In summary, the City must treat tonight’s hearing as one of the five allowable hearings under Government Code section 65905.5. Based on the staff materials, we understand that the City has already conducted at least three qualifying hearings on this project, thus any tonight’s meet will constitute the fourth hearing on this project regardless of whether the City continues it or holds the appeal hearing as requested by three of the four interest parties (i.e., two appellants and the Project applicant).
We appreciate you advising the Council of this interpretation at the meeting tonight so they can understand the effect of a potential continuance on processing this application.
Best,
Mack Carlson
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1485 tel
[email protected]
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
From: Guillen, Christopher R. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 6:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Carlson, Mack <[email protected]>; Russ Sheppel <[email protected]>; Isaac Rosen <[email protected]>; Scott Martin <[email protected]>; Linda Blackbern <[email protected]>; Malone, Caitlin K. <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26- 002
Dear Mayor Russom and members of the City Council,
We understand the Appellants for this item on the City Council meeting agenda tomorrow have requested a 30-day continuance of the hearing because they allegedly only received the staff report for the hearing on Friday afternoon “with only one business day of notice before the hearing.” In addition to the fact that this statement is inaccurate—the agenda and staff materials were publicly available on Thursday afternoon, a full five full days
before the hearing consistent with AGMC 1.12.030 —we have reviewed the letter requesting the continuance and see no legal basis to grant the continuance.
The basis for the request amounts to a complaint about the normal land use appeal process that affords the Appellants and Project applicant all the due process required by law. As with any land use appeal, Appellants submitted their written grounds for appeal after the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, City staff responded to the appeal in their staff report, which was posted and made publicly available beyond the time required by the Brown Act (i.e., 72 hours), and now Appellants and the Project applicant will be allowed to present to this Council tomorrow evening. In fact, the Project team has already provided their response to the Appellants as well, giving Appellants ample notice of the issues. Appellants’ frustration about only finding the staff report on Friday is not grounds for an appeal; rather, it is a request to be treated differently than all other appellants that have come before this Council. Indeed, it is telling that the law firm that submitted the request on behalf of Appellants cites no law requiring such a continuance.
Granting a continuance on this matter would establish a dangerous precedent by allowing any appellant to delay any project based on solely on the Appellants’ inaction and inattention.
The request also claims that Appellants’ ignorance of the Housing Accountability Act is justification for the continuance. That is an absurd request and if granted would set additional dangerous precedent for the City.
This precedent is acutely problematic for housing development projects where the Legislature has created various statutory deadlines and penalties to agencies that delay action on housing projects. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 65956 [a project is “deemed approved” without a hearing if an agency misses a deadline]; 65589.5(h)(6)(B), (E), (K) [failing to meet certain deadlines means the agency has “disapproved a housing development project”].) For example, if granted, any time a project opponent appeals a project in the future, the opponent can claim ignorance of the law as a grounds for a continuance request to achieve the desired delay of the project. That cannot be the policy the City intends to create.
Finally, Appellants ask for “immediate access to the basic administrative record” for the Project. However, Appellants have not submitted a formal Public Records Act request for such documents and there is no obligation for
staff to produce that record absent such a request. Moreover, none of these records are relevant for the appeal before the Council since—as noted by the Appellants in their letter—the Planning Commission already heard Appellants’ arguments at the January 20, 2026 meeting and rejected them by unanimously approving the Project as consistent with the applicable City standards. Staff providing additional legal bases to support the Planning Commission’s determination and refute Appellants’ contentions is hardly grounds to delay the hearing.
For each of these reasons, this Council should deny the continuance request and hold the hearing on Appellants’ appeal tomorrow. In considering the continuance request, we request the opportunity to provide public comment on this matter as well.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
Chris
Christopher R. Guillen
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1452 tel
909.518.8435 cell
[email protected]
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
From: Malone, Caitlin K. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 11:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Guillen, Christopher R. <[email protected]>; Carlson, Mack <[email protected]>; Russ Sheppel < >; Isaac Rosen
<[email protected]>
Subject: Correspondence re 3/24/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 10a - Appeal Case 26-002 Good morning,
Please see attached letter from Chris Guillen’s office on behalf of Russell Sheppel. This pertains to Item 10a on the agenda for tomorrow’s City Council meeting, Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location – 1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants
– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC and Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust.
Caitlin K. Malone
Legal Practice Assistant
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805.882.1462 tel
[email protected]
WE HAVE MOVED: Our new address is: 1020 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303) 223- 1300 and delete the message. Thank you.
professionals enter and leave the lot all day long, not to mention the frequent street construction/maintenance crews making it more dangerous. There is no parking on the street, nor should there be as it limits visibility. I do not care how many parking spaces that huge development will allot, it will NEVER be enough since most families typically have 2 to three cars. This is way too big a development for this cramped area! The residents of our area will be shouldering the traffic and noise problems that colossal, eye sore HASLO building at the 101 frwy. and Oak Park will bring, yet you ask us to approve another one in the immediate area. This is ruining our city, not enhancing it.
Nobody is disputing the need for housing. But with all the open acreage in Arroyo Grande, find somewhere else more logical to put this and please everyone.
Michele Norwood
Arroyo Grande
Michele
From: MICHELE NORWOOD <
Date: March 26, 2026 at 2:01:01 PM PDT
To: Kate Secrest <[email protected]>
Subject: Ccreekside
Dear Council Members,
The newly proposed, massive Creekside Junction development proposed for James Way and Oak Park Blvd. is poorly thought out. I hope that you will all consider this when it comes time to vote.
As you know, the parking situation on that corridor is already at capacity with days of obvious overflow. I can’t ever get a space for my doctor appointments though they have specifically designated spaces for their office. Getting around the daily congestion at that intersection is always an accident waiting to happen as gym members and ATTACHMENT 9
A Collaborative Path Forward: I support responsible housing growth. My request is simply that the project be reduced in size or redesigned to ensure: adequate on‑site parking for new residents; preservation of existing parking for medical and fitness facilities; safe, unobstructed emergency‑vehicle access; and protection of the red‑legged frog habitat and creek ecosystem.
These adjustments would allow the project to move forward in a way that supports housing needs while maintaining safety, accessibility, and environmental stewardship.
Thank you for your time and for considering these concerns ahead of Tuesday’s vote. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further or participate in any community meetings related to the project.
Warm regards,
Catherine Farley
Grover Beach, CA 93433
Sent from my Subject Subject
From: Edwin Rambuski
To: Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie Cc: Jessica Matson
Subject: Appeal Case 26-002-Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of CUP 25-001 Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 1:22:35 PM
Attachments: Bunnell 04-01-26 Sheppel.pdf
April 9, 2026
VIA EMAIL ONLY:
[email protected]
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jamie Maraviglia, Mayor Pro Tem,
District 3 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Kate Secrest, District 1 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Aileen Loe, District 2 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
[email protected]
Jim Guthrie, District 4 Council Member
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
RE: APPEAL CASE 26-002-APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CUP 25-001
Dear Mayor Russom and Honorable Members of the City Council:
Please find attached, for inclusion in the record for this matter, an email dated April 1, 2026, from the Applicant, Russ Sheppel, to Ray Bunnell, owner of Casa Grande Inn. I respectfully request that this correspondence be included as part of the official record.
I also trust that Mr. Sheppel will address, at the April 14 hearing, his plans regarding the “potential modifications and reduction in the building overall volume,” as referenced in his email.
Thank you for your continued professional courtesy and cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
EDWIN J. RAMBUSKI
EJR:knb
Attachment
cc: Client via email
Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services / City Clerk --
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J.
Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to [email protected] and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
From: Russ Sheppel <
Date: Wed, Apr 1, 2026 at 3:42 PM
Subject: 2 Parking studies
To: ray bunnell
Ray,
It was indeed a pleasure speaking with you last week. I appreciate you picking up the phone and giving me a call. I really enjoyed hearing all about the amazing rodeo program at Cal Poly. I truly had no idea! As promised, I am sending you a copy of two parking studies performed within the past month. I hope you find them revealing as I did, of the main issue being onsite management of the parking. We need help there. The site actually appears to have sufficient parking inventory even at peak demands.
Also, I appreciated understanding that it is your preference to have a rolling gate actually function at our mutual property line. I agree. I didn’t realize that your existing gate is manual, and once I understood that, it is easy to see why it is always open. What would you think if we used the existing rolling gate, installed a motor and dual keypads, running the electrical off the corner of Casa Grande? I think it could also be solar if we wanted. We could place the motor on a small pad in the dogleg on my side if you want. I have a separate agreement with you regarding all this that is tied to my existing Grading Permit GRA 20-0003 which is current and active, so we wouldn’t have to incur any excessive costs.
As I mentioned, I am reviewing potential modifications and reduction in the building overall volume but cannot go into much detail until we get past April 14th hearing.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss and communicate as needed more freely in the future. You certainly are a local SLO developer/expert without question.
Give a shout out to Edwin Rambuski, you probably will float some of these ideas by him and get back to me with your thoughts. I have nothing against attorneys, but to the extent we can deal directly, that would be my preference.
Best,
Russ Sheppel
From: Curl Fitness Arroyo Grande
To: City Council; Jessica Matson; Aileen Loe; Jamie Maraviglia; Jim Guthrie; Kate Secrest Subject: Creekside Junction application
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 1:36:21 PM
Hello Council,
Please see the attached map.
This map and application was presented to the Planning Commission and was online (& is logo'd RRM Design Group) with false information.
I was present in front of the Planning Commission when Russ Sheppel's application was being presented in a Public Hearing and I informed The Commission that Russ does not have a "Parking Agreement With Church", he knows that he doesnt and he also doesn't have first parking rights to a number of areas he was presenting as the "98" parking spots that the City deemed necessary for this project. The Planning Commission approved the application anyways. I understand that they may not have had proof then that it was misinformation & falsified data. However, the Church presented at the last Public Hearing and stated for the record that Russ was aware that he has no parking agreement with them, confirmed there is no parking being made available to him in their parking lot for any reason: proposed tenants, lay down area, or construction for this project. IF the City was to approve this further, wouldn't it open the City up to lengthy and costly lawsuits and in-turn us citizens incurring some of the cost of those lawsuits? Based on the fact that the Planning Commission & Council now know he falsified information and it's been confirmed. We don't know what else there is that has been presented that is inaccurate.
I am curious why this wouldn't be grounds for the Planning Commission and/or Council to revoke the approval and require Russ Sheppel re-apply with accurate/honest information and data?
Thank you for your time and any information you can share regarding this.
Catherine Judge
General Manager
Curl Fitness-Arroyo Grande
1299 James Way
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
(805)481-2888 ext.305
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Jessica Matson, Director of Legislative & Information Services/ City Clerk
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information
Agenda Item 10.a – April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting
Supplemental Report for Rescheduled Appeal Case 26-002; Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001; Location–1271 & 1281 James Way; Appellants– Pismo Medical Properties LLC, Arroyo Grande Partners LLC, Ray B Bunnell Revocable Trust
DATE: April 10, 2026
Attached is correspondence received for the above referenced Item.
Cc: City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Interim Community Development Director
City Attorney
City Clerk
City Website and Public Review Binder
Enc
From: Edwin Rambuski
To: Caren Ray Russom; Jamie Maraviglia; Kate Secrest; Aileen Loe; Jim Guthrie; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson
Cc: City Council
Subject: Appeal Case 26-002, Hearing on 4-14-26, Item 10.a Date: Friday, April 10, 2026 2:23:59 PM
Attachments: Bunnell letter to Council 04-10-26.pdf
Please include the attached letter as part of the record for the hearing on April 14, 2026, regarding Item 10.a.
--
Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski
1401 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Tel.: (805) 546-8284
Fax: (805) 546-8489
www.rambuskilaw.com
Not intended as a substitute for a writing. Notwithstanding the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act or the applicability of any other law of similar substance or effect, absent an express statement to the contrary hereinabove, this email message, its contents, and any attachments hereto are not intended to represent an offer or acceptance to enter into a contract and are not otherwise intended to bind the sender, Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski, any of its clients, or any other person or entity.
This email message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Law Offices of Edwin J. Rambuski immediately by telephone at (805) 546-8284 or by email to [email protected] and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
From: Alexis Aguirre
To: public comment; City Council; Matt Downing; Jessica Matson; Bill Robeson Cc: Linda Somers Smith
Subject: Public Comment for April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting Date: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:12:57 PM
Attachments: Public Comment - AG City Council.pdf
Good afternoon,
Please find attached Public Comment for April 14, 2026, City Council Meeting Agenda Item
10.a (Public Hearing) - Appeal Case 26-002 – Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-001 (Creekside Junction, 1271 & 1281 James Way) to add to record.
The attachments referenced can be found using the ShareFile link below:
https://ammcglaw.sharefile.com/d-sd6e39caa74e44f40836f5bb45d7f3019 Thank you,
Alexis Aguirre | Legal Secretary
Adamski Moroski Madden Cumberland & Green
All Mail: PO Box 3835, San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835
Location | Deliveries: 6633 Bay Laurel Place, Avila Beach, CA 93424 Phone: (805) 543-0990 | Fax: (805) 543-0980
www.ammcglaw.com
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by the reply email and destroy all copies and the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN
CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Post Office Box 3835 San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990 F 805-543-0980 www.ammcglaw.com
[email protected] 805-592-2785
April 10, 2026
SUBMITTED AS PUBLIC COMMENT – ADD TO RECORD
City of Arroyo Grande City Council
300 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: PUBLIC COMMENT for April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 10.a (Public Hearing) - Appeal Case 26-002 – Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Conditional Use Permit 25- 001 (Creekside Junction, 1271 & 1281 James Way)
Dear Mayor Pro Tem Maraviglia, and Members of the City Council (Secrest, Loe, Guthrie):
I submit this written public comment in support of Pismo Medical Properties LLC (and aligned appellants) regarding ongoing concerns with the above referenced Creekside Junction project. The only outcome ensuring public safety is granting Appellant’s Case 26-002 in full, reversing the Planning Commission’s January 20, 2026 approval, and denying Conditional Use Permit 25-001 (“CUP 25-001”).
We appreciate your difficult role as public servants, especially given ambiguities of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA, Gov. Code § 65589.5). However, HAA does not eliminate de novo review or the mandatory exception for specific, adverse, unmitigable impacts on public health and safety. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j)(1) and (f)(1)(B)). Denial is authorized and required here.
This is the final HAA hearing, so it cannot go back and ask for safety issues to be fixed. The Council must review the full record de novo and vote to approve or deny. The project proposes 92 multi-family units (20 studios, 58 one-bedrooms, and 14 two-bedrooms; 15% very-low-income) on a 1.81-acre car-dependent site with limited transit and adjacent to medical offices serving an aging population and Meadow Creek open space.
It relies on a density-bonus concession reducing parking to ~98 spaces (31 dedicated one-car garages + ~67 surface/shared, including 18 contested with the adjacent Best Western). The record — including the applicant’s March 24, 2026 letter, 2024 ATE Traffic and Circulation Study (claiming 91 spaces for 93 units), March 2026 Parking Study (inconsistent 96–196 claims), Rolling Gate/grading plan, 2000 Reciprocal Access and Easement Agreement (Doc. No. 2000-030755), 2008 Amendment (Doc. No. 2008- 043791), 2004 OEG monitoring reports, and recent site photos, demonstrates that shared parking and access are speculative and unenforceable.
No executed agreements or new recorded easements exist with the Best Western hotel, Kennedy Athletic Club (successors), medical plaza owners, or other holders. Building B sits directly within the historically encumbered southeasterly portion of Parcel 3 of PM AG 95-108 (Area 2 per 2000 Agreement Exhibits F/G, granted to Kennedy for access/parking). The 2008 Amendment allows limited reconfiguration/replacement in Area E (with obligations for equivalent non-exclusive spaces, Master Plan cooperation via Exhibit J, and Sheppel bearing gate costs) but does not modify or release Area 2. The proposed layout and rolling gate do not designate verified replacements. The separate Bunnell/Best Western easement (minimum 18-ft wide, no obstruction by structures/overhangs, primary rights with towing) requires cooperation the applicant lacks.
My client is not suggesting that the Council resolve private easement disputes (a civil matter). Instead, to recognize the resulting specific, adverse, unmitigable public safety impacts, already acknowledged by the City since 2004 and raised in public comments. These render the parking analyses unreliable and guarantee chronic spillover.
Impacts, based on objective standards in effect on the July 29, 2025 completeness date (i.e., CA Fire Code; Vehicle Code §22500.1; General Plan Safety Element Policies S3-1, S3-4, S5-1, S5-2, and S5-4 (referenced in the Preliminary Public Review Draft - November 2025 as SAF-1.4, SAF-4.1, SAF-4.4, SAF-6); Circulation and Active Transportation Plan on high-stress corridors/pedestrian/bike safety; and project conditions requiring unobstructed fire lanes), include the following:
1. Impeded Emergency Vehicle Access and Fire Code Violations: Spillover onto James Way (collector street) and Oak Park Boulevard will reduce clear widths below 20-ft minimum fire apparatus access. Adjacent medical offices and Curl Fitness serve elderly patients with frequent EMS calls (per prior testimony and 2004 OEG reports documenting overflow/tenant conflicts). Blocked drop-off zones, driveways, and the new rolling gate will delay response in a single-access/evacuation area. Recent hotel "permission only/tow" markings and post-study blocking/fencing exacerbate this. These are quantifiable and unavoidable.
2. Heightened Vehicle-Pedestrian and Vehicle-Vehicle Conflicts: James Way/Oak Park Boulevard are identified as high-stress corridors (General Plan/Active Transportation Plan). No dedicated secure bicycle storage (residents must carry bikes up four stories — a hazard, especially for seniors/mobilityimpaired; impractical in a bike-friendly community). Spillover increases backing maneuvers, sight-line issues, and conflicts on streets lacking buffers/crossings. No feasible pedestrian connection over wetlands/ownership limits.
3. Inconsistent and Unreliable Parking Studies: ATE studies contradict each other and ignore historical deficiencies (plaza already code-short). Studies conducted on lighter-use days (e.g., Tuesday), before fencing/blocking where Building B is proposed, and before recent hotel restrictions removing shared spaces (see attached March 23, 2026 photo showing overflow and red-circled restricted area). "Mitigation" via signage/towing is speculative without enforceable rights.
These impacts are specific and adverse under HAA: based on objective standards; cannot be mitigated by conditions, as the parking/access foundation is unreliable. The Planning Commission’s "not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare" finding lacks support by preponderance of the full record. Density-bonus and AB 130 CEQA exemption do not override the independent HAA safety mandate. (AB 130 exemption is questionable: eastern boundary abuts natural Meadow Creek open space, failing urban infill/perimeter criteria.)
The staff report’s reliance on "deemed complete" lock-in and code compliance via concessions does not preclude de novo safety review. Later waivers do not cure inconsistencies. The applicant cannot base the application on rights it does not demonstrably hold (e.g., emergency access/fire lanes, shared parking) while conditions of approval require unobstructed access.
I respectfully request the Council adopt the attached sample resolution (or a substantially similar resolution), upholding the appeal, reversing the approval, and denying CUP 25-001 on specific adverse, unmitigable public health and safety impacts.
Respectfully submitted,
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN
CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP
LINDA SOMERS SMITH
Attachments: https://ammcglaw.sharefile.com/d-sa9bbeac9cf434e2c997b84e888cb9855 March 23, 2026 parking photo (with red highlight);
2000/2008 easement documents;
2004 OEG reports;
ATE studies excerpts;
Site plans (Sheet A2, Rolling Gate);
General Plan Safety/Circulation excerpts;
Sample resolution
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 1 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:44 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 2 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:44 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 3 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:45 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 4 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:45 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 5 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:46 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 6 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:46 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 7 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:46 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 8 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:47 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 9 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:47 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 10 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:48 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 11 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:48 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 12 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:48 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 13 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:49 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 14 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:49 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 15 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:50 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 16 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:50 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 17 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:50 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
Branch :F41,User :AT02 Comment: Station Id :HMIV
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA Page 18 of 18 Printed on 8/9/2012 4:30:51 PM Document: EAS AGR 2008.43791
EXHIBIT E
Item 9.a. - Page 123
Item 9.a. - Page 124
Item 9.a. - Page 125
Item 9.a. - Page 126
Item 9.a. - Page 127
Item 9.a. - Page 128
Item 9.a. - Page 129
Item 9.a. - Page 130
Item 9.a. - Page 131
Item 9.a. - Page 132
Item 9.a. - Page 133
Item 9.a. - Page 134
Item 9.a. - Page 135
SE - 1
SAFETY ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
This Safety Element has two basic principles:
· be ready for disaster, and
· manage development to reduce risk.
The first part of this element addresses the first premise – emergency preparedness. Most natural disasters will require the combined efforts of our emergency service providers.
The remaining sections of the element describe various types of disasters, focusing principally on fire, flood and geologic hazards. The purpose of these sections is to describe the physical effects of the disaster and provide standards for reducing the risk of exposure to the hazards. When distilled, the rules are quite simple: build above the floodwaters, where the fire fuel is low, and on stable ground.
Residents of the City of Arroyo Grande are subject to a variety of natural and human-caused hazards.
Natural hazards are processes such as earthquakes, landslides, flooding, and wildfires, and have been occurring for thousands, even millions of years. These natural processes have played an essential role in shaping the topography and landscape of Arroyo Grande, and become “hazards” when they disrupt or otherwise affect the lives and property of people. Human-caused hazards often occur as a result of modern activities and technologies. These potential hazards can include the use of hazardous materials, and buildings that may be unsafe during a strong earthquake.
To minimize loss from hazards, resources must be committed. While it would be desirable for communities to provide the maximum level of safety from all potential hazards, this is generally not feasible. Therefore, hazard reduction efforts are often based on the concept of risk reduction. Risk that is associated with natural and human-caused hazards can be separated into three general categories for the purposes of this element:
Acceptable Risk. This is the level of risk below which no specific action by government is deemed to be necessary to further reduce the consequences of a hazard.
Unacceptable Risk. This is the level of risk above which specific action by government is deemed necessary to protect life and property.
Avoidable Risk. This is a hazardous risk that can be averted while still achieving the individual or public objective.
In making land use decisions, the severity and the probability of loss should be considered.
The Safety Element is one of several Elements that comprise the General Plan. Section 65300.5 of the California Government Code requires the General Plan and its Elements to be “an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies...”
The Safety Element is closely linked to the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element designates the general distribution of land uses within the planning area, as well as standards for population density and building intensity. To avoid unreasonable public risk, the Land Use Element takes into account the public safety hazard identification and evaluation in the Safety Element.
By limiting development density in areas that may be subject to significant geologic and other safety hazards, the risk of loss of life and property can be minimized. One of the purposes of the Open Space Element is to preserve open space for public health and safety, including areas that require special management and regulation because of hazardous or special conditions (e.g., earthquake fault zones, flood plains, unstable soil areas, and high fire risk areas).
SE - 2
The Safety Element provides a general evaluation of potential public safety hazards in the City. The hazard identification and evaluation is based on general information available at the time of the Element’s preparation. No site-specific evaluations were performed for this Element.
The Safety Element is intended to be used for general land use planning purposes only, and should be used to identify where detailed site investigations should be required for new development.
Legal Requirements for Preparing a Safety Element
The Safety and Seismic Safety Elements first became mandatory parts of the General Plan in 1975 requiring cities and counties to adopt, at a minimum, General Plan policies relating to fire safety, flooding, and geologic hazards. In 1984 the State Legislature expanded the list of mandatory issues that were to be evaluated in the Safety Element to provide the direction and resources to help reduce death, injuries, property and environmental damage, and the economic and social dislocation resulting from natural hazards. While it is required to focus on fire, flooding, geologic, and seismic hazards, jurisdictions may address any relevant safety issues that are considered important.
To make land use decisions that minimize the potential for loss of life, injury, and property damage from natural and human-caused hazards, it is necessary to have an understanding of the causes and potential effects of the hazards that may affect the City of Arroyo Grande.
In the following sections, several components appear regularly:
Preparedness. The element begins with this as a separate topic. Each subsequent area has a preparedness component. It is essential to maintain our ability to respond to natural and man-made disasters.
