Ken Kienow, and Chair Lea Brooks
Absent: Committee Member Jenna Espinosa
Staff: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima, Senior Planner Shawna Scott, and
Recording Secretary Lareina Gamboa
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Rick Ellison
--End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of March 21, 2019:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER ROBERTS, CARRIED 7-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER
ESPINOSA ABSENT) to approve the Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee
Meeting of March 21, 2019, with an amendment to Line 13.
Public Comment
None.
--End of Public Comment--
2. Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of April 17, 2019:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MARTENIES, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER ROBERTS, CARRIED 7-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER
ESPINOSA ABSENT), to approve the Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee
Packet Pg. 202
Item 17
Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of May 16, 2019 Page 2
Meeting of April 17, 2019, as presented.
Public Comment
None.
PRESENTATION ITEMS
3. Parks and Recreation Element/Master Plan Update
Community Development Senior Planner, Shawna Scott, provided a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Committee inquiries regarding the Parks and Recreatio n
Element and Master Plan update.
Public Comment
Myron Amerine
--End of Public Comment--
No action was taken on this item.
ACTION ITEMS
4. Bob Jones Trail: Oceanaire to Calle Joaquin Connector
Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a PowerPoint presentation and
responded to Committee inquiries in regards to the Bob Jones Trail Alternative Connectors.
Public Comment
Myron Amerine
Gary Havas
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ROBERTS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, CARRIED 7-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER
ESPINOSA ABSENT), to recommend Alternative 4 to the City Council to undergo further
environmental review and for staff to consider the removal of a travel lane on a portion of
Los Osos Valley Road in front of Whole Foods, and to update the existing bike plan to reflect
the new alignment of the Bob Jones Trail.
5. Officer Elections
Per Article 3 of the Active Transportation Committee Bylaws, annual Officer Election
nominations took place.
Packet Pg. 203
Item 17
Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of May 16, 2019 Page 3
Public Comment
None.
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER KIENOW, CARRIED 7-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER
ESPINOSA ABSENT), to elect Committee Member Roberts for Chair.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ROBERTS, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, CARRIED 7-0-1 (COMMITTEE MEMBER
ESPINOSA ABSENT), to elect Committee Member Brooks for Vice Chair.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Committee Updates
A public request by Donette Dunaway was presented to the committee for consideration of bollard
removals at Bridge St. and Exposition Road near Meadow Park.
Discussion of the Northwest Corner development project at the corner of Tank Farm and Broad St
Staff Updates
Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a verbal update in regards to the following:
● Active Transportation Plan Update
● Railroad Safety Trail Update
● Bike Month
● Budget Update
● Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. The next Regular Active Transportation Committee
meeting is scheduled for Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMIT TEE: 07/18/2019
Packet Pg. 204
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C
city of san Luis oBispo
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 71-13
1. Project Title: 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brian Leveille
bleveille@slocity.org
805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
Citywide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
Contact: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
pmandeville a.slocity.org
805) 781-7590
Page 10
6_ Description of the Project: The project is a comprehensive update to the 2007 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP). The Bicycle Transportation Plan was originally adopted in April,
1985. Since adoption, the plan has been updated in 1993, 2002, and 2007. As with previous
updates, the recommended modifications to the 2007 plan are intended to comply with State
standards in order to be eligible for State Transportation Account (BTA) grants which are a key
source of funding for City bicycle facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation
Plan is used for the planning, development, and maintenance of bicycle facilities and activities in
San Luis Obispo and in adjoining County jurisdiction that is within the City of San Luis
Obispo's Urban Reserve (anticipated outward limit of City growth).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 51
Packet Pg. 205
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Page 11
Copies of the public hearing draft of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update can be found
on the City of San Luis Obispo's website:
litip:llwww.sf city.org1.'p.i licworks!docl3mcnIs.asp4bicycle
The main elements of the recommended update include:
New Projects — Eleven new projects are included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan update. The
projects are listed below with corresponding page number in the Public Hearing draft 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Project Name: Page:
Jennifer St. bridge, access to Morro St. Bicycle Boulevard A17
Boysen Ave. Connection A27
Santa Rosa at Boysen, Grade Separated Crossing A28
North Chorro Intersection Enhancement A32
Cuesta Park/Loomis St. S. Bound Hwy. 101 Exit A35
Southwood Sharrows A69
Spanish Oaks Underpass Ramp A71
Class II Connection to Prado (Part of Bob Jones Trail) A87
LOVR grade separated crossing east of LOVR interchange A90
Industrial to Bougainvillea A106
Industrial/Tank Farm Class I Bypass A107
Madonna to Laguna Lake Traverse, Class I Path A126
Plan Format — Plan topics are now organized in chapters rather than appendices. Objectives and
Policies are found within chapters and definitions are included on page sidebars. Plan requirements
relative to California Streets and Highways Code are included in a separate contents page.