Education. An informed citizenry will carry on their activities in a way that reduces the potential for disaster to occur or be exacerbated and will be better equipped to deal with disasters when they occur.
Existing Env ironment. The built environment can be improved to reduce the threat of disaster.
This is geared mostly towards improving structures and their surroundings.
Land Use Planning. Future development should always be planned with careful consideration toward reducing the threat of property and environmental loss. While many considerations are involved in development, safety should be paramount.
Each section contains some or all of the following components:
Objective. This is the desired end state or condition that we would like to achieve.
Policy. This defines the approach to achieving objectives.
Implementation Measures. These are specific actions the City or other interested parties should take. They take the form of standards (regulatory mechanisms) or programs (other advisory actions that are not regulatory).
SE - 3
1. Emergency Preparedness
OBJECTIVE S1 Attain a high level of emergency preparedness.
Emergency preparedness is necessary to avoid or minimize the loss of life and property as a result of natural and technological disasters, to reduce the social, cultural, environmental and economic costs of disasters, and to assist and encourage the rapid recovery from disasters. An important part of preparedness is the careful assessment of risks before an emergency occurs. San Luis Obispo County’s Emergency Response Zones are illustrated in Map 8 of the Technical Background Report.
Policy S1-1 Response
Support the response programs that provide emergency and other services to the public when a disaster occurs. The focus of response activities is saving lives and preventing injury, and reducing immediate property damage.
Implementation Measures:
Program S1-1.1 Support efforts of and provide funding to the City Fire Department to ensure the readiness of response teams and the smooth implementation of emergency response plans.
Program S1-1.2 Work before disasters occur to make sure there are few or no bureaucratic obstacles to performing emergency operations. Support efforts to ensure local agency compliance with the Standardized Emergency Management System, an emergency response and coordination system used throughout California.
Program S1-1.3 Establish a program that will reduce the time and effort required to get permits necessary to perform emergency repair work. To the extent that it can be done beforehand, provide the Engineering Department with sufficient resources to procure permitting assistance. (For example, work in riparian corridors may require permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish & Game, and perhaps the Army Corps of Engineers.)
Policy S1-2 Emergency Preparedness
Continue to improve preparedness programs that educate and organize people to respond appropriately to disasters. They include education and awareness programs for individuals, families, institutions, businesses, government agencies and other organizations.
Implementation Measures:
Program S1-2.1 Support education in the schools that teaches our children how to avoid dangers and how to behave during an emergency.
Program S1-2.2 Support the efforts of many organizations that provide emergency outreach and education programs to the region.
Policy S1-3 Coordination
Improve coordination among City, County and State programs, and among others working to reduce the risks of disasters. This should also include improved coordination with the news media. This will result in more effective preparedness, response and recovery from disasters.
Implementation Measure:
Program S1-3.1 Continue to improve information transfer to the media during emergencies. Official liaisons should meet with media representatives on a regular basis to improve coordination.
SE - 4
Program S1-3.2 Review studies predicting the impacts of earthquake and flood emergencies on facilities and roadways. Develop revised evacuation routes as necessary.
Policy S1-4 Information Systems and Research
Expand and keep current the database of safety related information. Knowledge about disasters and the area we live in is growing. New information must be made available to the public and decision makers.
Regularly update the County’s geographic information system (GIS) as new information becomes available.
Implementation Measures:
Program S1-4.1 Work with the County to maintain a Geographic Information System (GIS) that includes the data layers of this safety element. Continue to build the GIS with additional information as it becomes available.
Program S1-4.2 Seek from other government, academic and private organizations new data that can be used for emergency preparedness and response. Endeavor to share information with other nearby jurisdictions, news media and with private and public organizations.
Program S1-4.3 Revise the City’s Emergency Plan, required by the California Emergency Services Act, according to the policies and projections in the General Plan. The City’s emergency services agencies should review their responsibilities and capabilities in light of this revision, and consider the potential for over-reliance on mutual-aid agreements during disasters.
Policy S1-5 Risk Assessment
Continue investigations and programs that reduce or eliminate long-term risks. Ensure that new development in the City is designed to withstand natural and manmade hazards to acceptable levels of risk. Risk assessment activities, effectively carried out, can improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of response and recovery from disasters.
Implementation Measures:
Program S1-5.1 Structural Committee. Maintain a County-wide committee of building professionals who review City regulations, building code updates and other information in order to maintain the currency of our codes and procedures.
Program S1-5.2 Develop additional training for building and safety personnel to keep up with current knowledge.
Program S1-5.3 Revise the City’s building regulations to incorporate all safety requirements called out in the General Plan. All new construction, especially public facilities, in the City should be built according to the adopted Building and Fire Codes.
Program S1-5.4 Identify structures not conforming with earthquake, fire or flood standards, and require conformance with acceptable levels of risk through programs such as structural rehabilitation, occupancy reduction, and demolition and reconstruction.
Critical Facilities
These are structures and services that provide emergency assistance after a major disaster. They include police and fire stations, schools, hospitals and roadways that are designated evacuation routes.
Policy S1-6 Critical Facilities, Recovery and Reconstruction After a major disaster, assist public and private efforts that must be made for short-term and long-term rebuilding, the provision of housing for those displaced, resumption of services, and resumption of business and government functions. In order to make this effort effective, critical facilities must be maintained and upgraded as technology and population demands increase.
SE - 5
Implementation Measures:
Program S1-6.1 Provide comprehensive assistance to all agencies and organizations involved in disaster recovery through planning, engineering and funding. Maintain critical facilities for responsiveness to disasters.
Program S1-6.2 The City’s Headquarters Fire Station and City Hall are located in portions of the historic Village Core that may be damaged or destroyed by natural hazards such as flooding, or more catastrophic dam failure inundation. These critical facilities should be relocated.
SE - 6
2. Water Hazards
OBJECTIVE S-2: Reduce damage to structures and the danger to life caused by flooding, dam failure inundation, and other water hazards.
Exposure of the public to water-related hazards can result from flooding, dam failure, and erosion.
Dam failure inundation would result from the sudden failure of a dam and the release of the impounded water. Although it is very unlikely that a large modern dam would suddenly fail, the effects of this hazard could be catastrophic. Therefore, this hazard is evaluated in this chapter.
Flood Hazards
Flooding generally occurs in response to heavy rainfall events when streams, rivers, and drainage channels overtop their banks. Flooding may also occur in low-lying areas that have poor drainage, even during moderately sized storms. Many factors can increase the severity of floods, including fires in watershed areas, the placement of structures or fill material in flood-prone areas and areas of tidal influence, and increased runoff that results from the development of impervious surfaces such as roadways and rooftops. For planning purposes, the flood event most often used to delineate areas subject to flooding is the 100-year flood. This is an event that statistically has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. Areas within the 100-year flood plain in San Luis Obispo County are indicated in Map 5 of the Technical Background Report.
Areas of potential 100-year flooding in Arroyo Grande include portions of the creek channels that traverse the City: Canyon/Meadow Creek on the west side of the City, Corbett Canyon, Tally Ho and Arroyo Grande Creeks on the east side of the City, and Los Berros Creek in the southeastern portion of the City.
Although inundation areas are generally located along creek channels, adjacent properties could be adversely affected in isolated areas. Near the convergence of Corbett Canyon and Arroyo Grande Creeks, the 100-year floodplain widens and impacts properties between Crown Terrace and Mason Streets. The floodplain along Arroyo Grande Creek also widens slightly on the north and south sides of Highway 101.
Policy S2-1 Flood Hazards
Strictly enforce flood hazard regulations both current and revised. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations and other requirements for the placement of structures in flood plains shall be followed. Maintain standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas.
Implementation Measures:
Standard S2-1.1 Discourage development, particularly critical facilities, in areas of high flood hazard potential. Do not allow development within areas designated as the 100-year flood plain that would obstruct flood flow or be subject to flood damage. Do not allow development which will create or worsen known flood or drainage problems.
Standard S2-1.2 Discourage single road access into areas that could be closed during floods. Additional access ways should be planned to develop areas having only one access.
Standard S2-1.3 Review development plans for construction of structures in low-lying areas, or any area which may pose a serious drainage or flooding condition. Susceptibility to damage from flooding should be determined based on the 100-year flood.
SE - 7
Policy S2-2 Reduce Flood Damage
Reduce flood damage in areas of the City known to be prone to flooding.
Implementation Measures:
Program S2-2.1 Inventory and reevaluate where appropriate known local flood prone areas in the City. Develop a prioritized list of proposed capital improvement projects for lowlying, flood prone areas.
Program S2-2.2 Seek funding to implement capital improvement projects for low-lying, flood prone areas.
Program S2-2.3 When reviewing proposals for potential development of water reservoirs, retention ponds, or drainage channels, require an evaluation of potential inundation areas and design proven to withstand potential seismic activity.
Dam Inundation
Dam inundation is the flooding of lands due to release of impounded water resulting from the failure or overtopping of a dam. Although the probability of this type of hazard occurring is highly unlikely, it warrants consideration in the Safety Element because there are several dams and reservoirs in San Luis Obispo County. Those areas with potential for dam inundation are indicated in Map 6 of the Technical Background Report.
Dam failures can result from a number of natural or human causes. Earthquakes, improper siting, fast rising flood waters, erosion of the dam face or foundation, and structural/construction flaws can all contribute to a dam breach and ensuing release of impounded water. Other reservoir-related flooding events have resulted from massive, fast-moving landslides that have displaced large volumes of water contained in a reservoir. Such a rapid displacement of water can cause large quantities of water to travel over the dam, resulting in downstream flooding.
The severity of downstream effects resulting from a dam failure will be directly related to the manner in which the dam fails. The failure of a dam could cause flooding, injury, loss of life, and property damage due to inundation, erosion, debris and sediment deposition. Other effects include damage to community infrastructure and interruption of public services. Health hazards from the release of sewage may also result.
Major Dams near Arroyo Grande
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control owns and operates Lopez Dam, which is located northeast of the City of Arroyo Grande. Lopez Reservoir has an approximate 51,000 acre-foot capacity. Lopez Dam is under the jurisdiction of the State of California Division of Safety of Dams who conduct periodic reviews to evaluate dam safety. In the event of complete failure of Lopez Dam, water would flow in a westerly direction following Arroyo Grande Creek, approximately 3,000 feet in each direction of the centerline of the creek channel. Water flows would pass through the City before reaching the Pacific Ocean, likely resulting in substantial impacts to life and property.
Policy S2-3 Dam Failure
Minimize the risk of, and those associated with, dam failure.
Implementation Measures:
Program S2-3.1 Work with appropriate agencies at the County, State and federal levels to assist with the inspection and maintenance of dams to minimize the risk of failure.
Program S2-3.2 Maintain a dam failure evacuation plan including responsibilities for public officials on emergency notification and evacuation instructions, including use of the emergency alert system to notify the public.
SE - 8
Program S2-3.3 Prohibit the development of additional critical facilities in areas of potential dam inundation areas and Program relocation of those currently in risk areas
3. Fire Safety
OBJECTIVE S-3: Reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire.
Fires can cause significant life, property and environmental losses, and can occur in both urban and rural settings. Urban fire hazards can be influenced by a variety of factors, including building location and construction characteristics, access constraints, the storage of flammable and hazardous materials, as well as inadequate supplies of fire suppression water, and response time for fire suppression personnel.
Fire-related hazards in rural areas generally result from the development of residences in hillside or other areas with dense vegetation and/or inadequate access, water supply and response time.
Fires are also an important component of the regional ecosystem. Wildlands must burn periodically to naturally maintain viable environments. Fuel maintenance (controlled burns, mowing, cattle grazing and other means) is a necessary replacement to uncontrolled wildland fires because of threats to human habitation. Development patterns in rural lands can reduce the ability to manage fuel and defend “values at risk”.
The majority of Arroyo Grande is located in a generally flat valley that has been developed with urban and agricultural uses. The northern and eastern portions of the City, however, are hilly and contain parcels that are within or adjacent to grassland and forested areas. Fire protection for the structures located within these urban/wildland interface areas may be constrained by heavy fuel loads, steep slopes, limited access, and possibly limited water supplies. Specific areas of the City identified as having potential fire suppression deficiencies are listed in the Technical Background Report, while Map 7 of the Report shows Arroyo Grande as having high fire hazard potential.
Fire suppression and prevention services within Arroyo Grande are provided by the City of Arroyo Grande Fire Department. The City’s only fire station, constructed in 1980, is located at 140 Traffic Way. The Fire Department is staffed by a fire chief, additional full-time supervisory staff and volunteer fire fighting crews. The most apparent fire hazards are generally associated with the urban/wildland interface areas of the City. City Ordinance 472 adopted the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code, with several amendments.
Policy S3-1 Pre-Fire Management
New development should be designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards, with special attention given to fuel management, adequate water supply for suppression and improved access in higher fire risk areas.
Implementation Measures:
Program S3-1.1 Identify high value and high risk areas, including urban/wildlife interface areas, and develop mitigation efforts to reduce the threat of fire.
Program S3-1.2 Require that fire safety personnel review the design of new subdivisions in high and very high fire hazard areas and require the clustering of lots or buildings as appropriate, in addition to the maintenance of defensible space around all structures and vegetation management programs.
Program S3-1.3 Require fire resistant material to be used for building construction in fire hazard areas. Require the installation of smoke detectors in all new residences.
SE - 9
Policy S3-2 Facilities, Equipment and Personnel
Ensure that adequate facilities, equipment and personnel are available to meet the demands of fire fighting in the City of Arroyo Grande.
Implementation Measures:
Program S3-2.1 Evaluate population and settlement patterns, incident trends and values at risk every five years to determine where facilities, equipment and staff need augmentation.
Program S3-2.2 Evaluate fire flow capacities and deficiencies, in relation to ISO ratings, and develop alternative remedies, if necessary.
Program S3-2.3 Cooperate with other adjoining jurisdictions including County/CDF, Pismo Beach and Grover Beach to plan for future equipment, communication systems, station and personnel requirements. The City’s Fire Department is responsible for fleet management, ensuring that future vehicle needs are identified; replacement schedules and funding mechanisms are established; maintenance and rotation schedules are developed and met. The Fire Department is responsible for communicating its needs to the City Council and the City Managers office.
Policy S3-3 Readiness and Response
Maintain and improve the Fire Department’s ability to respond to emergency calls and suppress fires throughout the City within a maximum response time of six (6) minutes.
Implementation Measures:
Program S3-3.1 Prepare and work to achieve a maximum of six (6) minutes response time goal. This maximum response time will be based upon density of development, and the value at risk contrasted with an acceptable level of risk. More concentrated urban uses should be within four (4) minutes response time.
Standard S3-3.2 Train staff and volunteer fire fighters to a level appropriate to their position and responsibilities; provide emergency medical care training and job-required specialized training; maintain and enhance training materials and instruction techniques; and provide educational incentives for all personnel.
Program S3-3.3 Work to continually improve information resources about the location of fire hazard areas response constraints and resources and other values at risk within them.
Policy S3-4 Loss Prevention
Improve structures and other values at risk to reduce the impact of fire. Regulations should be developed to improve the defensible area surrounding habitation, particularly in high risk urban/wildland interface areas or other areas with access or water supply deficiencies or beyond 6-minute response time.
Implementation Measures:
Program S3-4.1 Inform homeowners of the dangers and appropriate responses to fire and ways to prevent loss. Continue to promote the efforts of the Fire Safe Council.
Standard S3-4.2 Require a “defensible space” around structures and values at risk, able to provide fire fighter with enough room to defend structures and maneuver. Review of development plans by fire safety personnel to assure adequacy of access for equipment, water supplies, construction standards, and vegetation clearance.
Program S3-4.3 Coordinate with Public Works to ensure that sufficient water supplies are available for protection of structures, and encourage built-in fire suppression systems such as sprinklers, particularly in high risk or hi value areas.
SE - 10
4. Geologic & Seismic Hazards
OBJECTIVE S-4: Minimize the potential for loss of life and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards
Geologic conditions define the stability of the ground below a site, and how that site will respond to the natural forces of earthquakes and weather. The frequency and strength of earthquakes will depend on the activity, number and type of faults that pass through or can influence a particular region. Geologic and seismic conditions are characterized to help assess the vulnerability of development to seismic and geologic hazards.
Seismic Hazards
Arroyo Grande is located in a geologically complex and seismically active region. Seismic, or earthquakerelated, hazards have the potential to result in significant public safety risks and widespread property damage. Two of the direct effects of an earthquake that are required to be considered as part of the Safety Element include the rupture of the ground surface along the trend or location of a fault, and ground shaking that results from fault movement. Other geologic hazards that may occur in response to an earthquake include liquefaction, seismic settlement, and landslide. Other hazards, such as slope failure, flooding from a dam failure, fires, and structural hazards that may be related to earthquakes, are evaluated in separate sections of the Safety Element.
Fault Rupture Hazards
Fault rupture refers to displacement of the ground surface along a fault trace. Rupture of the ground surface along a fault trace typically occurs during earthquakes of approximately magnitude 5 or greater.
Fault rupture can endanger life and property if structures or lifeline facilities are constructed on, or cross over, a fault. Fault rupture tends to occur along or within a zone of linear traces of previous ruptures that define the fault zone, and as sympathetic movement on adjacent or intersecting faults.
The Wilmar Avenue fault is a potentially active fault adjacent to the City of Arroyo Grande. The Wilmar Avenue fault is exposed in a sea cliff in Pismo Beach, and the buried trace of the fault is inferred to strike northwest-southeast parallel and adjacent to Highway 101 beneath portions of Arroyo Grande. This potentially active fault poses a moderate potential fault rupture hazard to the City.
Additionally, the inactive Pismo fault underlies portions of Arroyo Grande. However, this inactive fault poses a very low potential fault rupture hazard to the City. Further studies to evaluate the activity of the faults are warranted, prior to placing structures near the mapped fault traces. Map 2 of the Technical Background Report shows the fault hazards in San Luis Obispo County.
Policy S4-1 Fault Information
Information on faults and geologic hazards in the City should continue to be updated. The City will enforce the General Plan and applicable building codes that require developments, structures, and public facilities to address geologic and seismic hazards through the preparation and approval of geotechnical and geologic reports.
Program S4-1.1 The City may require applicants to provide documentation (reports, technical documents, and plans) be reviewed by an independent consultant licensed with the State of California to practice in their area of expertise. In such cases, the independent consultant should review and render an opinion as to whether the documents were prepared in accordance with standard practices, applicable codes and regulations pertaining to geologic hazards.
SE - 11
Policy S4-2 Fault Rupture Hazards
Locate new development away from active and potentially active faults to reduce damage from fault rupture. Enforce applicable regulations of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act pertaining to fault zones to avoid development on active faults.
Implementation Measures:
Program S4-2.1 Require geologic studies to be performed, based on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, so that habitable structures and essential facilities will be sited away from active and potentially active faults.
Groundshaking Hazards
Groundshaking refers to the motion that occurs in response to local and regional earthquakes, and can endanger life and safety due to damage or collapse of structures or lifeline facilities. Uniform Building Code requirements set forth the minimum design and construction standards for structures to resist seismic forces. These building codes are typically updated every three years to reflect a progressive review of the performance of structures and lifelines (pipelines, roads, etc.) that have been subject to or damaged by earthquakes in the past.
The City of Arroyo Grande is near a number of active and potentially active faults capable of producing strong ground motion in response to seismic events, including Wilmar Avenue, Blind Thrust Point San Luis, Los Osos, Pecho, Hosgri, Casmalia, La Panza, and San Andreas faults. Table 4-9 in the Technical Background Report describes the sources of groundshaking in the vicinity of Arroyo Grande. With a high probability for producing a major earthquake in the near future, the San Andreas fault and offshore Hosgri faults present the most likely groundshaking to the City. Portions of Arroyo Grande that are underlain by layers of unconsolidated, recent alluvial soil material have an increased risk of experiencing the damaging effects of groundshaking.
Hazards from Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
In a strong earthquake, any type of structure may experience some level of damage resulting from ground shaking. Some types of construction materials generally perform better in earthquakes than others, and almost any material can be designed in such a manner so as to be safe during an earthquake. Buildings made of unreinforced masonry, however, typically provide little earthquake resistance. To address public safety risks posed by unreinforced masonry buildings, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 547 in 1987. This bill required local jurisdictions to identify unreinforced masonry buildings, and to develop a program to mitigate potentially hazardous structures.
To comply with SB 547, the City adopted the Uniform Code for Building Conservation. Surveys identified few unreinforced masonry buildings requiring modifications to meet earthquake resistance structural standards, most of which were located in the Village Area. The City worked closely with property owners, and through voluntary measures, minimum earthquake resistance improvements were made to all but one building.
Policy S4-3 Unreinforced Masonry Buildings
Reduce the danger to people and property from unreinforced masonry buildings.
Implementation Measure:
Program S4-3.1 Continue to identify local unreinforced masonry buildings and require reinforcement through enforcement of applicable design standards. Maintain the list of unreinforced masonry buildings.
SE - 12
Policy S4-4 Reduce Seismic Hazards
Enforce applicable building codes relating to the seismic design of structures to reduce the potential for loss of life and reduce the amount of property damage. (Also See S4-3 regarding Unreinforced Masonry Buildings)
Implementation Measures:
Program S4-4.1 Prohibit the construction of development directly astride known active or potentially active fault zones.
Program S4-4.2 Enforce applicable building code regulations pertaining to the design of structures and grading relative to seismic hazards.
Program S4-4.3 Review, amend, and adopt new Uniform Building Code requirements, when necessary, to promote the use of updated design standards.
Program S4-4.4 Encourage investigations to improve the existing characterizations of faults in areas of existing or proposed development, and their potential to generate damaging earthquakes, for the purpose of assisting in the design of structures to resist seismic loads.
Implement appropriate design standards and building codes that address local seismic conditions.
Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil strength due to a rapid increase in soil pore water pressures resulting from groundshaking during an earthquake. Seismic settlement is the reduction of volume within a saturated or unsaturated soil mass due to groundshaking during a seismic event. Seismic settlement may occur simultaneously or independent of liquefaction. Liquefaction potential, and its potential to present a hazard, can only be assessed through site-specific studies and subsurface exploration. Map 3 of the Technical Background Report identifies areas within San Luis Obispo County having high liquefaction potential. The currently adopted Uniform Building Code requires that the potential for liquefaction be assessed for the design of all structures.
The magnitude and duration of groundshaking are also important factors in causing liquefaction to occur.
The larger the earthquake magnitude, and the longer the duration of strong groundshaking, the greater the potential for liquefaction to occur in an area that is susceptible to the hazard. The areas most likely to be vulnerable to liquefaction are underlain by younger alluvium where groundwater and granular sediments are both present. Areas potentially underlain by liquefiable alluvium are low lying lands adjacent to rivers, creeks, beaches, and estuaries.
The portions of the City with high liquefaction potential are those areas underlain by younger alluvium (Qa), which includes most of the low-lying downtown areas south of Branch Street and along Grand Avenue. Higher elevation at the west end of the City, and north of Highway 101 and Branch Street, are underlain by older Quaternary sediments comprised of sand dune deposits (Qos) and the Paso Robles Formation (QTp) that have moderate liquefaction potential. Site specific studies are needed to evaluate if a geologic unit actually contains potentially liquefiable materials, and if they require mitigation for development.
Policy S4-5 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement
Require design professionals to evaluate the potential for liquefaction or seismic settlement to impact structures in accordance with the currently adopted Uniform Building Code.
SE - 13
Implementation Measures:
Program S4-5.1 Enforce current building code requirements that require the potential for liquefaction to be addressed in the design of structures. Discourage the construction of critical facilities in areas of potential liquefaction.
Program S4-5.2 Require geotechnical studies to be performed for habitable or important structures (as defined by the building code) sited in areas having a medium to high potential.
The geotechnical study should evaluate the potential for liquefaction and/or seismic related settlement to impact the development, and mitigation to reduce these potential impacts, if needed.
Slope Instability and Landslides
Landslides and slope instability can occur as a result of wet weather, weak soils, improper grading, improper drainage, steep slopes, adverse geologic structure, earthquakes, or a combination of these factors. Slope instability can occur in the form of creep, slumps, large progressive translation or rotational failures, rockfall, debris flows, or erosion. Landslides can result in damage to property and cause buildings to become unsafe either due to distress or collapse during sudden or gradual slope movement.
Structures constructed in steep terrain, possibly on stable ground, may also experience landslide hazards if they are sited in the path of potential mud flows or rockfall hazards.
A majority of the existing development in Arroyo Grande is located on gently inclined alluvial valley sediments, which has low to very low potential for slope stability hazards. However, the residences located on the hilly terrain north of Branch Street have greater potential for landslide activity.
Additionally, there are relatively steep hillsides and canyons adjacent to the City and as development moves into those areas, there could be even greater potential for slope stability related concerns. A thorough geologic/geotechnical study should be prepared prior to development in hillsides and other high landslide hazard areas, as mandated by the City’s adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. Areas of potential landslide hazards in San Luis Obispo County are indicated in Map 4 of the Technical Background Report.
Policy S4-6 Slope Instability
Avoid development in areas of known slope instability or high landslide risk when possible, and continue to encourage that developments on sloping ground use design and construction techniques appropriate for those areas. The City acknowledges that areas of known landslide activity are generally not suitable for residential development.
Implementation Measures:
Program S4-6.1 For developments in areas of known slope instability, landslides, or slopes steeper than 20 percent, the stability of slopes shall be addressed by registered professionals practicing in their respective fields of expertise. For subdivisions, such studies should be performed prior to delineating lot lines and building envelopes.
Program S4-6.2 Do not permit new development in areas of known landslide activity unless development plans indicate that the hazard can be reduced to a less than significant level prior to beginning development. Do not permit expansion to existing structures or developments in areas of known landslide activity except when it will reduce the potential for loss of life and property.
Program S4-6.3 Require development proposals to mitigate the impacts that their projects contribute to landslides and slope instability hazards on neighboring property, and appurtenant structures, utilities, and roads.
SE - 14
Program S4-6.4 Require slope stability evaluations for developments in areas of moderate or higher landslide risk. Require certification of the proposed building site stability to the adverse effects of rain and earthquakes prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. Other Hazards
OBJECTIVE S-5: Reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment from radiation hazards, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, radon, and hazardous trees.
Radiation Hazards
The Diablo Canyon Power Plant is the primary radiation hazard risk in the region. An uncontrolled release of radioactive material would have the potential to result in significant health and safety impacts. To prepare for potential emergency situations that might develop at the power plant, extensive warning, reporting, and response plans have been developed. Updated information regarding the Emergency Response Plan is distributed to the public each year. Additional potential radiation hazards include lowlevel radioactive waste from medical facilities and elsewhere. The hauling, handling and disposal of these materials are governed by comprehensive regulations.
Policy S5-1 Radiation Hazards
Maintain a high level of emergency preparedness and information about radiation hazards.
Implementation Measures:
Program S5-1.1 Work with PG&E to review and update information about emergency preparedness and evacuations related to radiation hazards.
Program S5-1.2 Review the City’s Emergency Plan in anticipation of emergency services which may be required under mutual aid agreements in the event of a radiological accident at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Attention should also be given to potential radiological spills during the transportation of radioactive fuel to and from the Diablo Canyon Plant. If evacuation programs are determined inadequate, alternative measures shall be considered.
Hazardous Materials
Due to the quantity and frequency with which hazardous materials are shipped through the region, transportation-related accidents pose the most significant hazardous material risk to City residents.
Highway 101 runs through the center of Arroyo Grande and is considered a major transportation route for the shipping of hazardous materials. A major release of hazardous materials on this Highway would have the potential to expose a significant portion of the City’s population to health and safety hazards. In addition, potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials can result from the numerous oil, fuel and natural gas pipelines located in the City. Agricultural and household use of hazardous materials also has the potential to result in their release into the environment.
Policy S5-2 Hazardous Materials
Reduce the potential for exposure to humans and the environment by hazardous substances, and develop information programs consistent with “Community Right to Know” laws.
Implementation Measures:
Program S5-2.1 Review commercial development projects which use, store, or transport hazardous materials to ensure necessary measures are taken to protect public health and safety.
Program S5-2.2 Work with Caltrans to require all transport of hazardous materials to follow Caltrans approved routes, with all necessary safety precautions taken to prevent hazardous materials spills.
SE - 15
Program S5-2.3 Sponsor periodic information or educational programs to inform residents along approved haul routes of the potential for hazard release. Develop alternate evacuation routes in case of a spill.
Program S5-2.4 Develop information programs consistent with “Community Right to Know” laws.
Electromagnetic Fields [EMF]
The transmission of electricity and the use of electrical appliances result in the creation of electromagnetic fields. At this time, the evidence of potential health hazards from the delivery and usage of electric power is incomplete and inconclusive. Until the necessary information is available to make informed decisions about possible health effects resulting from the long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields, individuals and local jurisdictions may wish to consider adopting an avoidance strategy which keeps residences and workplaces away from high tension lines. Such a strategy includes adopting measures to avoid electromagnetic field exposures when it is reasonable, practical, relatively inexpensive, and simple to do so.
Policy S5-3 EMF
Reduce the potential for health hazards from electromagnetic fields.
Implementation Measures:
Program S5-3.1 Maintain a prudent avoidance strategy relative to high voltage transmission lines. EMF standards established by the California Energy Commission and Public Utilities Commission (if any) should be applied.
Program S5-3.2 Continue to monitor the information available regarding EMF hazards.
Program S5-3.3 When practicable; keep higher density development away from large transmission lines.
Radon
Radon is a naturally occurring gas produced by the breakdown of uranium in soil, rock, and water.
Accumulations of this gas inside structures can become a significant health hazard because radon is known to cause lung cancer. The threat of radon is very low in a well-ventilated structure. Basements, which are rare in this region, are common problem areas.
Policy S5-4 Radon
Reduce the potential for health hazards from radon through education.
Implementation Measure:
Program S5-4.1 Sponsor periodic information and education programs to inform the citizens of Arroyo Grande where the high radon risk areas are and how to prevent problems.
Hazardous Trees
Pine pitch canker is threatening the health of pine trees throughout the region. This disease can result in the death of a pine tree in a relatively short period of time. If an infected tree is not properly removed, it can spread the disease. The tree may also become a safety hazard if it becomes uprooted and falls during a storm. Other trees become hazards because of their age or from storms.
Policy S5-5 Hazardous Trees
Reduce the danger to people and property from trees that are weakened and susceptible to falling or limb loss during storms by requiring removal.
Implementation Measure:
Program S5-5.1 Identify and remove trees within the City that pose potential hazards, paying particular attention to trees in roadways and pedestrian/bicycle paths.
SAF-30 | PRELIMINARY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT / NOVEMBER 2025 PLAN ARROYO GRANDE | Safety Element
GOALS AND POLICIES
Goal SAF-1 Emergency Preparedness
To attain a high level of emergency preparedness. (Source: Existing Objective 1) Policies
SAF-1.1 Response. Support the response programs that provide emergency and other services to the public when a disaster occurs, with a focus on saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing immediate property damage. (Source: Existing Policy S1-1, modified) SAF-1.2 Emergency Preparedness. Continue to improve preparedness programs when necessary that educate and organize people to respond appropriately to disasters, including those intensified by climate change, including, education and awareness programs for individuals, families, neighborhoods, institutions, businesses, government agencies and other organizations. (Source: Existing Policy S1-2, modified) SAF-1.3 Coordination. Improve coordination when necessary among City, County, and State programs, and among others working to reduce the risks of disasters, including with the news media to increase effective preparedness, response, and recovery from disasters. (Source: Existing Policy S1-3, modified)
SAF-1.4 Access Points. Evaluate the expansion of evacuation routes in neighborhoods with single-access points, as identified in the Arroyo Grande SB 99 Analysis. (Source: New Policy, SB 99 Analysis)
SAF-1.5 Information Systems and Research. Maintain an up-to-date database of safety and climate change related information. The City shall make new information available to the public and decision makers and regularly update the City’s geographic information system (GIS) as new information becomes available. (Source: Existing Policy S1-4, modified).
SAF-34 | PRELIMINARY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT / NOVEMBER 2025 PLAN ARROYO GRANDE | Safety Element
Goal SAF-4 Fire Hazards
To reduce the threat to life, structures and the environment caused by fire. (Source: Existing Objective 3)
Policies
SAF-4.1 Pre-Fire Management. Require new development be designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards, with special attention given to adjacent area fuel management, adequate ingress and egress routes, adequate water supply for suppression, and adequate emergency response access in higher fire risk areas. (Source: Existing Policy S3-1, modified)
SAF-4.2 Facilities, Equipment and Personnel. Ensure to the extent possible that fire services, such as fire equipment, infrastructure, and response times, are adequate for all areas of the city. (Source: Existing Policy S3-2, modified)
SAF-4.3 Readiness and Response. Cooperate with and support FCFA’s ability to maintain and improve emergency response capacity and strive to achieve a maximum response time of six (6) minutes in all areas. (Source: Existing Policy S3-3, modified) SAF-4.4 Loss Prevention. Improve defensible space for structures and other values at risk to reduce the impact of fire by requiring adherence to Defensible Space standards (CA PRC 4291) for structures in the SRA and adopt similar standards for structures in the LRA. Regulations should be developed to improve the defensible area surrounding habitation, particularly in high-risk urban/wildland interface areas or other areas with access or water supply deficiencies or beyond 6-minute response time. (Source:
Existing Policy S3-4, modified)
SAF-38 | PRELIMINARY PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT / NOVEMBER 2025 PLAN ARROYO GRANDE | Safety Element
SAF-5.5 Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement. Require design professionals to evaluate the potential for liquefaction or seismic settlement to impact structures in accordance with the currently adopted Uniform Building Code. (Source: Existing Policy S4-5) SAF-5.6 Slope Instability. Avoid permitting development in areas of known slope instability or high landslide risk when possible and continue to encourage that developments on sloping ground use design and construction techniques appropriate for those areas.
The City acknowledges that areas of known landslide activity are generally not suitable for residential development. (Source: Existing Policy S4-6) Goal SAF-6 Hazardous Materials
To reduce the potential for harm to individuals and damage to the environment from radiation hazards, hazardous materials, radon, and hazardous trees. (Source: Existing Policy S5-2, modified)
Policies
SAF-6.1 Radiation Hazards. Coordinate with County Office of Emergency Services to maintain a high level of emergency preparedness and information about radiation hazards. (Source: Existing Policy S5-1)
SAF-6.2 Hazardous Materials. Coordinate with County Office of Emergency Services to reduce the potential for exposure to humans and the environment by hazardous substances and develop information programs consistent with “Community Right to Know” laws. (Source: Existing Policy S5-2).
SAF-6.3 Radon. Reduce the potential for health hazards from radon through education. (Source:
Existing Policy S5.4)
SAF-39
04 Safety
SAF-6.4 Hazardous Trees. Reduce the danger to people and property from trees that are dead, diseased, or structurally unstable by identifying and mitigating hazardous trees on Cityowned property and within the public right-of-way. The City shall also support residents in raising safety concerns to responsible agencies for hazardous trees located on County-owned land or other non-City property, especially where such trees pose a risk to public roadways, utilities, or adjacent homes.
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1 VISION ...................................................................................................................................................2 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2 LOCAL SETTING..................................................................................................................................3 LOCAL TRAVEL TRENDS ..................................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2: AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL ..............................................................................6 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS .............................................................................................................. 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS................................................................................................12 PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS .........................................................................................................12 AUTOMOBILE POLICIES................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 3: MULTIMODAL TRAVEL............................................................................26 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ROUTES.........................................................................................27 EXISTING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CONDITIONS ..............................................29 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.......................................................................................................... 31 PLANNED MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS............................................................................32 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN POLICIES.......................................................................................35 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL POLICIES .......................................................................................38 PUBLIC TRANSIT POLICIES............................................................................................................38 CHAPTER 4: TRUCK ROUTES & GOODS MOVEMENTS..................................................40 RAILROADS ........................................................................................................................................ 41 AIRPORT.............................................................................................................................................. 41 TRUCK ROUTES................................................................................................................................. 41 TRUCK AND GOODS MOVEMENT POLICIES..........................................................................43 APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS BACKGROUND REPORT
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 2
VISION
The City of Arroyo Grande (City) is a community that embraces mobility through the use of all transportation modes.
The core value of this Circulation Element is to provide safe and easy travel within and through the City for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles correlated with the Land Use Element.
This community mobility value is based on creating a “sense of place” with a strong walkable Village Core and mixed-use corridors. Increasing vehicular and non-vehicular mobility while preserving the local environment, remaining mindful of the City’s fiscal responsibilities, and utilizing the City’s strategic location within the southern San Luis Obispo County region are key values reflected in this Circulation Element.
INTRODUCTION
The Circulation Element presents a set of policies correlated with the Land Use Element of the General Plan to guide the City’s transportation related infrastructure growth over the next twenty (20) years. A safe and efficient transportation system is an important contributor to a community’s quality of life and economic vitality. The circulation system provides access to homes, employment and educational opportunities, public services, commercial and recreational centers, and regional destinations. It accommodates travel by automobile, transit, walking, and cycling.
State law recognizes the close relationship between transportation and land use and requires that policies be established creating a mutually beneficial relationship. California Government Code §65302(b)(1) requires the Circulation Element to be correlated to the General Plan Land Use Element.
Integrating transportation policies with land use, the General Plan ensures adequate roadway capacity to accommodate travel demands generated by future planned development. This integration helps to promote walking, cycling and transit use for shorter trips thereby reducing the air quality impacts and greenhouse gas emissions associated with automobile use.
The Circulation Element also complies with Government Code §65302(b)(2) in planning for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, which includes bicyclists, pedestrians, children, motorists, persons with disabilities, the elderly, users of public transportation, and commercial goods movers. This requirement is sometimes referred to in this Element as “Complete Streets.”
Local transportation planning is a coordinated effort involving multiple agencies. The goals and policies set forth in this document are intended to not only promote local planning, but also foster cooperation between jurisdictional partners such as the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), the County of San Luis Obispo, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and adjacent local jurisdictions.
Chapter 1: Introduction
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 3
The transportation planning and policy set forth in the Circulation Element is also a critical component of the City’s responsibility towards meeting the requirements of Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. SB 375 requires that metropolitan planning organizations in California prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) for meeting their greenhouse gas reduction targets, through coordinating planning for land use, transportation, and housing.
Senate Bill 743 amends the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impact analysis for projects by replacing auto delay, level of service (LOS) as basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA with Average vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The legislation in SB 743 does not preclude agencies from adopting the use of auto LOS outside of CEQA in the local transportation planning and policy set forth in the Circulation Element.
LOCAL SETTING
The City of Arroyo Grande is an incorporated community located within the “Five Cities” area of San Luis Obispo County, California. The City lies about 200 miles south of the San Francisco Bay Area and 150 miles north of Los Angeles. The City is 5.45 square miles in area and is at an elevation of 114 feet. The City of Arroyo Grande is located approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo, along the US 101 coastal corridor. The City is located contiguous with the incorporated areas of the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest and the City of Grover Beach to the west.
US 101 runs diagonally through the middle of the City in a northwest to southeast direction. US 101 is the primary State highway providing regional access, connecting the City with other parts of San Luis Obispo County and the State. State Route 227 also provides more localized access to/from the City, connecting Arroyo Grande with the City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding County community.
LOCAL TRAVEL TRENDS
Data from the United States Census Bureau’s 2009-2013 (2013) and 2013-2017 (2017) American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, form the basis of the following demographic analysis. Based on the ACS data, the population in the City has increased by roughly 560 from 17,411 in 2013 to 17,971 in 2017, approximately a 3.2% increase.
Prior to examining the various transportation modes in the City, the following sub-section will examine some recent trends and current facts concerning commuter mode-choice and travel times in the City.
Table 1-1 presents the various means of transportation reported in the City of Arroyo Grande between 2013 and 2017 ACS estimates.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 7
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
A hierarchy of streets provides access to and from residential, commercial, and industrial uses throughout the City and beyond. A route’s design, including number of lanes needed, is determined by its functional classification and its projected traffic levels to achieve “safe and convenient movement at the development intensity anticipated in the Land Use Element.”
STATE FREEWAYS
Controlled access facilities whose junctions are free of at-grade crossing with other road, railways, or pedestrian pathway, and instead are served by interchanges are classified as freeways. Freeways can either be toll or non-toll roads, with speed limits usually ranging from 60 to 70 mph. The following freeways service the surrounding Arroyo Grande community.
US 101
US 101 is a major north-south freeway facility that traverses along coastal California. US 101 serves as the principal inter-regional auto and truck travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County (and other portions of the Central Coast) with the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the Los Angeles urban basin to the south. Within San Luis Obispo County, US 101 provides major connection between and through several cities. Through the “Five Cities” area of San Luis Obispo County, US 101 represents a major recreational as well as commuter travel route and has a general four-lane divided freeway crosssection with 65 mph posted speed limits. Within the City of Arroyo Grande, US 101 forms full-access interchanges with Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue/Branch Street as well as directional interchange access at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue.
STATE HIGHWAYS
Controlled access facilities whose junctions with cross streets are characterized by at-grade intersections rather than interchanges are classified as highways. Highways can either be divided or undivided roadways, with speed limits usually ranging from 40 to 55 mph. The following highways service the surrounding Arroyo Grande community.
STATE ROUTE 227
State Route 227 (SR 227) is a state highway route that runs predominantly in a north-south direction connecting the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande. SR 227 has a general two-lane highway type cross-section through most segments. SR 227 represents a significant parallel commuter route to US 101, as well as a recreational travel route serving the City of Arroyo Grande.
ARTERIAL STREETS
Arterial facilities serve to connect areas of major activity within the urban area and function primarily to distribute cross-town traffic from freeways / highways to collector streets. The City’s Standard
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 8
Specifications & Engineering Standards define two categories: Primary Arterials and Arterials. Primary Arterials feature four lanes with a turn lane, and Arterials feature two lanes with a turn lane. Within the City, arterial streets are mostly two-lane facilities with maximum operating speeds ranging from 30 to 45 mph. In addition, arterial facilities generally have limited access to adjacent land uses. The following arterials are identified in the City’s General Plan circulation system.
EAST BRANCH STREET
East Branch Street extends Grand Avenue to the east and serves as the City’s main downtown commercial thoroughfare as well as a commuter connection between US 101 and SR 227. The duality of purpose of this three-lane arterial road with on-street parking does create safety and capacity concerns. The high volume of traffic (18,500 ADT) at times conflicts with the community’s desire to have a pedestrianfriendly downtown.
ELM STREET
Elm Street is a two-to-four-lane arterial road that runs north-south between State Route 1 (SR 1) in the south, and Brighton Avenue in the north. The four-lane portion of Elm Street is located between Ash Street and Grand Avenue.
FAIR OAKS AVENUE
Fair Oaks Avenue is a two-to-four-lane arterial road that provides important east-west connectivity across US 101 in the southern portion of the City. It extends from Traffic Way in the east to Elm Street in the west. East of Valley Road, Fair Oaks Avenue is not built to full arterial facility design standards.
GRAND AVENUE
Grand Avenue is a four-to-five-lane east-west Primary arterial through and within the City (two travel lanes per direction with a two-way left-turn median lane along several segments within the City). West of the City of Arroyo Grande, Grand Avenue extends into the City of Grover Beach and extends further west to the coastline. East of the full-access interchange with US 101, Grand Avenue becomes East Branch Street, which extends further east to Corbett Canyon Road and SR 227. Grand Avenue represents one of the “gateway” routes for recreational travelers headed westwards from US 101 to the Pacific coastline.
HALCYON ROAD
Halcyon Road is a two-to-four-lane north-south arterial road that connects between US 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande and State Route 1 (SR 1) in the Halcyon area located to the south of the City, with the southernmost terminus at Zenon Way. Between Grand Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue, Halcyon Road is a four-lane primary arterial road. Halcyon Road, in conjunction with Brisco Road and El Camino Real, forms a full-access interchange with US 101, just north of the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 9
OAK PARK BOULEVARD
Oak Park Boulevard is a two- to five-lane north-south arterial road that runs along the northwestern City limit line, defining Arroyo Grande’s boundary with the adjacent Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach.
Oak Park Boulevard forms a partial-access interchange with US 101, with only a northbound on-ramp, and extends south of US 101 as a four-lane primary arterial into the City of Grover Beach, continuing south beyond The Pike as 22nd Street. North of the City of Arroyo Grande, Oak Park Boulevard forks into Old Oak Park Road, which extends north into County lands, and Noyes Road, which extends in a northeasterly direction to connect with SR 227.
TRAFFIC WAY
Traffic Way is a two-to-four-lane arterial road serving local commercial developments. It extends from East Branch Street (SR 227) in the north and terminates into ramp junctions with US 101 to the south.
VALLEY ROAD
Valley Road is a two-lane arterial road that extends south from Fair Oaks Avenue, connecting to State Route 1 (SR 1) south of the City limits.
WEST BRANCH STREET
West Branch Street is a two-lane arterial road, and also a frontage road east of US 101 with both commercial and residential frontage. It extends from Oak Park Boulevard to West Branch Street and provides important circulation and commercial accessibility east of the freeway.
COLLECTORS
Collectors function as connector routes between local and arterial streets and provide access to residential, commercial, and industrial property. The City’s Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards define two categories: collectors and local collectors. Collectors feature turn lanes at intersections and may feature a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL), while local collectors do not have turn lanes.
JAMES WAY
James Way is a predominantly-east-west two-lane road serving as a local collector between Oak Park Boulevard and Tally Ho Road.
PRINTZ ROAD
Printz Road is a predominantly-east-west two-lane collector that runs just north of the City’s northern limits. Printz Road connects between SR 227 and Noyes Road, and provides access for several small local roads.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 10
THE PIKE
The Pike is a two-lane east-west collector. It runs between 13th Street and Halcyon Road. A portion of The Pike runs adjacent to part of the southern City limits.
RANCHO PARKWAY
Rancho Parkway is a two-lane north-south collector that runs between West Branch Street and James Way. Rancho Parkway provides access to the large shopping centers along W Branch Street, including the Walmart, and residential areas north.
Other Collector Roads
Ash Street, Branch Mill Road, Brisco Road, Courtland Street, East Cherry Avenue, El Camino Mercado, Farroll Avenue, Huasna Road, Mason Street, North Corbett Canyon Road, Rodeo Drive, Nelson Street, Grace Lane, and Tally Ho Road are other important roadways serving local collector functions within the City.
The study area and roadway functional classifications are presented in Figure 2-1.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 12
LOCAL STREETS
Local streets provide direct access to abutting properties and allow for localized movement of traffic.
Local streets are characterized by low daily traffic volumes and low travel speeds. All roadways not identified in the Roadway Functional Classifications map (Figure 2-1) as freeways, highways, arterials, or collectors are designated as local streets.
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Intersection facilities were evaluated on an AM and PM peak hour basis using peak hour turning movement counts collected on Thursday, November 14, 2019 and Thursday, November 21, 2019. The City roadway facilities were evaluated on a daily volume basis using weekday counts taken in November 2019. Conditions were identified by generating a Level of Service (LOS) determination. LOS is a description of a facility’s operation, ranging from LOS A (indicating free-flow traffic conditions with little or no delay) to LOS F (representing congested conditions where traffic flows exceed design capacity, resulting in long queues and delay).
The Existing Conditions Background Report is included in Appendix A. This background report presents the results of the operational analysis in greater detail. The following headings summarize facilities that were found to be operating below acceptable LOS thresholds:
INTERSECTIONS
The following study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM or PM peak hours under Existing conditions:
▪ East Grand Avenue & El Camino Real
▪ East Grand Avenue / East Branch Street & West Branch Street ▪ East Branch Street & Nevada Street / Bridge Street
▪ Fair Oaks Avenue & US 101 Southbound Ramp / Orchard Avenue ▪ Farroll Avenue & Halcyon Road
ROADWAYS
All study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS under Existing Conditions. There are no roadway segment deficiencies at 2019 count locations.
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
In order to accommodate existing and planned land uses within the City, including future needs within its Sphere of influence (SOI), traffic carrying capacity improvements to the roadway network will be needed.