Implementation Actions — Implementation actions have been added to identify steps needed to
implement Plan policies. Implementation actions are located in policy sections for each chapter
where a relationship exists with the stated policy.
Project Ranking and Presentation — The Plan update uses the same criteria used for the 2007 plan.
In the "Bicycle Transportation Network" chapter there is a discussion of the top two ranked projects
by facility type. Graphics are included to depict the location of each project in the City.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 52
Packet Pg. 206
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Page 12
2007 BTP Accomplishments and 2013 BTP Modifications — A listing of accomplishments is
provided which summarizes implementations of bicycle related projects from the 2007 Bicycle
Transportation Plan. A synopsis of additions and modifications from the previous plan provides
information to compare the recommended 2013 BTP update with the 2007 BTP.
The projects and policies contained in the BTP are intended to support the planned expansion of the
City's bicycle facility network. Table 1, below, summarizes existing and proposed BTP network
mileage.
Table 1. 1 - Existing and Proposed Bicycle Transportation Network Mileage (as of December 2012)
Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics
Facility Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total Mileage
Class I Bike Paths 7.2 (22%) 26.1 33.3
Class II Bike Lanes 29.7 (62%) 17.9 !
Class III Bike: Routes
Sharrows
Boulevards
Subtotal
20.6(100%)
2. 9 (58%)
0.5 81%
24.0 (75%)
0
2.1
5.9
8.0
47.6]
20.6
5.0
6.4
32.0
Total 60.9 (54%) 52.0 112.9
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The recommended Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) Update requires Planning Commission
review and City Council Approval. The Planning Commission will review the BTP as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and recommend action to the City Council.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan will be submitted to the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) to determine its consistency with the adopted Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP); and to the California Department of Transportation, Bicycle Unit, to determine its
consistency with State Code requirements and to certify the plan.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 53
Packet Pg. 207
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Page 13
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
FISH AND GAME FEES
Aesthetics
X
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
V CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2-54
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
V CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2-54
Packet Pg. 208
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Page 14
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Signature
Doug Davidson, AICP
Deputy Director of Community Development
i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Date
For: Derek Johnson
Community Development Director
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 55
Packet Pg. 209
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Page 15
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2-56
Packet Pg. 210
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
YutRIT C Page 16
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71-13, 2013
Significant Significant Significant Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
Issues Unless Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
14
Mitigation
Xc) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
Incorporated
1. AESTHETICS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
14 Xc) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
3 Xd) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) update would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas. Planned locations of
bicycle paths are generally located at grade and could not impact scenic vistas. In locations where there are grade separated
crossings any planned bridge structures would be subject to review for conformance with Community Design Guidelines and
would be subject to Architectural Review. The Community Design Guidelines of San Luis Obispo contain requirements that
proposed improvements such as bridge structures must be designed to minimize visual impacts and be compatible with the
character of the site and surroundings. Less than Significant Impact.
d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any proposed bicycle
facilities are also subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum
illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. All bicycle
facilities included in the plan will be required to conform to standards of the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Class I
bike path lighting is required to comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement is required to comply with the
policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek
corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. The project does not have the potential to adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
12
X
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Xb) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to
non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
a) b) c) No new paths are proposed to be located on properties used for agricultural purposes or which contain prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The BTP update would not conflict with any existing zoning for
agricultural uses and would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts. The BTP update involves no other changes to the
existing environoment which could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Conclusion: No Impact
3. AIR UALITY. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 2 X
quality plan?
Xb) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 57
Packet Pg. 211
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Pae 17
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER# 71-13, 2013
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
Significant Significant Significant Impact
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
Issues Unless impact
BicBicycle Transportation Plan UpdateypP
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Mitigation
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Incorporated
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an X
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The 2013 BTP update will have the effect of increasing bicycle ridership which will have a potential benefit of
producing a positive impact on air quality. There is no potential the implementation of the proposed update to the 2013 BTP
update would have a potentially significant effect on air quality, pollutant concentrations, or objectionable odors. No Impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 1, 10
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a X
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
3b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but X
not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
1, 10
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved X
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) In cases where proposed Class 1 bicycle facilities are located in areas which contain riparian habitat, or are
located within creek setbacks, Creek setback regulations of the City's Zoning Regulations would apply. In addition to standard
City policies and regulations, the previous 2007 BTP and update 2013 BTP include policies and standard mitigation for
locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impact to less than significant levels. Existing City policies and
standards would apply to any proposed facilities which could have a potential impact which would reduce potential biological
resource impacts to less than significant levels. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
v CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 58
Packet Pg. 212
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
F.XHIRIT C Page 18
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71- 13, 2013
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Updateypp
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the roject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16 X
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
Xb) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
Xc) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
XTd) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d). Installing Class II bike lanes and bicycle boulevards along City streets will have no effect on subsurface resources.
Installing Class 1 bike paths may affect currently unidentified cultural resources if resources are found during the minimal
grading and excavation needed to provide a stable base for the bike path. As part of the required environmental clearance for
the construction of Class I facilities, provisions of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines will direct
project -specific evaluations and the provision of mitigation measures, including avoidance where necessary. If potential
cultural resources are found during construction, the City's Guidelines require that construction cease until a qualified
archaeologist determines the extent of the resource, and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective
measures. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion:
Less than significant impact.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4 X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
XII. Strong seismic ground shaking?
XIII. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
XIV. Landslides or mudflows?
Xb) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially X
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code ( 1994), creating substantial risks to life X
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Evaluation
a), b), c). The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground
shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Less than significant impact.
d), e). Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will be required to meet or exceed
building code standards for these soils. Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 59
Packet Pg. 213
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
F.XH1RiT C Page 19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71- 13, 2013
Significant Significant Significant Impact
materials?
Issues unless impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan UpdateBicypp Mitigation
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
Incorporated
X
Conclusion:
Less than significant impact.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, X
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for X
the Dumose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
a) b) The State of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warning Solution Act of 2006 and California
Governor Schwarzencggcr Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of
California. Updates to the Bicycle Transportation Plan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gases since they support
alternatives to use of motor vehicles by enhancing facilities which can be used for bicycles. Updates to the Bicycle
Transportation Plan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
R_ 14AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Droiect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 4
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
8d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety X
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working X
in the project area?
4
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of -loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands X
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update has no potential to expose the public to hazardous materials. The project
would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. No Impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 60
Packet Pg. 214
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
F)CHIRIT C Pal?e 20
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than No
ER # 71- 13, 2013
Significant Significant Significant Impact
requirements?
Issues unless Impact
BicBicycle Transportation Plan Updateypp Mitigation
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
Incorporated
e), f) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update has no potential to result in an airport related safety hazard for people using the
bicycle facilities in the plan which may be within the airport land use area. No impact.
g), h) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not impede access for emergency response. In the case of Class 1 bike paths,
the dimensions are sufficiently wide to accommodate most emergency vehicles, and their construction would pave a positive
impact on emergency access. No Impact.
Conclusion. No Impact.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roiect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
3c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, X
in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, X
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
Xe) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Xf) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
10g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X
or other flood hazard delineation map?
Xh) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
XiInundationbyseiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), 0, g), h), i). Proposed new Class I bike paths would be paved with asphalt, which will incrementally increase
impervious surface. However, unlike roadways traveled by motor vehicles, the quality of runoff water should not be
significantly contaminated with oils or greases that could impact ground water or adjoining habitat areas. The design and
location of all Class I bike paths adjoining creeks have been integrated with adopted flood management strategies for those
creek areas, as established by independent Council action or by adoption of specific plans for various sub -areas of San Luis
Obispo. Additionally, any construction requiring drainage analysis shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management
Plan and Drainage Design Manual. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 61
Packet Pg. 215
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Paue 21
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71-13, 2013
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
Issues Unless
Mitigation
Impact
Evaluation
a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed
Incorporated
or community conservation plans which would be affected by the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose X
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Xb) Physically divide an established community?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservation Tans?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed
deviations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans
or community conservation plans which would be affected by the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. NOISE. Would the ro'ect result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 7
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X
without the project?