New arterial and collector roads will provide access to new and established residential, commercial, and industrial areas, connecting those areas with the existing local and regional transportation system.
Collector streets will include residential frontage, whereas arterial streets will not. Collector and local
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 13
roads in neighborhoods will serve those residents. The new roadways and interchanges will continue to expand the existing network of roadways that characterize the City’s vehicular circulation network.
Bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvements are discussed in subsequent sections of this document.
Study Areas have been identified where some major projects are located. Improvements to roadways or intersections within Study Areas should be coordinated and analyzed together. In addition, intersection improvements will be required at major intersections along new roadways and improved roadways, including but not limited to additional turn lanes or channelization, installation of traffic signals, or construction of roundabouts. These improvement locations are listed in Table 2-1, and shown in Figure 2-2. Additionally, Table 2-2 presents the standard cross-sections and associated design features for the City’s functional roadway classifications.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 17
AUTOMOBILE POLICIES
Streets & Highways Standards
CT1 Schedule and implement the Circulation system identified in the Circulation Map (Figure 2-2) as development occurs and as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities, improve these facilities, and build new facilities as necessary in accordance with the Circulation Map.
CT1-1 Standards: Streets shall be constructed in conformance with the City and State’s adopted Engineering Standards, Plans, and Policies that apply to each classification. Variations and modifications in Standards and planned alignments may be permitted with City Council approval or City Engineer / Public Works Director approval where delegated.
CT1-1.1 Consider specific design guidelines and landscaping standards appropriate to a designated connected system of “Scenic Streets and Highways” for resident and visitor enjoyment.
CT1-1.2 Update City’s Engineering Standards, Plans, and Policies to be consistent with the Proposed Standard Cross-Sections shown in Table 2-2.
CT1-1.3 In context of new development, new roadways shall have equal consideration of minimum versus maximum travel way width, and consideration for private roads and alleyways as an alternative to full standard local streets.
CT1-2 Intersections: Roundabouts should be considered when evaluating new or modified intersection controls as an alternative to intersection signalization. Protected active transportation intersection elements should be considered when intersections are improved along a protected (Class I or Class IV) bikeway route.
CT1-3 State Facilities: State facilities are to be designed and constructed per Caltrans design standards or as mutually approved.
CT1-4 Primary Arterial Streets: 4 lanes with or without median / two-way left turn lane, access management, optional parkways, optional on-street parking, bike and pedestrian facilities per adopted plan, transit turnouts and other design features: minimum 110’ right-of-way.
CT1-5 Arterial Streets: 2 lanes with or without median/center turn lane, optional landscaped parkways, optional on-street parking, bike and pedestrian facilities per adopted plan, some transit and other design features; minimum 86’ of right-of-way.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 18
CT1-6 Collector Streets: 2 lanes with or without a turn lane; access management, bike and pedestrian facilities per adopted plan, some transit and other design features, optional landscaped parkways and on-street parking where feasible; minimum 78’ of right-of-way.
CT1-7 Local Collector Streets: 2 lanes without a turn lane; bike and pedestrian facilities per adopted plan, some transit and other design features, optional landscaped parkways and onstreet parking where feasible; minimum 60’ of right-of-way.
CT1-8 Local Streets: 2 lanes, on-street parking; bike and pedestrian facilities per adopted plan, sidewalks on one or both sides, other design variables in hillside, cul-de-sac, or other special conditions; minimum 52’ right-of-way.
CT1-9 Complete Streets: Complete streets are roadways designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. All street standards should be periodically reviewed and revised for design, construction, operation, and maintenance to achieve a network of complete streets. Optional features include landscaped medians, curb bulb-outs and parkways and/or street trees and similar design amenities when approved by the City.
When constructing or modifying transportation facilities, strive to provide for the movement of vehicles, commercial trucks, alternative and low energy vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians in a manner that is appropriate for the road classification and adjacent land use.
CT1-9.1 Evaluate projects to ensure that the safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users are given an equal level of consideration to automobiles.
CT1-9.2 Use roadway rehabilitation and maintenance projects as opportunities to introduce or enhance multimodal facilities and amenities by making the best use of available right of way, including narrowing travel lanes to standard dimensions, striping new or enhanced bikeways, adding or enhancing crosswalks, improving intersection markings, and other transportation “best practices”.
CT1-9.3 Consider ways to increase and improve travel choices when reviewing development or transportation infrastructure projects by closing gaps in multimodal networks and enhancing the quality of multimodal facilities and amenities.
CT1-9.4 Improve the existing street network to minimize nonmotorized and transit travel times and improve the mobility experience of transit, bicycle, and walking trips between new projects and surrounding land uses in an effort to reduce vehicle trips.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 19
CT1-9.5 Recognize and meet the mobility needs of pedestrians and bicyclists of all skill levels and ages, persons using wheelchairs, and those with other mobility limitations.
CT1-10 Alternative Improvements: Consider alternative improvements to traditional street, highway, and intersection construction that may vary from City standards, which maximize access to active transportation modes and/or provide equivalent mobility to all roadway users. These improvements may include treatments that improve the safety and/or comfort of active transportation and transit users, such as consideration of travel lane reductions (road diets), green paint for conflict markings, buffered bicycle lanes, bicycle boxes for two-stage turns, and other alternative striping, signage, or physical design. Alternatives may be permitted with City Council approval or City Engineer / Public Works Director Approval where delegated.
CT1-11 Auto Circulation: Provide efficient citywide automobile circulation by maintaining and, where necessary, improving local and regional roadway facilities. Continue to seek opportunities to improve connectivity throughout the City and to maintain safe and efficient regional connectivity with improved access to US 101.
CT1-12 Signal Operations: Provide and maintain coordinated traffic control systems that move traffic within and through the City in an efficient and orderly manner. Upgrade systems as technology evolves.
CT1-13 Safety: Maintain and periodically update a Local Roadway Safety Plan consistent with state and federal requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program calls-for-projects.
CT1-14 Access Management: Minimize, to the maximum extent feasible, the number of access points along arterial roadways, including by consolidating or relocating driveways to provide for more efficient traffic movement.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
CT2 Maintain & reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in accordance with SB 743 and the City’s adopted Policy.
CT2-1: Reduce VMT: Periodically update VMT baselines and thresholds of significance, as established in the City’s VMT Policy, for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA pursuant to SB 743.
Automobile Level of Service (LOS)
CT3 Attain and maintain automobile Level of Service LOS “D” or better on all street segments and controlled intersections to the maximum extent feasible.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 20
CT3-1 Degradation of LOS: New development, which is projected to degrade conditions to a LOS E or below or further exacerbate conditions already below LOS D, shall be required to make transportation improvements that offset the level of degradation to the maximum extent feasible. Improvements to non-automobile modes of transportation at the same segment or intersection may also be considered as an offset to degradation of automobile LOS.
CT3-2 Transportation Monitoring: The City should conduct periodic traffic counts, monitor selected streets and model arterial and collector street network.
CT3-2.1 The City should periodically review actual system performance to consider Capital Improvement Programs, operational improvements, and/or policy revision and refinement.
CT3-3 Transportation Study Requirements: Require that General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans, Rezoning Applications, and development projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips are studied in accordance with the City’s adopted Transportation Impact Study Guidelines.
Transportation Studies may also be required at the discretion of the City’s Public Works and/or Planning Departments.
Parking
CT4 Establish and manage on street parking to serve the primary purposes of the uses of each street while balancing the interferences that on-street parking may have on the primarily purposes of those streets.
CT4-1 On-Street Parking: The City shall manage curb parking in business and commercial districts to provide for high turnover and short-term use to those visiting businesses and public facilities.
CT4-1.1 Management of on-street parking shall not preclude consideration of converting on-street parking spaces to parklets.
CT4-2 Village Core Parking Lots: Develop adequate public or shared off-street parking lots conveniently located behind and beside buildings in the Village Core and East Grand Avenue corridor, consistent with area design guidelines.
CT4-3 Parking in-lieu districts: Support parking district(s) to collect in-lieu fees from new development to construct public parking where parking requirements cannot be met.
CT4-4 Parking in Industrial Areas: Encourage secure off-street parking for tractor-trailer rigs in industrial land use areas where feasible.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 21
CT4-5 Parking in Agricultural Areas: Discourage on-street parking in Agricultural areas to enhance visibility and minimize trespassing.
Coordinated Land Use & Circulation
CT5 Ensure compatibility and complimentary relationships between the circulation system and existing and planned land uses, promoting environmental objectives such as safe and uncongested neighborhoods, energy conservation, reduction of greenhouse gases, air, and noise pollution, and access to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
CT5-1 Government Code Consistency: Provide and maintain a citywide circulation system that is correlated with planned land uses in the City and surrounding areas in the region consistent with Government Code §65302.
CT5-2 Transit Oriented Development: Promote “Transit-Oriented Developments” and coordinated, compatible land use patterns by encouraging multiple family residential and special needs housing in Mixed Use Corridors, the Village Core, and near Office, Regional Commercial, Business Park, and major Community Facility areas.
CT5-2.1 Work with RTA to continue to support and expand transit routes that serve regional destinations within the City like the Regional Commercial areas and the Village Core, E. Grand Avenue, and W. Branch Street missed use and commercial corridors.
CT5-2.2 Work with RTA to continue to support and expand transit loops to serve Halcyon Road / Fair Oaks Boulevard, local office buildings, James Way and Rancho Parkway residential areas, and the Village Core, E. Grand Avenue, and W. Branch Street corridors.
CT5-3 High Density Development: Consider higher density allowance and reduced parking requirements within one-quarter mile of transit routes when updating Development Code.
CT5-4 Community Design: Utilize the circulation system as a positive element of community design, including street trees and landscaped parkways and medians, special streetscape features in Mixed Use corridors and Village Core, and undergrounding of utilities, particularly along major streets.
CT5-5 Provision of Rights of Way: When new development occurs in the vicinity of adopted “Study Areas” as shown in the Circulation Map (Figure 2-2) or “Plan Lines”, and where legally and financially feasible, require installation or funding of all or a portion of right-of-way and improvements associated with new development.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 22
CT5-6 Building Code Bicycle Facility Requirements: Update Building Code to include requirements for enhanced bicycle facilities such as, showers, repair stations, e-bike chargers, lockers, etc., for buildings that support large employers CT5-5.1 Update Development Code to include bicycle-parking requirements for new development.
CT5-7 Building Setback Lines: The City shall amend its municipal code enabling adoption of official building setback lines for the city, and to provide for the designation, recording, enforcement of, and appeal from such official building setback lines for the purposes of conveying planned multimodal transportation infrastructure. The amended Municipal Code shall prohibit issuance of building permits for structures within designated setback areas.
CT5-8 Priority Multimodal Corridors: Plan and prioritize Village Core and East Grand Avenue corridor improvements that reduce congestion and promote non-motorized travel between nearby complimentary uses.
CT5-9 Travel Demand Management: Consider ways to shift travel demand away from the peak period using Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, especially in situations where peak traffic problems result from a few major generators (e.g., large retail developments on highway corridor). Strategies to consider include:
a) Requiring employer-sponsored incentives for transit, bike, or carpool use; b) Requiring shuttle service to major events and destinations; c) Requiring events to occur at off-peak hours;
d) Coordinating centralized TDM programs that serve multiple tenants at large shopping or office centers; and
e) Performing periodic evaluations of the City’s (and Caltrans) traffic control system with emphasis on traffic signal timing, phasing, and coordination to optimize flow along arterial corridors.
Planning & Funding
CT6 Coordinate circulation and transportation planning and funding of collector and arterial street and highway improvements with other local, County, SLOCOG, State and federal agencies. Request contribution to major street improvement projects from other jurisdictions that generate traffic within the City.
CT6-1 Priority Multimodal Corridors: Coordinate and support SLOCOG updates to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to maintain consistency with the City of Arroyo Grande’s General Plan.
CT6-2 Interchange Priorities: Coordinate and support progress on the Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Traffic Way/Fair Oaks Avenue interchange improvements to US Route 101.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 23
CT6-3 County Impact Fee Program Support: Encourage the County to establish a “Road Impact Fee” within Arroyo Grande Fringe areas of the County to fund new development’s proportional share of transportation improvements.
CT6-4 City Transportation Impact Fee Program: Maintain and periodically update a multimodal city circulation and transportation impact fee program for new or intensified development in Arroyo Grande to ensure proportional share developer participation and implementation of the City’s adopted multimodal infrastructure plans, programs, and policies.
CT6-5 Right of Way Acquisition: Pursue acquisition of public street right-of-way as opportunity for dedication and/or purchase arises. Attempt to obtain ultimate right-of-way for street improvements at the time of development, except when lesser right-of-way will avoid significant social, neighborhood, or environmental impacts and will perform equivalent traffic movement function.
CT6-5.1 Plan lines establish planned right-of-way acquisitions necessary to implement future roadway improvements, plan lines are intended to prevent development from obstructing or precluding planned infrastructure. Adopt plan lines, or planned right-ofway acquisitions, as necessary to accommodate planned widening, extension, or realignment improvements and include Right-of-Way acquisition costs into Transportation Impact Fee Program.
CT6-6 Regional Travel Demand Model Consistency: Encourage Caltrans, SLOCOG, and the County to refine and maintain a regional transportation demand model to be consistent with adopted City plans and policies and to assist in regional and local circulation and transportation planning, CIP funding, and new development project environmental and impact analysis.
CT6-7 County MOU for Development Review: Pursue MOU with the County for referral of development projects and long-range plans in the County’s Nipomo Mesa area.
CT6-8 Supplemental Private Funding: Utilize assessment and improvement districts and other supplemental private funding to correct local area deficiencies such as inadequate parking, transit and streetscape enhancement, or completion of local street or trail segments that benefit the area.
CT6-9 Regional Coordination: As both City and regional travel increase transportation demand, work cooperatively with regional partner agencies, including Caltrans, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo County, and others, to plan and fund improvement projects that increase roadway capacity while maintaining or improving access to multi-modal facilities following the City’s community and circulation priorities.
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 24
CT6-9.1 Coordinate local actions with State, regional, County, and neighboring agencies to ensure consistency between local and regional actions.
CT6-9.2 Coordinate with partner agencies to implement regional transit solutions as part of the SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy.
CT6-10 Debt Financing: Consider debt financing for projects identified in the Transportation Impact Fee Program to advance high priority improvements such as but not limited to the Brisco Interchange project.
CT6-11 Environmental Clearance: Any future circulation improvement projects identified in this Circulation Element shall implement the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared during the update of the Circulation Element (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Arroyo Grande General Plan Circulation Element Update, Arroyo Grande, San Luis Obispo County, California. SWCA Environmental Consultants. May 2021).
In addition, future circulation improvement projects shall be evaluated at the time of proposed development to determine whether the MND prepared for the most recent update of the Circulation Element can be relied on (tiered from) to document compliance with CEQA, if the particular improvement is exempt from CEQA, and/or if further CEQA analysis is required for the particular project or proposed improvement.
Neighborhood Traffic Management
CT7 Provide safe and well-connected neighborhood streets that balance automotive circulation needs with neighborhood context and bicycle and pedestrian users’ safety.
CT7-1 Local Streets: On residential, Local Streets strive to achieve an average daily (ADT) automobile volume of 1,500 or less.
CT7-2 Local Collector Streets: On Local Collector Streets strive to achieve an average daily (ADT) automobile volume of 3,000 or less.
CT7-3 Degradation of Neighborhood Traffic Conditions: New development that causes Local Streets to exceed 1,500 ADT, Local Collector streets to exceed 3,000 ADT, or further exacerbates streets already exceeding these thresholds shall be required to implement traffic calming measures on those affected neighborhood streets to the maximum extent feasible.
CT7-4 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines: The City shall maintain and periodically updates its Neighborhood Traffic Calming Guidelines in accordance with industry best practices.
CT7-5 Non-Automobile Connections: Design new street network and modify existing street network where possible to enable direct physical connections within and between residential
Chapter 2: Automobile Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 25
areas, shopping destinations, employment centers, and neighborhood parks/open spaces, including, where appropriate, connections accessible only by pedestrians and bicycles.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 27
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ROUTES
The City of Arroyo Grande adopted the 2012 Bicycle & Trails Master Plan, which includes proposed bicycle and pedestrian trails, as well as on-street bicycle facilities to complete the partial network already in place in the City and connecting to adjacent communities. The plan encourages the use of walking and bicycling and recognizes the following functional classifications of bicycle facilities.
Class I Bike Path
Class I facilities are multi-use facilities that provide a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class I bikeways must be compliant with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These bikeways are intended to provide superior safety, connectivity, and recreational opportunities as compared to facilities that share right-of-way with motor vehicles.
Class II Bike Lane
Class II facilities provide a striped and signed lane for one-way bicycle travel on each side of a street or highway within the paved area of a roadway. The minimum width for bike lanes ranges between four and six feet depending upon the edge of roadway conditions (curb and gutter). Bike lanes are demarcated by a six-inch white stripe, signage, and pavement legends.
Class III Bike Route
Class III facilities provide signs for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway. Bike routes may be enhanced with warning or guide signs and shared lane marking pavement stencils. Shared lane markings or “Sharrows” help remind motorists that bicyclists are allowed to use the full lane and remind bicyclists to avoid riding too close to parked cars for safety. The shared lane markings help bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane. These markings are primarily recommended on low-speed streets.
While Class III routes do not provide measures of separation, they have an important function in providing continuity to the bikeway network. By law, bicycles are allowed on all roadways in California except on freeways when a suitable alternate route exists. However, Class III bikeways serve to identify roads that are more suitable for bicycles.
Shared Roadway
No Bikeway Designation. A roadway that permits bicycle use but is not officially designated as a bikeway.
This generally occurs in rural areas by touring bicyclists and recreation. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, where signing and pavement marking
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 28
for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, prior to designation as a bikeway, routes may need improvements for bicycle travel.
Class IV Bikeway (Separated/Protected Bikeway/Cycle Track) Known as separated bikeways, protected bikeways, or cycle tracks, Class IV bikeways provide a separate travel way that is designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to the roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic by physical separation. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, planters, flexible posts, inflexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.
The above five definitions are consistent with the California Highway Design Manual (HDM, July 2020). It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II, III, and IV should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application.
In addition, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” (2012) and National Association of City Transportation Officials “Urban Bikeway Design Guide” are used as resources to identify the following bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Boulevard
Bicycle Boulevards are streets where the following conditions are created in order to prioritize bicycle safety and optimize through travel for bicycles rather than automobiles:
▪ Slow traffic speed and low volume.
▪ Use of diverters and roundabouts to discourage through and non-local motor vehicle traffic. ▪ Improved travel for bicyclists by assigning the right-of-way priority to the bicycle boulevard at intersections with other roads wherever possible.
▪ Traffic controls that help bicyclists cross major arterial roads. ▪ Signage and street design that encourages use by bicyclists and informs motorists that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 29
Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle cut-outs allow cyclists to continue to the next block but discourage through traffic by motor vehicles. Typically, these modifications will also calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety as well as encourage bicycling. Bicycle Boulevards are generally applicable to local roadways.
Buffered Bike Lanes
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes (Class II) paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. A buffered bike lane is allowed as per MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential lanes (section 3D-01). Buffered bike lanes provide space between bicyclists and the traveled way, allow room for bicyclists to pass without encroaching into the vehicle travel lane, and can be used to provide a buffer between on-street parking and the bike lane. Buffered bike lanes are ideal for streets with extra lanes or extra lane width, and along roadways with higher travel speeds, higher traffic, and truck volume.
Green Colored Bike Facilities
Green Colored Bike Facilities may be installed within bicycle lanes or the extension of the bicycle lane through an intersection or transition trough a conflict area as a supplement to bike lane markings. The Federal Highway Administration has issued an Interim Approval (IA-14) on April 15, 2011 for the optional use of green colored pavement for marked bicycle lanes.
Bike Boxes
Bike Boxes designate an area for bicyclists to queue in front of automobiles, but behind the crosswalk at signalized intersections. Bike boxes provide cyclists a safe way to be visible to motorists by getting ahead of the queue during the red signal phase, and they reduce vehicle incursion into crosswalks. Bike Boxes also improve safety for conflicts with right-turning vehicles when the traffic signal turns green. Bike boxes can be utilized to facilitate left turn positioning and gives priority to cyclists.
EXISTING BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITY CONDITIONS
The current bicycle and trail network consists mainly of on-street facilities that are identified as Class II and Class III bikeways. The city also has short segments of off-street trails typically consisting of soft surface (decomposed granite) materials.
Arterials and collectors that are north-south roadways which do not have bicycle facilities, include portions of Elm Street, Halcyon Road, Corbett Canyon Road, Tally Ho Road, Ash Street, and Oak Park Boulevard. Arterials and collectors that are east-west roadways which do not have bicycle facilities include portions of Farroll Avenue, E. Grand Avenue, E. Branch Street, and E. Cherry Avenue. Subsequent Bicycle LTS analysis is included.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 30
Safe, convenient, and continuous access needs to be provided along major routes throughout the City for active transportation modes. As part of this Circulation Element update, roadway facilities will be identified where it is possible to modify the existing cross-section and increase the active transportation components for pedestrians and bicyclists. Included in the proposed Circulation Element Policies are requirements to update the existing City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan in the form of an Active Transportation Plan. It is proposed for the bicycle portion of the plan that an assessment of bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) will be required to specifically evaluate the performance of the existing bicycle system and to help identify bicycle facility improvements.
Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Bicycle operations are quantified through a determination of “Level of Traffic Stress” (LTS). LTS are calculated for roadway segments and intersections using the methods documented in the paper, “Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity”, Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-19, May 2012. The figure below presents the four scoring classifications.
Figure 3-1: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions Existing Bicycle LTS was evaluated Citywide on arterials and collectors. Major gaps exist along current Class II bicycle routes (i.e., roadway segments with incomplete bike lanes, or bike lanes only in one direction), at the following locations, negatively impacting LTS:
▪ East Grand Avenue: eastbound approach at Halcyon Road ▪ East Grand Avenue: between Elm Street and approximately 300’ east of Brisco Road ▪ Traffic Way: northbound segment between Nelson Street and Bridge Street ▪ Oak Park Boulevard: southbound segment between Farroll Road and The Pike ▪ Oak Park Boulevard: southbound between Manhattan Avenue and Ash Street ▪ Fair Oaks Avenue: westbound segment between California Street and Traffic Way The analysis and results of the existing LTS analysis conducted for the City of Arroyo Grande are detailed in the Existing Conditions Background Report.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 31
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
The City of Arroyo Grande public transportation is provided by South County Transit (SoCo Transit), a branch of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority's (SLORTA). SoCo Transit will merge with SLORTA in early 2021. Routes 21, 24, 27, and 28 are loop routes that serve major arterial roadways in the City as shown in Figure 3-2. The Avila-Pismo Trolley (not shown on Figure) connects to SoCo Transit Routes at the Pismo Premium Outlets. All SoCo Transit Routes make stops at the Town Center/Walmart, and Ramona Gardens Park, and Routes 21 and 24 make stops at the Pismo Premium Outlets.
Figure 3-2: Transit Services in Arroyo Grande
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 32
PLANNED MULTIMODAL IMPROVEMENTS
The framework of every circulation system is the City’s public street network to move people and goods.
From this basic framework of public streets, other mode specific, like pedestrian and bike paths and private streets, are added to accommodate all modes of travel for life’s daily needs. The goal of this local and regional planning effort is to interconnect the City and adjacent communities seamlessly via a safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian network for recreational and commuter use, as well as improving air quality by reducing vehicular trips. Various multimodal improvements have been recommended or approved within the General Plan and the various planning documents in order to address the multimodal needs of the transportation system. Specifically, the City’s current Bicycle & Trails Master Plan (2012) details proposed multimodal improvements for Arroyo Grande.