Xc) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation.
a), b), c), d). Implementation of projects related to the Bicycle Transportation Plan update would not expose people to
unacceptable noise levels and would not generate noise levels in excess of the City's noise ordinance. Construction activities
generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction,
including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates
time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise
standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant
impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 62
Packet Pg. 216
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Page 22
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71-13, 2013
for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
Issues Unless Impact
infrastructure)?
Mitigation
Incorporated
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
Evaluation
a), b). The proposed changes to the bikeway network will facilitate non -vehicular access to and from existing developed areas
within the City's urban reserve, and to new commercial and residential districts envisioned by the General Plan and supporting
Specific Plans. The update to the Bicycle Transportation plan will not induce population growth or displace existing housing.
No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
f) Other public facilities? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), I) New bicycle facilities will incrementally increase the demand for maintenance services as well as patrol by
City Rangers, however these costs are considered as part of the City's budget process prior to the facility's construction.
Less than significant impact.
Conclusion, Less than significant impact.
14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse X
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
a) Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan will have a positive effect on recreational opportunities within San Luis
Obispo. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 63
Packet Pg. 217
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Pae 23
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71-13, 2013
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
Significant Significant Significant Impact
BicBicycle Transportation Plan UpdateYPp
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
Issues unless
Mitigation
Impact
X
mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components
Incorporated
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
X
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including X
mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components
X
of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county X
congestion management agency for designated roads or
X
highways?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X
substantial safety risks?
provider's existing commitments?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
X
X
equipment)?
Xe) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013CITYOFSANLUISOBISPO14
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise X
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use
Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a X
change in air trafficpatterns?
Implementation of facilities included in The Bicycle Transportation Plan are required to comply with City design standards and
would not introduce dangerous design features or incompatible uses. Bikeways included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan
Update are anticipated to have an overall positive impact on transportation and circulation by providing an alternative means of
transportation to private vehicles. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm X
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded X
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
Xf) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Xg) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013CITYOFSANLUISOBISPO14
PH2 - 64
Packet Pg. 218
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Pale 24
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71-13, 2013 Significant Significant Significant Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Issues Unless Impact
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
Mitigation
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
Incorporated
X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation:
a), b), c), d), e), f), g). Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not impact City utilities for water and
wastewater and will not generate solid waste or create additional demand on landfill facilities. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have any effects on habitat for fish and wildlife species and will not
impact historic resources. Less than significant impact.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)
The Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have cumulatively considerable impacts and will not result in potential effects
from probable future projects. Less than significant impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X
indirectly?
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not have environmental effects which could case substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. Cit of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006
2, SLO CounLy Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009
3. City of San Luis Obispo Zonin Regulations, August 2012
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
PH2 - 65
Packet Pg. 219
Item 17
Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series)
EXHIBIT C Paye 25
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ER # 71- 13, 2013
City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
Issues Unless Impact
Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/ FMMP/
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
Mitigation
l5. t16.
14.
Ai ort Land Use Plan, May 2005
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010
Incorporated
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005
5. Ci of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, revised April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010
7. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website:
hq://www.catepa.ca.gov/SiteC]eanup/CorteseList/
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo Count
12. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/ FMMP/
13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
Cit of San Luis Obispo CommunityDesign Guidelines, June 2010
l5. t16.
14.
Ai ort Land Use Plan, May 2005
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010
V CITY OF SAN (_UIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
W •
Packet Pg. 220
Item 17
RECEIVED
SEP U3 2019
SLO CITY CLERK
1010 Marsh St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 546-8208 . FAX (805) 546-8641
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Luis Obispo,
I am a citizen of the United States and a
resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years, and not a party interested
in the above entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of the printer of the New Times, a
newspaper of general circulation, printed and
published weekly in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, and which
has been adjudged a newspaper of general
circulation by the Superior Court of the County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California, under
the date of February 5, 1993, Case number
CV72789: that notice of which the annexed
is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than
nonpareil), has been published in each regular
and entire issue of sanewspaper and not in
any supplement thereo on the following dates,
to -wit:
in the year 2019.
I certify (or declare) under the the penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at San Luis Obis o. Califor 1i• , this
day 21 or , 2019.
OF
Patricia Horton, New,rimes Legals
Admin& Pc ni/-KTNiC Adini,,,NTMG 0lFc)BUSINES.W.1,k Nndl fPr.For Pub
Proof of Publication of
0
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
The San Luis Olr590 City Council Irmtrrs all InlMsted pera9nx Io
eu.d a pubilc meoting on Tuesday, Mlirnbar % 2019, at B:0
p.m •I+ like �CtiY�gticc forcilliehwlAtiaa to tla inllcwrre9 'San Lids
• Bob JonesTFall AIIgc"IeTransportation Plan
ilrnendm
Tlu C ty COur pt vti+li cvosidor adottirog a Rosoluuwl alnondrng OW
Bicycle Trarrspwlatlon PI9n to updata the Bab JOtws Trill IPrada to
Calle Joxiuin} senntI owno an amendmerit la the Magalivu
af
EnwrcMnenml Impact.
For more rnfotmat on you are invl[ed to cortlact Adam FuWslliJ1-
at the, Clty's Public Works 4eparla mt at 190W 781-1590 or by
ameo at afukush rr afaalorny. arg.
1110 City Courtdl may also discuss other hearings or business
imm bolore or alter this item.
ippon for his maating are available far review ill the City 0001
01 lice and onlrna et www.53ocrry,org. Please tali the City CI WJ
1lice n 184 li n81.7iD0 lar more inforrs atfon. The Cityp Council
o mewing W 1 be to av15ed Ilve un Charlet Cable Chenn0l20 Erin Ileo
suooml ng on www siocdy erg.
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
August 29, 2019
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
1
Bob Jones Trail
Calle Joaquin to Oceanaire Connection
City Council Study Session
September 3, 2019
Luke Schwartz
Interim Transportation Manager
Adam Fukushima
Active Transportation Manager
1
2
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
2
Bob Jones Trail
Spur Project Area
3
4
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
3
City Council Meeting: Dec 4, 2018
•Staff presented 3 alternatives
•Council feedback:
1) Concerns for creek and ag impacts
2) Limited transportation potential
3) Security concerns
ATC Recommendation: Recommended alternative 1 but
believed other alts needed to be studied
Directed staff to evaluate a new alternative along LOVR
Concerns with
of other
Alternatives
•Indirect and less
intuitive routes
•Low potential for
transportation use
•Significant creek or
agricultural impacts
•Security concerns
•Design challenges
5
6
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
4
Project Study
Report
Alt 4: Los Osos Valley Rd Alignment
Froom Ranch Specific
Plan Area
7
8
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
5
Alternative 4 Cross Section of
LOVR (looking south)
eastside westside
•Swap the bike lane with parking lane and add cycle track
•Eastside cycle track on the curb, westside along Froom Ranch frontage at street level
•Two lanes of traffic and center turn lanes will not change
•Retain most parking where possible
9
10
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
6
Raised Cycle Track Cycle Track at
Street Level
Protected Intersection at Auto
Park Way
11
12
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
7
Alternative 4 Summary
•Cost: $ 2.89 million (other alts $2.7 ‐ $4.14 million)
•Mostly City ROW ( 6,000 sq ft for minor widening)
•Green street features and bus stop improvements
•Alignment diverts from BTP, requiring amendment
•Integrates with planned SL Ranch infrastructure
•Minimal loss of existing street parking
•All cycle tracks along LOVR (no off‐street trail)
Alternative 4 Pros
•Most direct and intuitive route
•Provide direct access to commercial services, Froom
Ranch Area, and other destinations on LOVR
•More “eyes on the street” / fewer security concerns
•Less creek and/or ag impacts than other alts
•Integrates with existing / planned infrastructure
•Increases separation for bikes/peds who already use
LOVR
•Highest potential for increasing bike/ped transportation
13
14
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
8
Alternative 4 Cons
•More conflict points
•16 driveways and an intersection
•Need for some ROW
•Potential engineering challenges with drainage,
utilities, curb realignment
•Disruptions to traffic during construction
•Less appeal as a recreational pathway
•Potential minor encroachment to wetland areas as
already identified in the Bike Plan CEQA analysis
Funding
•No new funding requested at this time
•Impact Mitigation Funding for Construction
•Target: $250,000
•San Luis Ranch: 16%
•Citywide Transportation Impact Fee: 25%
•Likely Fair Share Contribution of Froom Ranch Dev
15
16
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
9
Concurrence
ATC (May 16, 2019): Unanimously recommended Alt 4 due
to the direct route and likelihood of increasing bicycling and
walking for transportation purposes.