Consistent with the proposed hierarchy of streets in Figure 2-2 and the current City Bicycle & Trails Master Plan, the Circulation Plan for Bicycle Facility Improvements are shown in Figure 3-3, and the Circulation Plan for Pedestrian and Transit Improvements are shown in Figure 3-4. The improvements in the adopted Bicycle & Trails Master Plan have been modified in some cases to reflect the amended policies and standard cross-sections in this Circulation Element. These changes include the option for Class II or Class IV bikeways on arterial streets and the option for Class II bikeways or Class III bicycle boulevards on collector streets. Refinements to these maps were also a result of additional transportation analysis and public input. These improvements have been created to guide the future multimodal circulation planning and improvements to the City of Arroyo Grande’s circulation system.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 35
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN POLICIES
Bicycle Transportation
CT8 Schedule and implement the Bicycle network identified in the Bicycle Improvements Map (Figure 3-3) as development occurs and as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities, improve these facilities, and build new facilities as necessary in accordance with the Bicycle & Trails Master Plan.
CT8-1 Prioritization: Promote and improve bicycle circulation facilities to serve all areas of the City as a priority system. Link with regional systems and prioritize connections with schools, parks, transit, and major public facilities.
CT8-1.1 The City should strive to include implementation of planned bicycle facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Budget.
CT8-2 Bicycle Network Connectivity: New development that lacks connectivity to the existing bicycle network beyond the project frontage shall be required to complete missing offsite gaps per the City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan to the maximum extent feasible. Improvements maybe facilitated through reimbursement agreements.
CT8-2.1 New development adjacent to planned bicycle infrastructure shall not obstruct or otherwise preclude future construction of bicycle infrastructure CT8-3 Standards & Guidance: Implement the Bicycle & Trails Master Plan and proposed improvements (Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4) in accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards, State Engineering Standards & Specifications, and the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
CT8-3.1 Update the City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan in the form of an Active Transportation Plan, to incorporate pedestrian travel, in accordance with State guidelines and industry best practices.
CT8-3.2 Ensure that the future updates to the adopted Bicycle & Trails Master Plan maintains consistency with the requirements of the Streets and Highway Code in order to be eligible for further funding for improvements from the State, such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP).
CT8-4 Class I Bike Path: An essential part of developing a low-stress bicycle network, these offstreet paths and trails are designated for both pedestrian and bicycle use.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 36
CT8-5 Class II Bike lanes: On-street lanes designated for bicycle use and delineated from automobile lanes by roadway markings. Where ROW permits, Class II bike lanes shall be provided to the maximum extent feasible with buffers between adjacent auto lanes.
When Class II bike lanes exceed LTS 3 (or operative low-stress network LTS standard), the facility shall be converted to protected Class IV bikeway or a parallel Class I to the maximum extent feasible.
CT8-6 Class III Bike Route: On-street automobile lanes shared by both bicycles and automobiles. In order to increase awareness and visibility of bicyclists sharing the roadway with motorized vehicles, Class III bicycle facilities shall include respective signage (Bikes May Use Full Lane) and markings such as shared lane markings (sharrows) to the maximum extent feasible.
When Class III bike facilities exceed LTS 3 (or operative low-stress network LTS standard), the facility shall be converted to dedicated Class II lanes if determined feasible.
CT8-7 Class III Bike Boulevard: On Local Collectors where Class II bike lanes are not present, and on local streets where LTS 3 is exceeded, Class III bike routes should be upgraded to the maximum extent feasible with features commensurate with a bicycle boulevard.
When Class III bike facilities exceed LTS 3 (or operative low-stress network LTS standard), the facility shall be converted to dedicated Class II lanes if determined feasible.
CT8-8 Class IV Protected Bike Lanes: On-street separated bikeways reserved for use by bicyclists only, with physical separation between the bikeway, travel lanes, and sidewalks.
Class IV facilities can be one-way facilities on both sides of the street or two-way facilities on one side of the street. Physical separation can include concrete curbs, landscaping, parking lanes, bollards, or other vertical elements.
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
CT9 Strive to attain and maintain a bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) of 3 or better on all bicycle facilities. Strive to attain and maintain designated low-stress network.
CT9-1 Designation of LTS Standards: The City shall designate and adopt context-specific LTS standards that exceed the general LTS 3 goal, including designation of a low-stress bicycle network of complimentary LTS 1 and LTS 2 facilities, as part of an Active Transportation Plan, and/or through Safe Routes to School Plan(s).
CT9-2 Degradation of LTS: New development which is projected to degrade bicycle LTS below the designated standard, or further exacerbate conditions already below the standard, shall be
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 37
required to make transportation improvements that offset the level of degradation to the maximum extent feasible.
Pedestrian Transportation
CT10 Schedule and complete projects to fill gaps in City’s sidewalk network and construct new connections identified in the Pedestrian and Transit Infrastructure Improvements Map (Figure 3-4) as development occurs and as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
CT10-1 Prioritization: Promote and improve pedestrian circulation facilities to serve all areas of the City as a priority system, prioritize connections with schools, parks, transit, and major public facilities.
CT10-1.1 The City should strive to include implementation of planned pedestrian facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Budget.
CT10-2 Pedestrian Network Connectivity: New development that lacks connectivity to the existing pedestrian network beyond the project frontage shall be required to complete missing offsite gaps. Improvements maybe facilitated through reimbursement agreements.
CT10-2.1 New development adjacent to planned pedestrian infrastructure shall not obstruct or otherwise preclude future construction of pedestrian infrastructure.
CT10-3 Standards & Guidance: Implement pedestrian infrastructure in accordance with City and State Engineering Standards & Specifications.
CT10-3.1 Provide pedestrian facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities and ensure that roadway improvement projects address accessibility by employing universal design concepts consistent with ADA requirements.
CT10-3.2 Strive to attain an effective walkway width (continuous clear path of travel) of 8’ or more in high pedestrian traffic areas.
CT10-3.3 Pedestrian walkways on roadways with speed limits above 35 mph shall be buffered (e.g., on-street parking, bike lanes, landscape strips, etc.) from the adjacent travel lane to the maximum extent feasible.
CT10-4 Active Transportation Plan: Expand the City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan into a Citywide Active Transportation Plan including pedestrian mode improvement plan and policies.
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 38
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL POLICIES
Safe Routes to School
CT11 Create safe and inviting environments for students, families, and staff to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation to and from school.
CT11-1 Develop Safe Routes to School Plan(s): Develop a focused Safe Routes to School Plan (or Plans) for all K-12 schools in Arroyo Grande to improve safe and convenient walking and biking to school.
CT11-2 Designate Low-Stress Bicycle Network: Designate a low-stress bicycle network that supports safe bicycle access to schools for all ages and abilities. A network of LTS 1 and LTS 2 facilities should be designated in the vicinity of schools when preparing and updating Safe Routes to School Plans and/or the City’s Active Transportation Plan.
CT11-3 Prioritize Active Transportation Network Improvements: Prioritize the closure of gaps in the pedestrian network (sidewalks, crosswalks) and the low-stress bicycle network. Seek connections and paths between homes and schools, especially where dead-end streets, cul-desacs, and other street patterns impede circulation. Identify, improve, and formalize “shortcuts” and “goat paths” where feasible and implement wayfinding.
PUBLIC TRANSIT POLICIES
Transit Service
CT12 Maintain and improve transit services and facilities in cooperation with transit operators and providers.
CT12-1 Transit Stops: Strive to establish transit stops within ¼ mi walking distance of all residential and non-residential uses within the City.
CT12-1.1 New development outside ¼ mi walking distance of existing transit stops shall be required to install transit stops and facilities to achieve a maximum ¼ mi walking distance to transit for the proposed development to the maximum extent feasible.
CT12-1.2 Where transit stop locations conflict with protected bikeways, consider “best practices” referenced in the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Urban Street Design Guide, and/or Transit Street Design Guide, such as floating transit islands, to minimize conflicts between modes.
CT12-1.3 Along high-quality transit routes, improve stops to include stop elements such as transit shelters, bicycle parking, lighting, and level boarding, consistent with “best
Chapter 3: Multimodal Travel
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 39
practices” referenced in the NACTO Transit Street Design Guide, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, and/or Urban Street Design Guide.
CT12-2 Transit Providers/Operators: In cooperation with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) or other transit operators, provide for a safe and efficient transit system for local and regional travel, particularly for youth, elderly, low-income or disabled persons.
CT12-2.1 The City should encourage convenient routes and schedules on arterial and/or collector streets including stops, shelters, bus benches, park and ride, transfer and other facilities or features to be provided in connection with new developments.
CT12-2.2 Work with transit operators to identify opportunities to implement transit intelligent transportation systems (ITS) elements such as transit signal priority, queue jump, and live passenger information and wayfinding.
CT12-3 Employers: The City should encourage major employers to promote use of public transit and/or provide van/carpools, private shuttles, or other trip reduction (flex time, telecommuting, bike) and transportation demand management measures.
CT12-4 School Districts: Collaborate with Lucia Mar Unified School District and other educational institutions to plan improved school bus transportation system, including parking and loading areas, bus stop amenities, links with other transit providers, public parks, and maintenance and storage facilities, and coordination with safe bicycle and sidewalk facilities.
CT12-5 Marketing: Encourage ridership on public transit systems through marketing and promotional efforts. Provide information to residents and employees on transit services available for local and regional trips.
Chapter 4: Truck Routes & Goods Movements
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 41
RAILROADS
No commuter rail transportation (Amtrak) is currently located in the City of Arroyo Grande. The nearest Amtrak station is located in City of Grover Beach, 2.2 miles west of the City of Arroyo Grande. The primary access to the station is on W. Grand Avenue east of Highway 1. The SoCo Transit Bus Route 21 provides service to the railway station for City of Arroyo Grande.
AIRPORT
Oceano County Airport is the closest airport to the City, located in the unincorporated community of Oceano in San Luis Obispo County, southwest of Arroyo Grande. The SoCo Transit Bus route 21 provides service to this airport for City of Arroyo Grande. The airport is mainly used for recreational activities and is accessible by Highway 1 via W. Grand Avenue.
The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, also known as McChesney Field, is located in the City of San Luis Obispo about 9 miles north of Arroyo Grande. It is served by three commercial airlines providing services to Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Seattle. It is also home to full service general aviation and corporate facilities. McChesney Field is located on the west side of SR 227, about 2 miles east of US 101. Public transit service is provided to the airport by SLO Transit Route 1B (City of San Luis Obispo) and transfer via Regional Route 10.
TRUCK ROUTES
Truck routes are intended to carry heavyweight commercial, industrial, and agricultural vehicles through and around the community with minimum disruption to local auto traffic and minimum annoyance to residential areas. The 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act set standards for large trucks, known as STAA trucks, and set minimum truck sizes that states must allow on the National Network including the Interstate System and other defined routes. The US 101 highway through the City of Arroyo Grande and statewide is a National Truck Network. California State Route 1 is a California Legal Truck Network, north of City of Arroyo Grande passing through the San Luis Obispo County. The last truck route to access Arroyo Grande is SR 227. SR 227 north of Arroyo Grande is a combination of California Legal Truck Network and the California Legal Advisory Truck Route. Figure 4-1 presents a map of approved truck routes, provided by the City.
Chapter 4: Truck Routes & Goods Movements
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element | Page 43
TRUCK AND GOODS MOVEMENT POLICIES
Truck & Emergency Services Transportation
CT13 Design and designate efficient truck and emergency access routes utilizing the arterial and collector street network to minimize impact on local streets, particularly residential neighborhoods.
CT13-1 Truck Routes: Truck routes should coordinate with County and adjoining city’s designated routes and avoid traversing residential areas.
CT13-1.1 Continue to sign truck routes and ensure that clear signage is provided from regional gateways to truck routes in the City.
CT13-2 Deliveries: Promote off-peak truck deliveries within the village core.
CT13-3 Emergency Access Design: Emergency access design standards shall limit cul-de-sac lengths to the maximum extent feasible, provide a logical grid or connected system of local streets providing at least two directions of neighborhood access, and minimize through traffic on local streets, particularly traversing single-family residential neighborhoods.
City of Arroyo Grande | Circulation Element
Appendix A:
Existing Conditions
Background Report
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page i
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 1 Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Existing Setting .................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Demographics and Commute Trends................................................................................ 4
1.3 Roadway System ............................................................................................................... 7
1.3.1 State Freeways................................................................................................. 7
1.3.2 State Highways................................................................................................. 7
1.3.3 Arterial Streets .................................................................................................. 9
1.3.4 Collectors........................................................................................................ 10
1.3.5 Local Streets................................................................................................... 10
2. Technical Analysis Methodologies and Parameters .................................................................. 11
2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).......................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 VMT Methodologies........................................................................................ 11
2.1.2 VMT Policies................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Level of Service & Traffic Operations .............................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Intersection Operations .................................................................................. 13
2.2.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis ...................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Roadway Segment Operations....................................................................... 16
2.2.4 Technical Analysis Parameters ...................................................................... 16
2.2.5 Level of Service Policies................................................................................. 16
2.3 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress.......................................................................................... 17
2.3.1 Bicycle LTS Criteria ........................................................................................ 18
2.3.2 Bicycle LTS Policy .......................................................................................... 20
3. Existing Traffic Operations ......................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations & Deficiencies ............................................ 21
3.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Operations........................................................................ 25
3.3 Truck Routes.................................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ......................................................................................... 30
3.5 Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility Conditions ............................................................ 33
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 2
3.5.1 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis................................................ 36
3.6 Public Transportation ....................................................................................................... 38
3.7 Rail................................................................................................................................... 39
3.8 Air..................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure Index
Figure 1.1 Travel Time to Work .......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 1.2 Roadway Functional Classifications .................................................................................. 8 Figure 2.1 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Definitions ............................................................. 18 Figure 3.1 Existing Intersection Lane Geometrics & Control............................................................ 22 Figure 3.2 Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................................ 23 Figure 3.3 Existing Daily Roadway Traffic Volumes......................................................................... 26 Figure 3.4 Map of Truck Routes in the City of Arroyo Grande ......................................................... 29 Figure 3.5 2012 Bicycle & Trail Master Plan..................................................................................... 31 Figure 3.6 City of Arroyo Grande Sidewalk Inventory ...................................................................... 34 Figure 3.7 Existing Bikeways Map.................................................................................................... 35 Figure 3.8 City of Arroyo Grande Major Roads Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)...................... 37 Figure 3.9 Transit Routes Serving the City of Arroyo Grande .......................................................... 38 Table Index
Table 1.1 Means of Transportation and Carpooling Statistics........................................................... 5 Table 1.2 Travel Time to Work .......................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.1 Level of Service (LOS) Criteria for Intersections ............................................................. 15 Table 2.2 Roadway Segment ADT Operational Thresholds ........................................................... 16 Table 2.3 Technical Analysis Parameters ....................................................................................... 16 Table 2.4 LTS Criteria for Intersection Approaches with Right Turn Lanes .................................... 18 Table 2.5 LTS Criteria for Mixed Traffic........................................................................................... 19 Table 2.6 LTS Criteria for Bike Lanes ............................................................................................. 19 Table 3.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations.................................................................... 24 Table 3.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Operations ....................................................................... 27
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 3 Appendix Index
Appendix A Traffic Counts
Appendix B Synchro Reports
Appendix C Warrant Analysis Worksheets
Appendix D Bicycle LTS Analysis Worksheets
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 4
1. Introduction
The City of Arroyo Grande has retained GHD to complete updates to the City’s General Plan Circulation Element (CE), associated Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) and nexus study, and finalization of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) guidelines. As part of the CE update, this Existing Conditions Background Report has been prepared in order to document available background data, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), existing traffic operations, multimodal facilities, transit services, and other pertinent transportation information describing the City’s transportation baseline. This report summarizes the City’s existing roadway facilities in the context of a regional setting and existing service levels on critical facilities. Daily and peak hour traffic volumes are presented and analyzed, and facilities with deficit capacity are identified. The Existing Conditions sets the transportation baseline and will be utilized as the groundwork for forecasting transportation conditions, which will then be utilized to assess future transportation needs.
The City’s ultimate objective is to update their Circulation Element to include policies, goals, and objectives that will create an optimal multi-modal transportation system for the City. Policies goals, and objectives will be consistent with the requirements of AB 1358, "The California Complete Street Act", and SB 743, the change from Level of Service to VMT as the measure of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to provide integrated smart growth planning. The updated Circulation Element and TIF will also bring the City’s planning efforts in compliance with the goals set forth in San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) 2019 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) as required by SB 375, “The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008”, authorized by AB 32, “The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006”.
1.1 Existing Setting
The City of Arroyo Grande is an incorporated community located within the “Five Cities” area of San Luis Obispo County, California. The City lies about 200 miles south of the San Francisco Bay Area and 150 miles north of Los Angeles. The City is 5.45 square miles in area and is at an elevation of 114 feet. The City of Arroyo Grande is located approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo, along the US 101 coastal corridor. The City is located contiguous with the incorporated areas of the City of Pismo Beach to the northwest and the City of Grover Beach to the west.
US 101 runs diagonally through the middle of the City in a northwest to southeast direction. US 101 is the primary State highway providing regional access, connecting the City with other parts of San Luis Obispo County and the State. State Route 227 also provides more localized access to/from the City, connecting Arroyo Grande with the City of San Luis Obispo and surrounding County community.
1.2 Demographics and Commute Trends
Data from the United States Census Bureau’s 2009-2013 (2013) and 2013-2017 (2017) American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, form the basis of the following demographic analysis.
Based on the ACS data, the population in the City has increased by roughly 560 from 17,411 in 2013 to 17,971 in 2017, approximately a 3.2% increase.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 5 Prior to examining the various transportation modes in the City, the following sub-section will examine some recent trends and current facts concerning commuter mode-choice and travel times in the City. Table 1.1 presents the various means of transportation reported in the City of Arroyo Grande between 2013 and 2017 ACS estimates.
Table 1.1 Means of Transportation and Carpooling Statistics As presented in Table 1.1, the number of workers in the City did not increase significantly between the two five year estimates. This increase in workers is approximately 2.2%. Overall, these statistics indicate a consistent trend of a large percentage of commuters driving alone. Carpooling, motorcycle use, and walking decreased between 2013 and 2017, while biking and working at home increased. Public transit use remained consistent.
Table 1.2 and Figure 1.1 present the reported travel times from the 2013 and 2017 ACS. As presented in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.1, the average travel time to work for all workers increased by
1.6 minutes, a 7% increase from the 2013 ACS.
Number Percent Number Percent
Workers 16 and over 35,401 - 36,196 -
Car, Truck or Van 31,188 88.1% 32,070 88.6%
Drove Alone 27,082 76.5% 28,124 77.7%
Carpooled 4,107 11.6% 3,945 10.9%
Public Transportation (excludes taxi) 389 1.1% 398 1.1% Motocycle, taxi, or other 354 1.0% 290 0.8%
Bicycle 389 1.1% 434 1.2%
Walked 991 2.8% 688 1.9%
Worked at Home 2,089 5.9% 2,317 6.4%
Means of Transportation
2009-2013 ACS 2013-2017 ACS
Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 7 As summarized in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.1, more commuters are experiencing longer travel times to work (15+ minutes) in 2017 than in 2013. A large majority of commuters, about 70%, spent less than 25 minutes commuting. Approximately 40% of commuters had a commute time of 20-25 minutes, indicating a presumably high amount of non-localized employment.
1.3 Roadway System
A hierarchy of streets provides access to and from residential, commercial, and industrial uses throughout the City and beyond. A route’s design, including number of lanes needed, is determined by its functional classification and its projected traffic levels to achieve “safe and convenient movement at the development intensity anticipated in the Land Use Element.” The study area and existing roadway functional classifications are presented in Figure 1.2.
1.3.1 State Freeways
Controlled access facilities whose junctions are free of at-grade crossing with other road, railways or pedestrian pathway, and instead are served by interchange are classified as highways. Highways can either be toll or non-toll roads, with speed limits usually ranging from 60 to 70 mph. The following freeways service the surrounding Arroyo Grande community.
US 101 is a major north-south freeway facility that traverses along coastal California. US 101 serves as the principal inter-regional auto and truck travel route that connects San Luis Obispo County (and other portions of the Central Coast) with the San Francisco Bay Area to the north and the Los Angeles urban basin to the south. Within San Luis Obispo County, US 101 provides major connection between and through several cities. Through the “Five Cities” area of San Luis Obispo County, US 101 represents a major recreational as well as commuter travel route and has a general four-lane divided freeway cross-section with 65 mph posted speed limits. Within the City of Arroyo Grande, US 101 forms full-access interchanges with Oak Park Boulevard, Brisco Road/Halcyon Road and Grand Avenue/Branch Street as well as directional interchange access at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Avenue.
1.3.2 State Highways
Controlled access facilities whose junctions with cross streets are characterized by at grade intersections rather than interchanges are classified as highways. Highways can either be divided or undivided roadways, with speed limits usually ranging from 40 to 55 mph. The following highways service the surrounding Arroyo Grande community.
State Route 227 (SR 227) is a state highway route that runs predominantly in a north-south direction connecting the City of San Luis Obispo and the City of Arroyo Grande. SR 227 has a general two-lane highway type cross-section through most segments. SR 227 represents a significant parallel commuter route to US 101, as well as a recreational travel route serving the City of Arroyo Grande.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 9
1.3.3 Arterial Streets
Arterial facilities serve to connect areas of major activity within the urban area and function primarily to distribute cross-town traffic from freeways / highways to collector streets. The City’s Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards define two categories: Primary Arterials and Arterials.
Primary Arterials feature four lanes with a turn lane, and Arterials feature two lanes with a turn lane.
Within the City, arterial streets are mostly two-lane facilities with maximum operating speeds ranging from 30 to 45 mph. In addition, arterial facilities generally have limited access to adjacent land uses. The following arterials are identified in the City’s General Plan circulation system.
East Branch Street extends Grand Avenue to the east and serves as the City’s main downtown commercial thoroughfare as well as a commuter connection between US 101 and SR 227. The duality of purpose of this three-lane arterial road with on-street parking does create safety and capacity concerns. The high volume of traffic (18,500 ADT) at times conflicts with the community’s desire to have a pedestrian-friendly downtown.
Elm Street is a two-to-four-lane arterial road that runs north-south between State Route 1 (SR 1) in the south, and Brighton Avenue in the north. The four-lane portion of Elm Street is located between Ash Street and Grand Avenue.
Fair Oaks Avenue is a two-to-four-lane arterial road that provides important east-west connectivity across US 101 in the southern portion of the City. It extends from Traffic Way in the east to Elm Street in the west. East of Valley Road, Fair Oaks Avenue is not built to full arterial facility design standards.
Grand Avenue is a four-to-five-lane east-west Primary arterial through and within the City (two travel lanes per direction with a two-way left-turn median lane along several segments within the City). West of the City of Arroyo Grande, Grand Avenue extends into the City of Grover Beach and extends further west to the coastline. East of the full-access interchange with US 101, Grand Avenue becomes East Branch Street, which extends further east to Corbett Canyon Road and SR 227. Grand Avenue represents one of the “gateway” routes for recreational travelers headed westwards from US 101 to the Pacific coastline.
Halcyon Road is a two-to-four-lane north-south arterial road that connects between US 101 in the City of Arroyo Grande and State Route 1 (SR 1) in the Halcyon area located to the south of the City, with the southernmost terminus at Zenon Way. Between Grand Avenue and Fair Oaks Avenue, Halcyon Road is a four-lane primary arterial road. Halcyon Road, in conjunction with Brisco Road and El Camino Real, forms a full-access interchange with US 101, just north of the US 101/Grand Avenue interchange.
Oak Park Boulevard is two-to-five-lane north-south arterial road that runs along the northwestern City limit line, defining Arroyo Grande’s boundary with the adjacent Cities of Grover Beach and Pismo Beach. Oak Park Boulevard forms a full-access interchange with US 101, and extends south of US 101 as a four-lane primary arterial into the City of Grover Beach, continuing south beyond The Pike as 22nd Street. North of the City of Arroyo Grande, Oak Park Boulevard forks into Old Oak Park Road, which extends north into County lands, and Noyes Road, which extends in a northeasterly direction to connect with SR 227.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 10 Traffic Way is a two-to-four-lane arterial road serving local commercial developments. It extends from East Branch Street (SR 227) in the north and terminates into ramp junctions with US 101 to the south.
Valley Road is a two-lane arterial road that extends south from Fair Oaks Avenue, connecting to State Route 1 (SR 1) south of the City limits.
West Branch Street is a two-lane arterial road, and also a frontage road east of US 101 with both commercial and residential frontage. It extends from Oak Park Boulevard to West Branch Street, and provides important circulation and commercial accessibility east of the freeway.