Natural Resources Manager: preliminary assessment is that
while all alternatives have riparian or agricultural
encroachment, Alt 4 appears to be the least impactful.
Staff Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution amending the Bicycle Transportation Plan
(BTP) and an addendum to the BTP Initial Study / Negative
Declaration changing the alignment and classification of this
segment of the Bob Jones Trail to an on-street cycle track
along Los Osos Valley Road from Calle Joaquin to Froom
Ranch Way
17
18
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
10
7
Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3 Alignment 4
(new)
Bike Path Length .48 mile .52 mile .7 mile x
Bike Lane Length .23 mile .23 mile x x
Shared St Length .14 mile .14 mile x x
Raised Cycle
Track / Protected
Bike Lane Length
x x x .47 mile
Total Length .85 mile .89 mile .7 mile .47 mile
Total Cost
(right‐of‐way not
included)
$2.91 million $2.27 million $4.14 million $2.89 million
Alternative 1: Bike Plan Alignment
Existing Class III:
Shared Lane .14 mile
Existing Class II Bike
lane: .23 mile
New Class I Bike
Path: .48 mile
19
20
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
11
Alternative 1
•Enviro Permitting: Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Cal Fish & Wildlife approvals
•Expected Enviro Doc: MND
•Permit Timing: 4 to 6 months
•Total Length: .85 miles (.48 mi off street)
Estimated Cost: $2.92 million
PROS:
•Least conflict with
vegetation/creek
•Only one bridge
•No ROW needed
•Cost is 30% lower
than most expensive
alt
•Least concerns for
security and
enforcement
•Full City Design
Standards possible
CONS:
•Middle length alt
•Lower bike/ped
mode share
expected
•Least riparian
experience
•Potential agriculture
impact
Alternative 1: PROS and CONS
21
22
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
12
Alternative 2: Ag Master Plan Alignment
New Class I Bike
Path: .52 mile
Existing Class II
Bike Lane: .23 mile
Existing Class III
Shared Lane: .14
mile
Alternative 2
•Enviro Permitting: (Same as Alt 1)
•Expected Enviro Doc: (Same as Alt 1)
•Permit Timing: 4‐6 months (Same as Alt 1)
•Total Length: .89 miles (.52 mi off street)
Estimated Cost: $2.27 million
23
24
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
13
PROS:
•Low conflict with
vegetation/creek
and terrain
•Only one bridge
•No ROW needed
•Lowest Cost
•Riparian experience
CONS:
•Bifurcate agriculture
operations
•Awkward alignment
next to BMW
dealership
•Lower bike/ped
mode share
expected
•Concern for security
and enforcement
along creek
Alternative 2: PROS and CONS
Alternative 3: Ag Plan Hybrid
New Class I Bike
Path or Class IV Bike
Lane: .7 mile
25
26
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
14
Alternative 3
•Enviro Permitting: Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish
& Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board
•Expected Enviro Doc: EIR
•Permit Timing: 1 ½ years
•Two bridges
•Total Length: .7 miles ( all Class I / Class IV)
Estimated Cost: $4.14 million (not including ROW)
Alternative 3: Pros and Cons PROS:
•Most direct route
•Highest expectation
for bike/ped mode
increase
•Most riparian
experience
•Does not bisect
agricultural
operations
CONS:
•Concern for security
and enforcement
along creek
•Highest cost
•Most impact to creek
and vegetation
•Two bridges
•Not meet City design
standards (state
standards met)
•ROW needed
•Higher vegetation
maintenance
27
28
9/3/2019 Item 17 ‐ Staff Presentation
15
Calle Joaquin Agricultural Reserve
Bike Plan Amendment
•Since project not identified in Plan an amendment
required
•Addendum to Bike Plan CEQA document
Project not project any new impacts not previously
identified in Bike Plan
•Enviro Permitting: US Army Corp, US Fish & Wildlife,
Regional Water Quality Control Board
•Expected Enviro Doc: MND / EIR
•Permit Timing: up to 1 ½ years
•Total Length: .47 miles
Estimated Cost: $2.89 million (not including ROW)
29
30