1.3.4 Collectors
Collectors function as connector routes between local and arterial streets and provide access to residential, commercial, and industrial property. The City’s Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards define two categories: Collectors and Residential Collectors. Collectors feature turn lanes at intersections and may feature a two-way left turn lane (TWLTL), while residential collectors do not have turn lanes.
James Way is a predominantly-east-west two-lane road serving as a residential collector between Oak Park Boulevard and Tally Ho Road.
Printz Road is a predominantly-east-west two-lane collector that runs just north of the City’s northern limits. Printz Road connects between SR 227 and Noyes Road, and provides access for several small local roads.
The Pike is a two-lane east-west collector. It runs between 13th Street and Halcyon Road. A portion of The Pike runs adjacent to part of the southern City limits.
Rancho Parkway is a two-lane north-south collector that runs between West Branch Street and James Way. Rancho Parkway provides access to the large shopping centers along W Branch Street, including the Walmart, and residential areas north.
Ash Street, Branch Mill Road, Brisco Road, Courtland Street, East Cherry Avenue, El Camino Mercado, Farroll Avenue, Huasna Road, Mason Street, North Corbett Canyon Road, Rodeo Drive, and Tally Ho Road are other important roadways serving Residential Collector functions within the City.
1.3.5 Local Streets
Local streets provide direct access to abutting properties and allow for localized movement of traffic.
Local streets are characterized by low daily traffic volumes and low travel speeds. All roadways not identified in the Roadway Functional Classifications map (Figure 1.2) as freeways, highways, arterials, or collectors are designated as local streets.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 11
2. Technical Analysis Methodologies and
Parameters
The following section outlines the analysis parameters and methodologies that will be used to quantify the measures of circulation system effectiveness.
2.1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
SB 743 was signed into law in 2013, with the intent to better align CEQA practices with statewide sustainability goals related to infill development, active transportation, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. Among the changes to the State CEQA Guidelines was removal of vehicle delay and Level of Service (LOS) from consideration as environmental impacts under CEQA. For land use projects, OPR identified Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita (for residential), VMT per employee (for office), and net VMT (for retail) as new metrics for transportation analysis. For transportation projects, lead agencies for roadway capacity projects have discretion, consistent with CEQA and planning requirements, to choose which methodology to use to evaluate transportation impacts.
2.1.1 VMT Methodologies
Various methodologies are currently available to calculate VMT. Travel demand models, sketch models or planning tools, spreadsheet models, research, and data can all be used to calculate and estimate VMT. GHD is investigating local VMT further and will update this section based on the results of additional analysis and validation.
Boundary-Based and Project-Based VMT
Not all VMT is measured equally, and not all models are equally equipped to assess VMT.
Boundary-based VMT is calculated by multiplying traffic volumes on all roadway segments in a study area by each segment’s length. This type of VMT is easily calculated, but is not adequate for CEQA analysis under SB 743. Project-based (or tour-based) VMT is more challenging to calculate, as it requires estimating or measuring the length of individual trips by purpose, where trips cross study area and jurisdictional boundaries.
SB 743 generally requires project-based VMT to be estimated, since boundary-based VMT approaches do not account for the full lengths of trips that leave a particular study area (whether that be a City, County, or State). For this reason, regional travel demand models, “big data”, and household travel surveys that are not limited by local jurisdictional boundaries are the preferred tools to estimate VMT under SB 743.
Published Data
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments’ Staff Report dated October 2, 2019 states baseline and recommended VMT for incorporated Cities and County communities, based on the regional Travel Demand Model. This information is presented below.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 12 The Baseline Regional VMT per capita (SLOCOG 2018 results) is 13.43 o Recommended threshold is 15% below baseline at 11.42
The Baseline Regional VMT per employee (SLOCOG 2018 results) is 8.59 o Recommended threshold is at 15% below baseline at 7.3 No baseline or threshold set for Retail.
The Staff Report shows an average daily VMT per capita for Arroyo Grande of approximately
9.5 for residents, and 7 for employees.
2.1.2 VMT Policies
With the adopted CEQA Guidelines (revised, January 20, 2016), transportation impacts are to be evaluated based on a project’s effect on vehicle miles travelled (VMT). The new guidelines became effective statewide on July 1, 2020. GHD has assisted the City in establishing a VMT Policy, which the City has adopted on September 8, 2020, and establishes the thresholds of significance and screening criteria for VMT. Per the City’s Policy, and consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, the target for VMT reduction is 15% below baseline for residential and office projects, and no net increase in total regional VMT for retail, industrial, and other projects. The City’s baseline VMT and significance thresholds are listed below. Baseline Residential VMT per capita: 20.2
o 15% reduction in baseline VMT per capita: 17.2
Baseline Office VMT per employee: 14.0
o 15% reduction in baseline VMT per employee: 11.9
Retail, Industrial, & Other: No Net increase in total regional VMT Mixed-Use: Evaluate components independently considering internal capture, and compare to the corresponding threshold. Alternatively, analyze only the project’s the dominant use. Redevelopment: If a project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds above apply.
A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds recommended above.
Screening Criteria
The City has also identified screening thresholds for projects that are presumed to be less than significant impact. The following are examples (not inclusive) of land use and transportation projects that are identified exempt by OPR, therefore should not require VMT analysis:
A) Small Projects – less than 110 vehicle trips per day B) Projects that are within ½ mile of a transit stop at the intersection of two transit routes with 15 minute headways or less, unless the project:
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 13 i) Has floor-area-ratio of less than 0.75;
ii) Includes more parking than required by the City’s zoning code; iii) Is inconsistent with the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, City Zoning Code, or City Land Use Policies, including the City’s General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan; or
iv) Replaces affordable housing with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.
C) Local-serving retail projects, which are generally defined as projects within the City that are less than 50,000 square feet in size. The determination of whether a retail project is localserving or regional-serving shall be made by City staff on a case by case basis to determine whether they are likely to attract regional trips. For instance, auto dealerships and specialty retailers may propose less than 50,000 square feet of retail space but be deemed regionally serving.
D) Transportation projects that are expected to reduce or have no impact on VMT will not require a quantitative analysis. These projects include, but are not limited to, road diets, roundabouts, roadway rehabilitation and maintenance, safety improvements that do not substantially increase auto capacity, installation or reconfiguration of lanes not for through traffic, timing of traffic signals, removal of on-street parking, addition or enhancement of pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities and services.
2.2 Level of Service & Traffic Operations
Although VMT will be used to determine CEQA transportation impacts, the City intends, by policy, to continue to use Level of Service as a metric to evaluate traffic operations to assess need, type, and timing of transportation improvements.
Traffic operations were quantified through the determination of "Level of Service" (LOS). Level of Service is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions, whereby a letter grade "A" through "F" is assigned to an intersection, or roadway segment, representing progressively worsening traffic conditions. LOS "A" represents free-flow operating conditions and LOS "F" represents over-capacity conditions. Levels of Service was calculated for all intersection control types, and freeway ramp merge and diverge sections using the methods documented in the Transportation Research Board Publication Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition, A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, 2016 (HCM 6).
2.2.1 Intersection Operations
The Synchro 10 (Trafficware) software program was used to implement the HCM 6 analysis methodologies for signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for all control types using the methods documented in HCM 6, excluding the clustered intersections and locations with non-NEMA-standard phasing, due to limitations within HCM 6 methodology. The specific locations include the Brisco Road / US 101 partial interchange and Brisco / El Camino Real, which used Synchro Timing methodology to determine intersection
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 14 delay. For signalized or all-way stop-controlled (AWSC) intersections, an LOS determination is based on the calculated averaged delay for all approaches and movements. For two-way or sidestreet stop controlled (TWSC) intersections, an LOS determination is based upon the calculated average delay for all movements of the worst performing approach. The vehicular-based LOS criteria for different types of intersection controls are presented in Table 2.1.
2.2.2 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
A supplemental traffic signal “warrant” analysis was completed. The term “signal warrants” refers to the list of established criteria used by Caltrans and other public agencies to quantitatively justify or ascertain the need for installation of a traffic signal at an otherwise unsignalized intersection. This study employed the signal warrant criteria presented in the latest edition of the 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (2014 CA MUTCD, Revision 5). The signal warrant criteria are based upon several factors including volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, frequency of accidents, location of school areas etc. The CA MUTCD indicates that the installation of a traffic signal should be considered if one or more of the signal warrants are met. The ultimate decision to signalize an intersection should be determined after careful analysis of all intersection and area characteristics.
This traffic operations analysis specifically utilized the Peak-Hour-Volume based Warrant 3 as one representative type of traffic signal warrant analysis. Signal warrant analyses were only conducted for non-signalized intersections which are projected to operate beyond the LOS thresholds. Section
3.1 of this Report further discusses which intersections are evaluated for the peak hour signal warrant. The Signal Warrant analysis worksheets are provided in Appendix C.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 17 CT2-1 Where deficiencies exist, mitigate to an LOS ‘D’ at a minimum and plan improvement to achieve LOS ‘C’ (Los ‘E’ or ‘F’ unacceptable = significant adverse impact unless Statement of Overriding Considerations or CEQA Findings approved). The design and funding for such planned improvements shall be sufficiently definite to enable construction within a reasonable period of time.
Based on the current City policy, LOS C will be utilized as the acceptable threshold for the evaluation of intersection and roadway operations in this report.
It should be noted however, as part of the update to the Circulation Element, the City is proposing to change the LOS policy to the following:
CT3. Strive to attain and maintain automobile Level of Service LOS ‘D’ or better on all street segments and controlled intersections.
CT3-1. New development that is projected to degrade conditions to a LOS E or below or further exacerbate conditions already below LOS D should be conditioned to make transportation improvements that offset the level degradation. Improvements to nonautomobile modes of transportation at the same segment or intersection may also be considered as an offset to degradation of automobile LOS.
If the City decides to adopt this change in LOS policy to LOS D as the threshold, this will change the findings of deficient locations identified within this report.
2.3 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bicycle operations are quantified through a determination of “Level of Traffic Stress” (LTS). LTS must be calculated for roadway segments and intersections using the methods documented in the paper, Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity, Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11- 19, May 2012. Bicycle LTS quantifies the stress level of a given roadway segment by considering a variety of criteria, including street width (number of lanes), speed limit or prevailing speed, presence and width of bike lanes, and the presence and width of parking lanes. Bicycle LTS is a suitability rating system of the safety, comfort, and convenience of transportation facilities from the perspective of the user. Moreover, the methodology allows planning practitioners to assess gaps in connectivity that may discourage active users from traversing roadways.
Bicycle LTS scores roadway facilities into one of four classifications or ratings for measuring the effects of traffic-based stress on bicycle riders, with 1 being the lowest stress or most comfortable, and 4 being the highest stress or least comfortable. Generally, LTS score of 1 indicates the facility provides a traffic stress tolerable by most children and less experienced riders, such as multi-use paths that are separated from motorized traffic. An LTS score of 4 indicates a stress level tolerable by only the most experienced cyclists who are comfortable with high-volume and high-speed, mixed traffic environments. The figure below presents the four scoring classifications, subsequent tables show the criteria associated with determining the LTS score.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 20
2.3.2 Bicycle LTS Policy
As part of the update to the Circulation Element, the City is proposing to adopt the following Policy related to thresholds for Bicycle LTS:
Inconsistency Criteria: Project causes bicycle level of traffic stress to exceed or exacerbates approaches or crossings that already exceed LTS 3 at intersections with Class II or Class III facilities.
Inconsistency Criteria: Project causes bicycle level of traffic stress to exceed or exacerbates segments that already exceed LTS 3 on Class II or Class III routes.
This Report contains the analysis of Bicycle LTS of arterial and collector roadways, and approaches of major intersections to review current bicycle connectivity throughout the City.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 21
3. Existing Traffic Operations
Intersection facilities were evaluated on an AM and PM peak hour basis using peak hour turning movement counts collected on Thursday, November 14, 2019 and Thursday, November 21, 2019.
These counts were collected while school was in session. The AM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is defined as the one continuous hour of peak traffic flow counted between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM under typical weekday conditions.
3.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations & Deficiencies Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic operations were quantified using existing traffic volumes, lane geometrics, and intersection controls. Figure 3.1 presents the existing lane geometrics and intersection control types that are currently in place at the study intersections.
Figure 3.2 presents the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 24
Existing conditions.
Table 3.1 Existing Conditions Intersection Operations
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 James Way & Oak Park Blvd Signal C 29.4 C 18.6 B -
2 James Way & Rodeo Dr AWSC C 8.3 A 9.1 A -
3 James Way & Tally Ho Rd AWSC C 8.6 A 8.8 A -
4 W Branch St / US 101 NB Ramp & Oak Park Ave Signal C 8.3 A 10.6 B - 5 El Camino Real & Oak Park Ave Signal C 12.1 B 13.4 B - 6 W Branch St & Camino Mercado / US 101 NB Ramps Signal C 15.1 B 17.4 B - 7 W Branch St & Rancho Parkway Signal C 6.4 A 8.3 A -
8 W Branch St & Brisco Rd Signal C 12.0 B 22.9 C -
9 US 101 NB Ramps & Brisco Rd Signal C 41.2 D 51.6 D -
10 El Camino Real & Brisco Rd Signal C 43.8 D 51.8 D -
11 W Branch St & Rodeo Dr TWSC C 11.8 B 10.8 B -
12 El Camino Real & US 101 SB Ramps / Halcyon Rd Signal C 19.9 B 23.1 C - 13 E Grand Ave & Oak Park Blvd Signal C 16.2 B 22.9 C - 14 E Grand Ave & Courtland St Signal C 9.7 A 11.2 B -
15 E Grand Ave & Elm St Signal C 9.6 A 12.2 B -
16 E Grand Ave & Brisco Rd TWSC C 12.8 B 18.8 C -
17 E Grand Ave & Halcyon Rd Signal C 23.2 C 23.6 C -
18 E Grand Ave & El Camino Real TWSC C 50.6 F 41.1 E No 19 E Grand Ave & US 101 SB Ramps Signal C 9.7 A 13.2 B - 20 E Grand Ave & US 101 NB Ramps Signal C 11.3 B 28.0 C - 21 E Grand Ave / E Branch St & W Branch St TWSC C 104.0 F 111.5 F Yes 22 E Branch St & Wesley St / Traffic Way Signal C 17.7 B 17.1 B - 23 E Branch St & Nevada St / Bridge St TWSC C 42.8 E 23.0 C Yes 24 E Branch St & Short St none C - - - - -
25 E Branch St & Mason St Signal C 11.3 B 11.1 B -
26 E Branch St / Huasna Rd & Corbett Canton Rd / Stanley AWSC C 21.2 C 20.3 C - 27 S Traffic Way & Traffic Way / US 101 Ramps TWSC C 11.2 B 12.8 B - 28 Fair Oaks Ave & Traffic Way Signal C 13.5 B 12.7 B - 29 Fair Oaks Ave & US 101 SB Ramp / Orchard Ave AWSC C 39.8 E 16.9 C Yes 30 Fair Oaks Ave & Valley Rd Signal C 12.2 B 8.1 A -
31 Fair Oaks Ave & Halcyon Rd Signal C 54.2 D 17.0 B -
32 Farroll Ave & Halcyon Rd TWSC C 109.0 F 37.9 E No
33 The Pike & Halcyon Rd AWSC C 22.3 C 13.3 B -
# Intersection
Control
Type1,2
Target
LOS
AM Peak PM Peak
Notes:
1. AWSC = All Way Stop Control; TWSC = Tw o Way Stop Control; RNDBT = Roundabout
2. LOS = Delay based on w orst minor street approach for TWSC intersections, average of all approaches for AWSC,
3. Warrant = Based on California MUTCD Warrant 3
4. Bold = Unacceptable Conditions
5. OVR = Delay over 300 seconds
Warrant
3 Met?
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 25 As presented in Table 3.1, the following study intersections operate at unacceptable LOS during the AM or PM peak hours under Existing conditions:
9 – US 101 Northbound Ramps & Brisco Road (at LOS D)
10 – El Camino Real & Brisco Road (at LOS D)
18 – East Grand Avenue & El Camino Real
21 – East Grand Avenue / East Branch Street & West Branch Street 23 – East branch Street & Nevada Street / Bridge Street 29 – Fair Oaks Avenue & US 101 Southbound Ramp / Orchard Avenue 31 – Fair Oaks Avenue & Halcyon Road (at LOS D)
32 – Farroll Avenue & Halcyon Road
Of the locations listed above, several are unsignalized intersections that meet peak hour traffic signal warrant criteria, as follows:
21 – East Grand Avenue / East Branch Street & West Branch Street 23 – East branch Street & Nevada Street / Bridge Street 29 – Fair Oaks Avenue & US 101 Southbound Ramp / Orchard Avenue
3.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Operations
New daily roadway traffic counts were taken in November 2019, two weekday counts at each location, and compared to daily roadway counts taken in May 2012. Figure 3.3 presents the existing daily roadway volumes at the study intersections.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 27 Table 3.2 presents a summary of the prior 2012 average daily traffic (ADT) and current 2019 roadway volumes and LOS at each roadway segment.
Table 3.2 Existing Conditions Roadway Operations
As presented in Table 3.2, all study roadway segments operate at acceptable LOS under Existing Conditions. There are no roadway segment deficiencies at 2019 count locations. 2012
# Street Segment Facility Type Past ADT Average ADT LOS 1 E. Grand Avenue west of Courtland Street Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 21,630 19,770 A 2 E. Grand Avenue east of Courtland Street Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 18,600 19,220 A 3 E. Grand Avenue west of Halcyon Road Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 18,630 15,710 A 4 E. Grand Avenue east of Halcyon Road Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 19,610 17,400 A 5 E. Grand Avenue east of US 101 NB Ramps Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 24,090 19,650 A 6 East Branch Street east of Traffic Way Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 18,490 13,700 C 7 East Branch Street east of Crown Hill Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 11,410 10,980 C 8 Huasna Road east of SR 227 Two Lane Collector 6,600 8,190 C 9 Huasna Road east of City Limits Two Lane Collector - 5,080 A 10 SR 227 south of Tally Ho Road Two Lane Highway 3,300 3,860 B 11 SR 227 south of Royal Oak Place Two Lane Highway 1,880 1,950 A 12 Corbert Canyon Road north of SR 227 Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 1,500 3,610 A 13 North Halcyon Road north of E. Grand Avenue Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 8,900 9,740 B 14 Elm Street south of E. Grand Avenue Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial - 10,250 A 15 El Camino Real north of E. Grand Avenue Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial - 2,310 A 16 S. Halcyon Road south of E. Grand Avenue Four Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 17,280 14,360 A 17 S. Halcyon Road north of Farroll Avenue Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial - 12,920 A 18 S. Halcyon Road south of The Pike Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 6,700 8,530 A 19 Fair Oaks Avenue east of S. Halcyon Road Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 11,220 8,800 A 20 Fair Oaks Avenue east of Valley Road Four Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 8,800 11,350 A 21 Valley Road south of Fair Oaks Avenue Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 5,900 7,620 A 22 Traffic Way south of Branch Street Four Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 13,180 10,770 A 23 West Branch Street north of E. Grand Avenue Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 3,900 3,180 A 24 West Branch Street west of Brisco Road Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 13,900 12,810 A 25 West Branch Street east of Oak Park Boulevard Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 12,000 13,540 C 26 Rancho Pkwy. north of W. Branch Street Two Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 8,400 8,390 A 27 Old Oak Park north of Noyes Road Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 4,090 1,470 A 28 Noyes Road north of Old Oak Park Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 4,960 6,210 A 29 Oak Park Boulevard south of El Camino Real Four Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 20,400 16,060 A 30 Oak Park Boulevard south of E. Grand Avenue Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 12,490 11,030 A 31 Oak Park Boulevard north of Farroll Avenue Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 8,850 9,350 A 32 James Way west of Oak Park Boulevard Four Lane (With Turning Lane) Arterial 7,710 6,160 A 33 James Way east of Oak Park Boulevard Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 6,340 6,110 A 34 James Way west of Talley Ho Road Two Lane Collector 3,470 3,570 A 35 El Camino Real west of Brisco Road Two Lane (No Turning Lane) Arterial 4,630 4,610 A 36 Farroll Avenue east of Oak Park Street Two Lane Collector 4,820 4,850 A 37 Branch Mill Road east of E. Cherry Avenue Two Lane Collector 1,710 1,690 A 2019
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 28
3.3 Truck Routes
Truck routes are intended to carry heavyweight commercial, industrial, and agricultural vehicles through and around the community with minimum disruption to local auto traffic and minimum annoyance to residential areas. The 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act set standards for large trucks, known as STAA trucks, and set minimum truck sizes that states must allow on the National Network including the Interstate System and other defined routes. The US 101 highway through the City of Arroyo Grande and statewide is a National Truck Network. California State Route 1 is a California Legal Truck Network, north of City of Arroyo Grande passing through the San Luis Obispo County. The last truck route to access Arroyo Grande is SR 227. SR 227 north of Arroyo Grande is a combination of California Legal Truck Network and the California Legal Advisory Truck Route. The following list of streets is the approved Truck Routes in Arroyo Grande:
Barnett Street, from El Camino Real to East Grand Avenue Branch Mill Road, from East Cherry Avenue to the Easterly City Limit Brisco Road, from El Camino Real to East Grand Avenue Corbett Canyon Road, from East Branch Street/Crown Hill to the Easterly City Limit East Branch Street, from Highway 101 Overpass to East Branch Street/Crown Hill East Cherry Avenue, from Traffic Way to Branch Mill Road East Grand Avenue, from Highway 101 Overpass to the Westerly City Limit El Camino Real, from Oak Park Boulevard to Barnett Street Fair Oaks Avenue, from Halcyon Road to Traffic Way
Halcyon Road, from El Camino Real to the Southerly City Limit Huasna Road, from East Branch Street/Crown Hill to the Easterly City Limit Nelson Street, from Traffic Way to South Mason Street Oak Park Boulevard, from El Camino Real to City Limit South Elm Street, from East Grand Avenue to the Southerly City Limit South Mason Street, from Nelson Street to East Branch Street The Pike, from the Westerly City Limit to Halcyon Road Traffic Way, from East Branch Street to Highway 101
Valley Road, from Fair Oaks Avenue to the Southerly City Limit Figure 3.4 presents a map of approved truck routes, provided by the City.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 30
3.4 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
The City of Arroyo Grande adopted the 2012 Bicycle & Trails Master Plan, presented in Figure 3.5.
The plan includes proposed bicycle and pedestrian trails, as well as on-street bicycle facilities to complete the partial network already in place in the City and County. The plan encourages the use of walking and bicycling. The following functional classifications of bicycle facilities are utilized within this document.
Class I Bike Path. Class I facilities are multi-use facilities that provide a completely separated rightof-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized. Class I bikeways must be compliant with provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These bikeways are intended to provide superior safety, connectivity, and recreational opportunities as compared to facilities that share right-of-way with motor vehicles.
Class II Bike Lane. Class II facilities provide a striped and signed lane for one-way bicycle travel on each side of a street or highway within the paved area of a roadway. The minimum width for bike lanes ranges between four and six feet depending upon the edge of roadway conditions (curb and gutter). Bike lanes are demarcated by a six-inch white stripe, signage and pavement legends.
Class III Bike Route. Class III facilities provide signs for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway. Bike routes may be enhanced with warning or guide signs and shared lane marking pavement stencils. While Class III routes do not provide measures of separation, they have an important function in providing continuity to the bikeway network. By law, bicycles are allowed on all roadways in California except on freeways when a suitable alternate route exists. However, Class III bikeways serve to identify roads that are more suitable for bicycles.
Shared Roadway. (No Bikeway Designation). A roadway that permits bicycle use but is not officially designated as a bikeway. This generally occurs in rural areas by touring bicyclists and recreation. In some instances, entire street systems may be fully adequate for safe and efficient bicycle travel, where signing and pavement marking for bicycle use may be unnecessary. In other cases, prior to designation as a bikeway, routes may need improvements for bicycle travel.
Class IV Separated Bikeways. Known as separated bikeways or cycle tracks, Class IV bikeways provide a separate travel way that is designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to the roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic by physical separation. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, planters, flexible posts, inflexible posts, physical barriers, or on-street parking.
The above five definitions are consistent with the California Highway Design Manual (HDM, July 2020). It is emphasized that the designation of bikeways as Class I, II,III, and IV should not be construed as a hierarchy of bikeways; that one is better than the other. Each class of bikeway has its appropriate application.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 32 In addition, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials “Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities” (2012) and National Association of City Transportation Officials “Urban Bikeway Design Guide” are used as resources to identify the following bicycle facilities.
Bicycle Boulevard. Bicycle Boulevards are streets where the following conditions are created in order to prioritize bicycle safety and optimize through travel for bicycles rather than automobiles:
Slow traffic speed and low volume.
Use of diverters and roundabouts to discourage through and non-local motor vehicle traffic. Improved travel for bicyclists by assigning the right-of-way priority to the bicycle boulevard at intersections with other roads wherever possible.
Traffic controls that help bicyclists cross major arterial roads. Signage and street design that encourages use by bicyclists and informs motorists that the roadway is a priority route for bicyclists.
Bicycle boulevards use a variety of traffic calming elements to achieve a safe environment. For instance, diverters with bicycle cut-outs allow cyclists to continue to the next block, but discourage through traffic by motor vehicles. Typically, these modifications will also calm traffic and improve pedestrian safety as well as encourage bicycling. Bicycle Boulevards are generally applicable to local roadways.
Buffered Bike Lanes. Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes (Class II) paired with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane. A buffered bike lane is allowed as per MUTCD guidelines for buffered preferential lanes (section 3D-01). Buffered bike lanes provide space between bicyclists and the traveled way, allow room for bicyclists to pass without encroaching into the vehicle travel lane, and can be used to provide a buffer between on-street parking and the bike lane. Buffered bike lanes are ideal for streets with extra lanes or extra lane width, and along roadways with higher travel speeds, higher traffic, and truck volume.
Green Colored Bike Facilities may be installed within bicycle lanes or the extension of the bicycle lane through an intersection or transition trough a conflict area as a supplement to bike lane markings. The Federal Highway Administration has issued an Interim Approval (IA-14) on April 15, 2011 for the optional use of green colored pavement for marked bicycle lanes.) Bike Boxes designate an area for bicyclists to queue in front of automobiles, but behind the crosswalk at signalized intersections. Bike boxes provide cyclists a safe way to be visible to motorists by getting ahead of the queue during the red signal phase, and they reduce vehicle incursion into crosswalks. Bike Boxes also improve safety for conflicts with right-turning vehicles when the traffic signal turns green. Bike boxes can be utilized to facilitate left turn positioning and gives priority to cyclists.
Shared Lane Markings (“Sharrows”) help remind motorists that bicyclists are allowed to use the full lane and remind bicyclists to avoid riding too close to parked cars for safety. The shared lane markings help bicyclists with lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 33 a bicycle to travel side by side within the same traffic lane. These markings are primarily recommended on low-speed streets.
3.5 Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Facility Conditions
The current bicycle and trail network consists mainly of on-street facilities that are identified as Class II and Class III bikeways. The city also has short segments of off-street trails typically consisting of soft surface (decomposed granite) materials. The trails are typically situated in open space along a creek tributary. The two exceptions are trails located along Equestrian Way and Grace Lane which are decomposed granite paths located behind the curb. These do not meet Class I Bike Path standards (10-foot paved path with 2-foot shoulders, or 12-foot paved path).
Figure 3.6 presents the existing sidewalk inventory, provided by the City. There are gaps in the sidewalk network; a Pedestrian Safety Review conducted by ITS Berkeley in 2010 and the Draft Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan identifies some areas where there are opportunities for improvement. The ITS study focused on key intersections throughout the City and suggested recommendations that could improve the pedestrian safety crossing large streets with many lanes of traffic. The Draft Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan focused on multimodal improvements along the Halcyon Road corridor, connecting Arroyo Grande Hospital, residences, and the elementary school. Locations near and between residences, schools, parks, retail centers, and City services should provide adequate sidewalks and marked crossings.
Figure 3.7 presents the existing bikeway by classification along arterial and collector roadways throughout the City. There are gaps in the network of bicycle facilities. Arterials and collectors that are north-south roadways which do not have bicycle facilities, include portions of Elm Street, Halcyon Road, Corbett Canyon Road, Tally Ho Road, Ash Street, and Oak Park Boulevard.
Arterials and collectors that are east-west roadways which do not have bicycle facilities include portions of Farroll Avenue, E. Grand Avenue, E. Branch Street, and E. Cherry Avenue. Subsequent Bicycle LTS analysis is included.
Safe, convenient, and continuous access needs to be provided along major routes throughout the City for active transportation modes. As part of this Circulation Element update, roadway facilities will be identified where it is possible to modify the existing cross-section and increase the active transportation components for pedestrians and bicyclists. Included in the proposed Draft Circulation Element Policies are requirements to prepare a Pedestrian Master Plan and update the existing Bicycle and Trails Master Plan. It is proposed for the bicycle portion of the plan that an assessment of bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) will be required to specifically evaluate the performance of the existing bicycle system and to help identify bicycle facility improvements.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 36
3.5.1 Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) Analysis
Mineta Transportation Institute criteria was applied to roadway segments with bike lanes (with and without on-street parking) and roadway segments without bike lanes (mixed traffic segments) to determine existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress, presented in Figure 3.8. As shown, the majority of segments along major roads (arterials and collectors) within the City of Arroyo Grande can be considered high stress (LTS 3 or 4). Even with the presence of bike lanes, the high stress nature of roadway segments within the City are primarily due to roadway speed limits of 35 miles per hour or greater, and roadways with three or more total travel lanes. For those roadways with speed limits lower than 35 mph, lack of adequate bike lane striping or physical separation between cyclists and vehicles (i.e., buffers) results in high stress conditions. In addition, lack of adequate bicycle protection (i.e., bike pockets) at intersections with lengthy vehicle right turn pockets, or gaps in bike lane striping at intersection approaches, result in high stress conditions at all intersections along major roads within the City of Arroyo Grande.
Other factors were noted as contributing to high stress conditions, including quality and condition of existing bike lane striping and gaps in striping along segments on either side of the roadway.
Segments with significant bike lane striping fading along existing Class II bicycle routes were noted at the following locations:
West Branch Street between Oak Park Boulevard and Camino Mercado El Camino Real between Hillcrest Drive and Brisco Road Oak Park Boulevard Between Ash Street and The Pike
The Pick between Oak Park Boulevard and Elm Street
Valley Road between Fair Oaks Avenue and Castillo Del Mar Major gaps along existing Class II bicycle routes (i.e., roadway segments with incomplete bike lanes, or bike lanes only in one direction) occur at the following locations:
East Grand Avenue: eastbound approach at Halcyon Road East Grand Avenue: between Elm Street and Grande Foods Market Traffic Way: northbound segment between Nelson Street and Bridge Street Oak Park Boulevard: southbound segment between Farroll Road and The Pike Oak Park Boulevard: southbound between Manhattan Avenue and Ash Street Fair Oaks Avenue: westbound segment between California Street and Traffic Way Vehicle on-street parking is also a contributor to high stress conditions for cyclists, and is allowed on the majority of the City’s arterials and collectors.
LTS inputs and scores are provided in Appendix D.
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 38
3.6 Public Transportation
The City of Arroyo Grande public transportation is provided by South County Transit (SoCoTransit), a branch of San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority's (SLORTA). SoCo Transit will merge with SLORTA early 2021. Routes 21, 24, 27, and 28 serve major arterial roadways in the City as shown in Figure 3.9. The Avila-Pismo Trolley (not shown on Figure) connects to SoCo Transit Routes at the Pismo Premium Outlets. All SoCo Transit Routes make stops at the Town Center/Walmart, and Ramona Gardens Park, and Routes 21 and 24 make stops at the Pismo Premium Outlets.
Figure 3.9 Transit Routes Serving the City of Arroyo Grande The following Route descriptions, and the above Figure, are from the South County Transit ShortRange Transit Plan (December 23, 2019).
Route 21 provides hourly service between 6:29 AM and 7:29 PM on Weekdays, 7:29 AM and 7:29 PM on Saturdays, and 7:29 AM and 6:29 PM on Sundays. The route consists of a large clockwise loop traveling south on James Way and West Branch serving Arroyo Grande, west on Grand Avenue serving Grover Beach, and north on Price Street and US 101 to complete a smaller counter-clockwise loop serving Pismo and Shell Beach. This route connects with RTA Route 10 at the top of the hour at the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets (Pismo Beach Outlets), and with Routes 24, 27, and 28 at Ramona Garden Park Transit Center in Grover Beach at 29 minutes after the hour.
Route 24 provides service hourly from 6:29 AM to 7:29 PM on weekdays, 7:29 AM to 7:29 PM on Saturdays, and 7:29 AM to 6:29 PM on Sundays. This loop route serves the core of Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, and Arroyo Grande primarily in a counter-clockwise direction. It is largely aligned with Route 21, except that Route 24 adds service to downtown Arroyo Grande but does not serve
GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx | Page 39 the Shell Beach area of Pismo Beach. From the Pismo Beach Outlets, the route travels northwest towards Pismo Beach circling south down Highway 1 to Ramona Garden Park Transit Center in Grover Beach. The route then travels east on Grand Avenue, north towards Arroyo Grande, and west looping back towards the Town Center/Walmart stop before returning to the Pismo Beach Outlets.
Route 27 provides hourly service from 6:03 AM to 8:13 PM on weekdays only. This route travels in clockwise direction serving Arroyo Grande, Oceano and the eastern portions of Grover Beach. This route connects with Routes 21 and 24 at Ramona Gardens at 29 minutes after the hour and with Route 28 at 32 minutes after the hour.
Route 28 provides hourly service from 6:20 AM to 8:14 PM on weekdays, 7:32 AM to 8:14 PM on Saturdays, and 7:32 AM to 7:14 PM on Sundays. This route travels in a counter-clockwise direction serving the same route as Route 27 in reverse order (except for one block around Long Branch Avenue and Oak Park Boulevard). This route connects with Routes 21 and 24 at Ramona Garden Park at 29 minutes after the hour and with Route 27 at 32 minutes after the hour.
Avila-Pismo Trolley runs April through September during holidays, weekends, and Fridays. Hourly service is generally provided between 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM with hours extending to 9:00 PM during June, July, and August. The trolley connects with SoCo Transit Routes 21 and 24 and RTA 10 at the Pismo Beach Outlets at the top of each hour. No fare is charged on this service.
RTA Route 10 provides hourly regional service between San Luis Obispo to Santa Maria. SoCo Transit is connected to other cities by RTA Route 10. RTA Route 10 makes stops in Arroyo Grande at E. Grand Avenue at El Camino Real and El Camino Real at Halcyon Park and Ride.
3.7 Rail
No commuter rail transportation (Amtrak) is currently located in the City of Arroyo Grande. The nearest Amtrak station is located in City of Grover Beach, 2.2 miles west of the City of Arroyo Grande. The primary access to the station is on W. Grand Avenue east of Highway 1. The SoCo Transit Bus Route 21 provides service to the railway station for City of Arroyo Grande.
3.8 Air
Oceano County Airport is the closest airport to the City, located in the unincorporated community of Oceano in San Luis Obispo County, southwest of Arroyo Grande. The SoCo Transit Bus route 21 provides service to this airport for City of Arroyo Grande. The airport is mainly used for recreational activities and is accessible by Highway 1 via W. Grand Avenue.
The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, also known as McChesney Field, is located in the City of San Luis Obispo about 9 miles north of Arroyo Grande. It is served by two commercial airlines providing services to Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver, Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Seattle. It is also home to full service general aviation and corporate facilities. McChesney Field is located on the west side of SR 227, about 2 miles east of US 101.
Arroyo Grande Circulation Element | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx Martin Inouye
[email protected]
Todd Tregenza
[email protected]
916.782.8688
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx Appendices
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx Appendix A
Traffic Counts
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft GHD | Arroyo Grande Circulation Element Update | Existing Conditions Background Report | R1584RPT007.docx Appendix B
Synchro Reports
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
1: Oak Park Blvd & James Way Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 44 43 114 125 100 44 496 225 105 32 285 71 Future Volume (veh/h) 44 43 114 125 100 44 496 225 105 32 285 71 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 54 52 17 152 122 38 605 274 82 39 348 61 Peak Hour Factor 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 67 138 117 196 199 62 622 1345 394 47 526 91 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.03 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1870 1579 1781 1367 426 1781 2709 794 1781 3026 525 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 54 52 17 152 0 160 605 178 178 39 203 206 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1870 1579 1781 0 1793 1781 1777 1726 1781 1777 1774 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 1.5 0.6 4.8 0.0 4.8 19.2 3.2 3.3 1.2 6.1 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 1.5 0.6 4.8 0.0 4.8 19.2 3.2 3.3 1.2 6.1 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.46 1.00 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 67 138 117 196 0 262 622 882 857 47 309 309 V/C Ratio(X) 0.80 0.38 0.15 0.78 0.00 0.61 0.97 0.20 0.21 0.83 0.66 0.67 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 622 816 689 622 0 782 622 1085 1055 622 1085 1084 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 25.3 24.8 24.8 0.0 22.9 18.4 8.1 8.1 27.8 22.1 22.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 7.9 0.6 0.2 2.5 0.0 0.9 29.2 0.0 0.0 12.7 0.9 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 0.6 0.2 2.0 0.0 1.9 11.5 0.9 0.9 0.7 2.4 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.2 25.9 25.1 27.3 0.0 23.8 47.5 8.1 8.1 40.5 23.0 23.1 LnGrp LOS DCCCACDAADCC
Approach Vol, veh/h 123 312 961 448
Approach Delay, s/veh 29.9 25.5 32.9 24.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.0 33.4 9.8 9.1 23.5 14.9 5.7 13.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.9 3.5 4.9 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 5.3 6.8 3.5 21.2 8.2 3.7 6.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.5 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.4
HCM 6th LOS C
HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
2: Rodeo Dr & James Way Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.3
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 76 31 29 119 0 31 08004
Future Vol, veh/h 2 76 31 29 119 0 31 08004
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 92 37 35 143 0 37 0 10 0 0 5
Number of Lanes 110110010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 2
HCM Control Delay 8.2 8.5 8 7.1
HCM LOS A A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 79% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 0% 71% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Right, % 21% 0% 29% 0% 0% 100%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 39 2 107 29 119 4
LT Vol 31 2 0 29 0 0
Through Vol 0 0 76 0 119 0
RT Vol 8 0 31 0 0 4
Lane Flow Rate 47 2 129 35 143 5
Geometry Grp 277772
Degree of Util (X) 0.061 0.003 0.162 0.05 0.187 0.006
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.702 5.217 4.512 5.191 4.691 4.119 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 766 678 784 684 758 873
Service Time 2.703 3.009 2.305 2.963 2.462 2.122
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.003 0.165 0.051 0.189 0.006
HCM Control Delay 8 8 8.2 8.2 8.6 7.1
HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 0 0.6 0.2 0.7 0
HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
3: Tally Ho Rd & James Way Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.6
Intersection LOS A
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 73 40 65 85 117
Future Vol, veh/h 52 73 40 65 85 117
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 63 88 48 78 102 141
Number of Lanes 100110
Approach EB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 0
Conflicting Approach RightNB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 0 1
HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.5 8.7
HCM LOS A A A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 38% 42% 0%
Vol Thru, % 62% 0% 42%
Vol Right, % 0% 58% 58%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 105 125 202
LT Vol 40 52 0
Through Vol 65 0 85
RT Vol 0 73 117
Lane Flow Rate 127 151 243
Geometry Grp 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.162 0.187 0.276
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.607 4.465 4.081
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes
Cap 779 804 881
Service Time 2.631 2.49 2.101
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.163 0.188 0.276
HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.5 8.7
HCM Lane LOS A A A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 0.7 1.1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
4: Oak Park Blvd & US 101 NB On Ramp/W Branch St Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 198 36 347 385 578 191 71 334 168 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 0 0 198 36 347 385 578 191 71 334 168 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 247 0 39 423 635 170 78 367 78
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 222222
Cap, veh/h 472 0 210 755 1134 303 484 682 143
Arrive On Green 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.22 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1585 1781 2773 741 1781 2922 614 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 247 0 39 423 407 398 78 222 223
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 0 1585 1781 1777 1737 1781 1777 1760 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 0.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 1.0 3.3 3.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.7 4.4 5.3 5.3 1.0 3.3 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 472 0 210 755 727 711 484 414 410 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.19 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.16 0.53 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2386 0 1062 1245 1480 1447 1288 1480 1466 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.1 0.0 11.6 5.3 6.8 6.8 8.1 10.1 10.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.8 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.5 0.0 11.7 5.6 7.0 7.1 8.2 10.5 10.5 LnGrp LOS B A B AAAABB
Approach Vol, veh/h 286 1228 523
Approach Delay, s/veh 12.4 6.5 10.2
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.0 16.7 10.2 11.4 8.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 25.0 15.0 25.0 20.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.0 7.3 6.4 5.3 3.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.3 0.5 1.5 0.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green.
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
5: Oak Park Blvd & El Camino Real Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 259 44 160 19 32 130 55 770 26 82 319 133 Future Volume (veh/h) 259 44 160 19 32 130 55 770 26 82 319 133 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 310 0 22 20 34 4 59 819 25 87 339 50 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 510 0 226 32 55 75 528 1191 36 362 1262 560
Arrive On Green 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.36 0.36 Sat Flow, veh/h 3563 0 1582 680 1156 1576 1781 3520 107 1781 3554 1578 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 310 0 22 54 0 4 59 413 431 87 339 50 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1582 1836 0 1576 1781 1777 1851 1781 1777 1578 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 8.0 8.0 1.2 2.7 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.9 8.0 8.0 1.2 2.7 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 1.00 0.06 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 510 0 226 87 0 75 528 601 626 362 1262 560 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.10 0.62 0.00 0.05 0.11 0.69 0.69 0.24 0.27 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1789 0 794 692 0 593 1137 1115 1162 942 2231 991 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 0.0 14.8 18.6 0.0 18.1 8.1 11.4 11.4 8.7 9.2 8.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.1 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.6 2.7 0.4 0.8 0.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.4 0.0 14.9 21.2 0.0 18.2 8.2 11.9 11.9 8.8 9.2 8.6 LnGrp LOS B A B C A B ABBAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 332 58 903 476
Approach Delay, s/veh 16.3 21.0 11.6 9.1
Approach LOS B C B A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.5 17.9 10.1 4.9 18.5 6.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.4 4.4 3.5 4.4 4.4
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.2 10.0 5.3 2.9 4.7 3.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.4 0.5 0.0 1.5 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
6: US 101 NB Ramps/Camino Mercado & W Branch St Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 49 206 0 75 195 10 294 26 7 10 33 21 Future Volume (veh/h) 49 206 0 75 195 10 294 26 7 10 33 21 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1870 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 52 217 0 79 205 9 309 27 0 11 35 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333233333
Cap, veh/h 81 616 0 110 337 15 429 447 75 76 2
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 1767 1764 77 1781 1856 1572 1767 1795 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 52 217 0 79 0 214 309 27 0 11 0 36 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 0 1767 0 1842 1781 1856 1572 1767 0 1846 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.5 5.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.0 1.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 3.5 5.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 81 616 0 110 0 352 429 447 75 0 78 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.35 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.61 0.72 0.06 0.15 0.00 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 318 1691 0 530 0 1104 1709 1780 848 0 886 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.6 12.1 0.0 15.4 0.0 12.3 11.6 9.7 0.0 15.4 0.0 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.2 0.3 0.0 8.4 0.0 1.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 4.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.2 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.8 12.4 0.0 23.8 0.0 14.0 13.9 9.8 0.0 16.3 0.0 19.8 LnGrp LOS C B A C A B B A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 269 293 336 A 47
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 16.7 13.6 19.0
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s5.5 10.4 12.0 6.1 9.8 5.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s6.0 20.0 32.0 10.0 16.0 16.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.0 5.5 7.3 3.5 3.8 2.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.9 1.1 0.1 0.9 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.1
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
7: W Branch St & Rancho Pkwy Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 33 110 220 161 133 46
Future Volume (veh/h) 33 110 220 161 133 46
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 116 232 73 148 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 222220
Cap, veh/h 78 1820 815 250 487 220
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.51 0.30 0.30 0.14 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 3647 2771 822 3563 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 116 152 153 148 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 1777 1777 1722 1781 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 78 1820 541 524 487 220
V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.06 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 2501 6654 3327 3225 5003 2261
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.0 2.6 5.7 5.7 8.3 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.4 2.7 6.1 6.2 8.4 0.0
LnGrp LOS BAAAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 151 305 148
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.7 6.2 8.4
Approach LOS A A A
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.4 10.5 6.4 14.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.0 3.5 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s30.0 40.0 30.0 40.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.4 3.4 2.8 2.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.1 0.1 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.4
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Timings Arroyo Grande
10: Brisco Rd & El Camino Real Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 21 122 30 113 371 221 65 211
Future Volume (vph) 21 122 30 113 371 221 65 211
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA pm+ov NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 8 4 2 1 2
Permitted Phases 8441
Detector Phase 88442112
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Minimum Split (s) 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 7.5 8.1 8.1 7.5
Total Split (s) 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 37.6 24.1 24.1 37.6 Total Split (%) 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 22.9% 47.0% 30.1% 30.1% 47.0% Yellow Time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.0
All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recall Mode None None Min Min C-Min None None C-Min
Act Effct Green (s) 10.3 10.3 10.3 10.3 53.1 15.8 15.8 41.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.66 0.20 0.20 0.51 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.69 0.27 0.55 0.23 0.79 0.20 0.54
Control Delay 31.8 46.3 35.6 41.0 5.0 46.1 7.3 26.2
Queue Delay 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.0
Total Delay 31.9 46.3 35.6 41.0 5.0 46.1 7.3 82.3
LOS CDDDADAF
Approach Delay 44.5 14.7 38.0 82.3
Approach LOS D B D F
Intersection Summary
Cycle Length: 80
Actuated Cycle Length: 80
Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL, Start of Yellow, Master Intersection Natural Cycle: 50
Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.79
Intersection Signal Delay: 43.8 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 10: Brisco Rd & El Camino Real
HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
11: W Branch St & Rodeo Dr Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 134 77 110 50 37 166
Future Vol, veh/h 134 77 110 50 37 166
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 125 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 82 82 82 82 82 82
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222
Mvmt Flow 163 94 134 61 45 202
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 195 0 - 0 585 165
Stage 1 - - - - 165 -
Stage 2 - - - - 420 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1378 - - - 473 879
Stage 1 - - - - 864 -
Stage 2 - - - - 663 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1378 - - - 417 879
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 512 -
Stage 1 - - - - 762 -
Stage 2 - - - - 663 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 5.1 0 11.8
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1378 - - - 777
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.119 - - - 0.319
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - - - 11.8
HCM Lane LOS A - - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - - 1.4
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
12: Halcyon Rd/US 101 SB Ramps & El Camino Real Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 200 32 118 6 52 17 414 71 3 11 186 66 Future Volume (veh/h) 200 32 118 6 52 17 414 71 3 11 186 66 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 211 34 35 6 55 7 492 0 0 12 196 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 287 143 147 252 243 31 729 383 17 284 256
Arrive On Green 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 836 861 1767 1611 205 3534 1856 0 107 1743 1572 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 211 0 69 6 0 62 492 0 0 208 0 11
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 0 1698 1767 0 1816 1767 1856 0 1850 0 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.4 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.0 1.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.4 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.0 1.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.06 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 287 0 289 252 0 274 729 383 301 0 256 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.00 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.67 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 850 0 568 296 0 342 2217 1164 1547 0 1315 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.1 0.0 17.2 17.6 0.0 17.8 17.5 0.0 0.0 18.9 0.0 16.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.6 2.2 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.7 0.0 17.6 17.7 0.0 18.3 18.6 0.0 0.0 21.7 0.0 16.9 LnGrp LOS C ABBABBA CAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 280 68 492 A 219
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 18.2 18.6 21.5
Approach LOS C B B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.3 11.3 14.0 10.3 12.3 11.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.1 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.0 9.0 30.0 8.0 16.0 40.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.4 3.4 8.1 2.1 3.7 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.2 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
13: Oak Park Blvd & Grand Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 134 312 20 68 341 149 43 384 121 116 187 124 Future Volume (veh/h) 134 312 20 68 341 149 43 384 121 116 187 124 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 141 328 17 72 359 30 45 404 25 122 197 31 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 184 886 46 90 728 319 53 796 353 224 797 123 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3409 176 1767 3526 1545 1767 3526 1562 3428 3057 473 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 141 169 176 72 359 30 45 404 25 122 112 116 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1823 1767 1763 1545 1767 1763 1562 1714 1763 1767 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 3.3 3.4 1.7 3.8 0.7 1.1 4.3 0.5 1.5 2.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 3.3 3.4 1.7 3.8 0.7 1.1 4.3 0.5 1.5 2.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 458 473 90 728 319 53 796 353 224 460 461 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.37 0.37 0.80 0.49 0.09 0.84 0.51 0.07 0.55 0.24 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 828 1239 1281 828 2065 905 828 2065 915 1607 1033 1035 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 18.6 12.9 12.9 20.0 15.0 13.7 20.6 14.4 13.0 19.3 12.5 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.5 0.5 6.1 0.5 0.1 12.4 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.3 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.2 0.6 1.5 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.1 13.4 13.4 26.1 15.5 13.8 33.0 14.9 13.1 20.1 12.7 12.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B C B B
Approach Vol, veh/h 486 461 474 350
Approach Delay, s/veh 15.7 17.0 16.6 15.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.9 14.3 4.8 15.6 5.7 16.6 6.3 14.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 3.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 30.0 20.0 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s5.3 5.8 3.1 4.2 3.7 5.4 3.5 6.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.2 0.0 1.2 0.1 2.0 0.2 2.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.2
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
14: Courtland St & Grand Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 42 494 12 30 471 19 48 27 34 66 14 61 Future Volume (veh/h) 42 494 12 30 471 19 48 27 34 66 14 61 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 46 537 11 33 512 18 52 29 1 72 15 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 53 988 20 175 1211 43 485 334 12 476 280 56
Arrive On Green 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3532 72 1767 3473 122 1377 1782 61 1365 1496 299 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 46 268 280 33 260 270 52 0 30 72 0 18 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1841 1767 1763 1832 1377 0 1843 1365 0 1795 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 3.9 3.9 0.5 3.4 3.4 1.0 0.0 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 3.9 3.9 0.5 3.4 3.4 1.2 0.0 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.04 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 53 493 515 175 615 639 485 0 345 476 0 336 V/C Ratio(X) 0.87 0.54 0.54 0.19 0.42 0.42 0.11 0.00 0.09 0.15 0.00 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1171 2336 2441 1171 2336 2428 1140 0 1222 1125 0 1190 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.6 9.2 9.2 12.5 7.5 7.5 10.6 0.0 10.1 10.9 0.0 10.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.8 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 1.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.4 9.6 9.6 12.7 7.7 7.7 10.6 0.0 10.2 10.9 0.0 10.1 LnGrp LOS C AABAABABBAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 594 563 82 90
Approach Delay, s/veh 11.1 8.0 10.4 10.8
Approach LOS B A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.9 15.4 9.9 7.0 13.3 9.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 * 4.2 4.0 4.9 * 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 40.0 * 20 20.0 40.0 * 20 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.8 5.4 3.2 2.5 5.9 3.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
15: Elm St & Grand Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 20 495 66 139 444 37 123 30 272 38 27 36 Future Volume (veh/h) 20 495 66 139 444 37 123 30 272 38 27 36 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 21 527 57 148 472 33 131 32 50 40 29 16 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 139 948 102 391 1107 77 463 278 233 262 105 44 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.33 0.33 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3205 346 3428 3343 233 1350 1856 1560 564 703 294 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 21 289 295 148 248 257 131 32 50 85 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 1788 1714 1763 1814 1350 1856 1560 1560 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 4.1 4.1 1.2 3.3 3.3 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 4.1 4.1 1.2 3.3 3.3 2.3 0.4 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.47 0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 139 521 529 391 584 601 463 278 233 411 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.15 0.55 0.56 0.38 0.43 0.43 0.28 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1189 2372 2406 2307 2372 2440 1169 1248 1049 1196 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.8 8.8 8.8 12.2 7.7 7.7 11.6 10.9 11.1 11.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.1 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.0 9.2 9.2 12.4 7.9 7.9 11.8 11.0 11.3 11.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS BAABAABBBBAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 605 653 213 85
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.3 8.9 11.5 11.4
Approach LOS A A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.4 13.7 8.6 6.3 14.7 8.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 4.9 * 4.2 4.0 4.9 * 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s20.0 40.0 * 20 20.0 40.0 * 20 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s3.2 6.1 4.3 2.3 5.3 3.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.3 0.3 0.0 1.9 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.6
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
16: Grand Ave & Brisco Rd Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 242 512 503 68 22 169
Future Vol, veh/h 242 512 503 68 22 169
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 100111
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 130 - - 130 30 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 1 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94
Heavy Vehicles, % 444444
Mvmt Flow 257 545 535 72 23 180
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 608 0 - 0 1324 270
Stage 1 - - - - 536 -
Stage 2 - - - - 788 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - - 6.88 6.98
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.88 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.88 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - - 3.54 3.34
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 953 - - - 145 722
Stage 1 - - - - 545 -
Stage 2 - - - - 403 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 952 - - - 106 721
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 231 -
Stage 1 - - - - 397 -
Stage 2 - - - - 403 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 3.3 0 12.8
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h) 952 - - - 231 721
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.27 - - - 0.101 0.249
HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - - 22.3 11.6
HCM Lane LOS B - - - C B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - - - 0.3 1
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
17: Halcyon Rd/Halcyon Road & Grand Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 421 94 177 532 26 139 345 267 20 196 52 Future Volume (veh/h) 66 421 94 177 532 26 139 345 267 20 196 52 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 473 13 199 598 26 156 388 61 22 220 39 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 95 691 306 247 971 42 455 477 403 36 370 68
Arrive On Green 0.05 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3526 1560 1767 3441 149 1767 1856 1565 272 2807 518 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 473 13 199 306 318 156 388 61 149 0 132 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1763 1560 1767 1763 1828 1767 1856 1565 1842 0 1755 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.6 7.8 0.4 6.8 9.4 9.5 4.5 12.3 1.9 4.8 0.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.6 7.8 0.4 6.8 9.4 9.5 4.5 12.3 1.9 4.8 0.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.30
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 95 691 306 247 497 516 455 477 403 243 0 232 V/C Ratio(X) 0.78 0.68 0.04 0.81 0.62 0.62 0.34 0.81 0.15 0.61 0.00 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 565 1972 873 565 986 1022 847 890 750 883 0 842 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.2 23.4 20.4 26.1 19.5 19.5 18.9 21.8 18.0 25.6 0.0 25.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.1 0.5 0.0 2.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 3.0 0.1 2.8 3.5 3.7 1.7 5.0 0.6 2.0 0.0 1.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.3 23.8 20.4 28.4 20.0 20.0 19.1 23.1 18.0 26.6 0.0 26.3 LnGrp LOS CCCCBBBCBCAC
Approach Vol, veh/h 560 823 605 281
Approach Delay, s/veh 25.1 22.0 21.6 26.5
Approach LOS CCCC
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.2 16.5 13.0 6.9 21.9 20.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 * 4.7 3.5 * 4.2 4.8
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 35 * 30 20.0 * 35 30.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.8 9.8 6.8 4.6 11.5 14.3
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.1 1.0 0.1 2.3 1.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 23.2
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
18: Grand Ave & El Camino Real Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 52 733 1 1 681 129 0 0 0 29 0 13
Future Vol, veh/h 52 733 1 1 681 129 0 0 0 29 0 13
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 503305303505
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 - - ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88
Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 59 833 1 1 774 147 0 0 0 33 0 15
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 926 0 0 837 0 0 1349 1883 425 1395 1810 471 Stage 1 - - - - - - 955 955 - 855 855 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 394 928 - 540 955 -
Critical Hdwy 4.16 - - 4.16 - - 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.96 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.56 5.56 - 6.56 5.56 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.23 - - 2.23 - - 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 728 - - 786 - - 108 69 575 100 77 536 Stage 1 - - - - - - 276 333 - 317 371 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 600 343 - 491 333 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 725 - - 784 - - 98 63 571 93 70 532
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 98 63 - 93 70 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 253 305 - 290 369 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 580 341 - 449 305 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0 0 50.6
HCM LOS A F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) - 725 - - 784 - - 125
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.082 - - 0.001 - - 0.382
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 10.4 - - 9.6 - - 50.6
HCM Lane LOS A B - - A - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0.3 - - 0 - - 1.6
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
19: Grand Ave & US 101 SB Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 531 245 54 802 0 0 0 0 159 0 28 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 531 245 54 802 0 0 0 0 159 0 28 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 0 1841 1841 1841 1841 0 1841 1841 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 610 282 62 922 0 183 0 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, % 044440 444
Cap, veh/h 0 840 388 89 1774 0 259 0 231
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.51 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 0 2413 1072 1753 3589 0 1753 0 1560
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 460 432 62 922 0 183 0 3
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1749 1644 1753 1749 0 1753 0 1560 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 8.4 8.5 1.3 6.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 8.4 8.5 1.3 6.5 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.1 Prop In Lane 0.00 0.65 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 633 595 89 1774 0 259 0 231
V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.69 0.52 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.01 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 2167 2037 945 4711 0 1228 0 1093 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.2 10.3 17.3 6.1 0.0 15.0 0.0 13.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.6 0.6 3.6 0.1 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.3 2.1 0.5 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.8 10.9 20.9 6.2 0.0 17.7 0.0 13.5 LnGrp LOS A B B C A A B A B
Approach Vol, veh/h 892 984 186
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 7.1 17.6
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 5.4 22.0 9.7 27.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 8.6 * 4.2 * 8.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 * 46 * 26 * 50
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.3 10.5 5.7 8.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 2.9 0.8 3.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.7
HCM 6th LOS A
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
20: US 101 NB & Grand Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 583 0 0 625 400 234 0 80 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 107 583 0 0 625 400 234 0 80 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 0 0 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 129 702 0 0 753 374 282 0 8
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Percent Heavy Veh, % 330033333
Cap, veh/h 199 2209 0 0 1014 502 366 0 326
Arrive On Green 0.11 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.21 0.00 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 3618 0 0 2376 1132 1767 0 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 129 702 0 0 581 546 282 0 8
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1763 0 0 1763 1652 1767 0 1572 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.7 7.5 0.0 0.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 13.6 13.7 7.5 0.0 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 199 2209 0 0 783 734 366 0 326
V/C Ratio(X) 0.65 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.77 0.00 0.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 708 3532 0 0 1766 1655 1062 0 945 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 4.3 0.0 0.0 11.5 11.5 18.7 0.0 15.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.2 2.8 0.0 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.1 20.0 0.0 15.8 LnGrp LOS C AAABBBAB
Approach Vol, veh/h 831 1127 290
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.2 12.1 19.9
Approach LOS A B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.9 9.1 26.8 14.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 3.5 4.6 3.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 50.0 20.0 50.0 30.0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.6 5.5 15.7 9.5
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 0.1 6.5 1.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
21: Grand Ave/E Branch St & W Branch St Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 53 588 0 14 964 125 11 0 22 18 2 32
Future Vol, veh/h 53 588 0 14 964 125 11 0 22 18 2 32
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 003000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 90 - - 65 - - ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81 81
Heavy Vehicles, % 444444444444
Mvmt Flow 65 726 0 17 1190 154 14 0 27 22 2 40
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1344 0 0 729 0 0 1489 2237 366 1794 2160 672 Stage 1 - - - - - - 859 859 - 1301 1301 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 630 1378 - 493 859 -
Critical Hdwy 4.18 - - 4.18 - - 7.58 6.58 6.98 7.58 6.58 6.98 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.24 - - 2.24 - - 3.54 4.04 3.34 3.54 4.04 3.34 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 498 - - 857 - - 84 41 625 50 46 394
Stage 1 - - - - - - 313 367 - 167 226 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 431 207 - 521 367 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 498 - - 855 - - 64 35 623 42 39 394
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 64 35 - 42 39 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 271 318 - 145 221 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 376 203 - 433 318 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 1.1 0.1 35.3 104
HCM LOS E F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 159 498 - - 855 - - 93
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.256 0.131 - - 0.02 - - 0.69
HCM Control Delay (s) 35.3 13.3 - - 9.3 - - 104
HCM Lane LOS E B - - A - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1 0.5 - - 0.1 - - 3.4
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
22: Traffic Way/Wesley St & E Branch St Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 14 433 178 110 534 8 528 24 19 7 34 16 Future Volume (veh/h) 14 433 178 110 534 8 528 24 19 7 34 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 1856 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 17 535 0 136 659 9 673 0 0 9 42 4
Peak Hour Factor 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 333333333333
Cap, veh/h 399 671 357 1432 20 892 0 12 56 5
Arrive On Green 0.04 0.36 0.00 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 Sat Flow, veh/h 1767 1856 1572 1767 3559 49 3534 0 1572 297 1387 132 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 17 535 0 136 326 342 673 0 0 55 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1767 1856 1572 1767 1763 1845 1767 0 1572 1817 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 15.0 0.0 2.6 7.9 7.9 10.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 15.0 0.0 2.6 7.9 7.9 10.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 1.00 1.00 0.16 0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 399 671 357 709 742 892 0 74 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.04 0.80 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.75 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 633 1379 610 1310 1371 1894 0 471 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.7 16.6 0.0 11.8 12.7 12.7 20.0 0.0 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.9 2.9 3.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.7 18.8 0.0 12.1 13.2 13.1 21.3 0.0 0.0 33.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B B C A C A A
Approach Vol, veh/h 552 A 804 673 A 55
Approach Delay, s/veh 18.6 13.0 21.3 33.0
Approach LOS B B C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 25.1 6.0 6.0 27.5 18.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 * 4.2 3.7 3.7 * 4.2 3.7
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 * 43 15.0 10.0 * 43 31.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.6 17.0 3.7 2.3 9.9 12.2
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 3.9 0.1 0.0 4.9 2.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
Unsignalized Delay for [NBR, EBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.
HCM 6th TWSC Arroyo Grande
23: Bridge St/Nevada St & E Branch St Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 23 416 10 105 674 3 0 3 29 0 9 122
Future Vol, veh/h 23 416 10 105 674 3 0 3 29 0 9 122
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 8 0 6 10 0 8 6 0 10 4 0 4
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 60 - - 50 - - ------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222
Mvmt Flow 30 547 13 138 887 4 0 4 38 0 12 161
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 899 0 0 570 0 0 - 1799 574 - 1803 901 Stage 1 - - - - - - - 624 - - 1173 -
Stage 2 ------- 1175 - - 630 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - - 6.52 6.22 - 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------- 5.52 - - 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------- 5.52 - - 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - - 4.018 3.318 - 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 756 - - 1002 - - 0 80 518 0 79 337
Stage 1 - - - - - - 0 478 - 0 266 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 0 265 - 0 475 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 751 - - 994 - - - 65 509 - 64 334
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - - 65 - - 64 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - - 455 - - 227 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - - 227 - - 452 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 1.2 18.4 42.8
HCM LOS C E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 310 751 - - 994 - - 259
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.136 0.04 - - 0.139 - - 0.666
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.4 10 - - 9.2 - - 42.8
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.1 - - 0.5 - - 4.3
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
25: Mason St & E Branch St Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 26 422 12 81 585 17 15 64 264 9 70 63 Future Volume (veh/h) 26 422 12 81 585 17 15 64 264 9 70 63 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 35 570 15 109 791 22 20 86 129 12 95 49 Peak Hour Factor 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 43 859 23 141 958 27 132 266 377 104 183 89
Arrive On Green 0.02 0.47 0.47 0.08 0.53 0.53 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 1812 48 1781 1811 50 179 1601 1518 65 1101 534 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 35 0 585 109 0 813 106 0 129 156 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1781 0 1860 1781 0 1861 1780 0 1518 1700 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 0.0 10.1 2.5 0.0 15.2 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 0.0 10.1 2.5 0.0 15.2 2.1 0.0 2.9 3.4 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.03 0.19 1.00 0.08 0.31
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 43 0 882 141 0 985 398 0 377 375 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.00 0.66 0.77 0.00 0.83 0.27 0.00 0.34 0.42 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 641 0 2677 641 0 2679 1133 0 1036 1097 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 0.0 8.4 18.8 0.0 8.2 15.4 0.0 13.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.2 0.0 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.5 0.0 3.0 1.1 0.0 4.2 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.4 0.0 8.7 22.2 0.0 8.9 15.5 0.0 13.2 16.2 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C A A C A A BABBAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 620 922 235 156
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 10.5 14.2 16.2
Approach LOS B B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s4.5 26.3 10.9 6.8 24.0 10.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 * 4.2 4.0 3.5 * 4.2 4.0
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s15.0 * 60 25.0 15.0 * 60 25.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s2.8 17.2 5.4 4.5 12.1 4.9
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 4.8 0.5 0.1 3.0 0.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.
HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
26: Stanley Str/Corbett Canyon Rd & E Branch St/Huasna Rd Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh21.2
Intersection LOS C
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 183 231 18 5 288 69 13 2 4 41 1 173
Future Vol, veh/h 183 231 18 5 288 69 13 2 4 41 1 173
Peak Hour Factor 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 220 278 22 6 347 83 16 2 5 49 1 208
Number of Lanes 010011010010
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 2
Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 2 1
HCM Control Delay 29.5 16.3 10.7 13.7
HCM LOS D C B B
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 68% 42% 2% 0% 19%
Vol Thru, % 11% 53% 98% 0% 0%
Vol Right, % 21% 4% 0% 100% 80%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 19 432 293 69 215
LT Vol 13 183 5 0 41
Through Vol 2 231 288 0 1
RT Vol 4 18 0 69 173
Lane Flow Rate 23 520 353 83 259
Geometry Grp 25772
Degree of Util (X) 0.047 0.82 0.604 0.126 0.433
Departure Headway (Hd) 7.339 5.674 6.157 5.437 6.017
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 491 635 582 655 593
Service Time 5.339 3.738 3.927 3.206 4.099
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 0.819 0.607 0.127 0.437
HCM Control Delay 10.7 29.5 18 9 13.7
HCM Lane LOS B D C A B
HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 8.5 4 0.4 2.2
HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
27: US 101 Ramps/Traffic Way & S Traffic Way Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh11.2
Intersection LOS B
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 38 474 5 18 282
Future Vol, veh/h 6 38 474 5 18 282
Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 333333
Mvmt Flow 7 42 521 5 20 310
Number of Lanes 102011
Approach WB NB SB
Opposing Approach SB NB
Opposing Lanes 0 2 2
Conflicting Approach Left NB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1
Conflicting Approach RightSB WB
Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 0
HCM Control Delay 8.7 11.1 11.7
HCM LOS A B B
Lane NBLn1 NBLn2WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 0% 0% 14% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 100% 97% 0% 0% 100%
Vol Right, % 0% 3% 86% 0% 0%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 316 163 44 18 282
LT Vol 0 0 6 18 0
Through Vol 316 158 0 0 282
RT Vol 0 5 38 0 0
Lane Flow Rate 347 179 48 20 310
Geometry Grp 77277
Degree of Util (X) 0.477 0.245 0.071 0.031 0.443
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.945 4.924 5.265 5.644 5.141
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 729 729 678 635 700
Service Time 2.674 2.652 3.318 3.376 2.873
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.476 0.246 0.071 0.031 0.443
HCM Control Delay 12.1 9.3 8.7 8.6 11.9
HCM Lane LOS BAAAB
HCM 95th-tile Q 2.6 1 0.2 0.1 2.3
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
28: Traffic Way & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 525 133 239 324 174 224
Future Volume (veh/h) 525 133 239 324 174 224
Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1900 1856 1856 1856 1856
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 799 0 303 410 220 0
Peak Hour Factor 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79
Percent Heavy Veh, % 303333
Cap, veh/h 1014 462 375 921 353 299
Arrive On Green 0.29 0.00 0.21 0.50 0.19 0.00
Sat Flow, veh/h 3534 1610 1767 1856 1856 1572
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 799 0 303 410 220 0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1767 1610 1767 1856 1856 1572
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0 6.9 6.1 4.6 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0 6.9 6.1 4.6 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1014 462 375 921 353 299
V/C Ratio(X) 0.79 0.00 0.81 0.44 0.62 0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1698 773 874 1984 1984 1681
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.0 0.0 15.9 6.9 15.8 0.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.7 0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln2.8 0.0 2.4 1.5 1.7 0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 0.0 17.5 7.0 16.5 0.0
LnGrp LOS BABABA
Approach Vol, veh/h 799 713 220
Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 11.5 16.5
Approach LOS B B B
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.7 16.8 13.0 12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.6 4.6 4.0 4.6
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 45.4 20.4 21.0 45.4
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.1 10.8 8.9 6.6
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.6 1.3 0.4 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 13.5
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
HCM 6th AWSC Arroyo Grande
29: Orchard Ave/US 101 SB & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh39.8
Intersection LOS E
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 496 19 110 374 0 44 0 143 33 85 173 Future Vol, veh/h 0 496 19 110 374 0 44 0 143 33 85 173 Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Heavy Vehicles, % 333333333333
Mvmt Flow 0 620 24 138 468 0 55 0 179 41 106 216
Number of Lanes 020020010110
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2 1 2 2
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 2 2 2
HCM Control Delay 54 33.6 25.7 34
HCM LOS F D D D
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2WBLn1WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2
Vol Left, % 24% 0% 0% 47% 0% 100% 0%
Vol Thru, % 0% 100% 90% 53% 100% 0% 33%
Vol Right, % 76% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 67%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 187 331 184 235 249 33 258
LT Vol 44 0 0 110 0 33 0
Through Vol 0 331 165 125 249 0 85
RT Vol 143 0 19 0 0 0 173
Lane Flow Rate 234 413 230 293 312 41 322
Geometry Grp 6777777
Degree of Util (X) 0.604 0.993 0.549 0.733 0.757 0.112 0.782 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.309 8.648 8.573 8.991 8.746 9.736 8.727 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 388 422 422 402 415 368 416
Service Time 7.367 6.403 6.328 6.748 6.503 7.488 6.478
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.603 0.979 0.545 0.729 0.752 0.111 0.774 HCM Control Delay 25.7 72.2 21.3 32.9 34.2 13.7 36.6
HCM Lane LOS D F C D D B E
HCM 95th-tile Q 3.8 12.2 3.2 5.7 6.2 0.4 6.7
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Arroyo Grande
30: Valley Rd & Fair Oaks Ave Existing Conditions 2019 - AM Peak GHD Synchro 10 Report
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 361 174 153 256 0 284 0 249 0 0 0 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 361 174 153 256 0 284 0 249 0 0 0 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 508 190 215 361 0 409 0 20 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222
Cap, veh/h 155 1049 390 285 2308 0 632 0 279 0 4 0
Arrive On Green 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.16 0.65 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1021 2534 943 1781 3647 0 3553 0 1566 0 1870 0 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 355 343 215 361 0 409 0 20 0 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1021 1777 1701 1781 1777 0 1776 0 1566 0 1870 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 6.8 6.9 5.3 1.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 6.8 6.9 5.3 1.8 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.55 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 155 736 704 285 2308 0 632 0 279 0 4 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.48 0.49 0.75 0.16 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 514 1360 1302 1018 2720 0 2796 0 1233 0 665 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 10.0 10.0 18.6 3.2 0.0 17.7 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.8 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln0.0 2.3 2.3 2.0 0.3 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 10.8 10.9 20.1 3.2 0.0 18.1 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS A B B C A A BABAAA
Approach Vol, veh/h 698 576 429 0
Approach Delay, s/veh 10.8 9.5 18.0 0.0
Approach LOS B A B
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s10.9 23.7 0.0 34.6 11.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.5 4.5 3.5 4.5 3.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s26.5 35.5 16.5 35.5 36.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s7.3 8.9 0.0 3.8 7.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 8.2 0.0 3.4 0.8
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.2
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.