11.A Attachment 6 Final EIR Appendices 2026-05-19 ONLINE ONLY — Pismo Beach City Council, May 19, 2026 (part 3 of 4)

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2030
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • : 0.1481 : 0.1481 : 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.1481
2,897.546
8 2,897.546
8 0.1162
2,900.452
9 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling LI

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Vendor
. 0.2320 ' 8.9404 • 3.0985 ' 0.0321 ' 1.1484 ' 0.0491 • 1.1976 • 0.3309 ' 0.0470 ' 0.3779 a 3,458.942 ' 3,458.942 ' 0.0956 ' 0.5061 ? 3,612.163
9 9 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T .6
1 1 1
Worker
. 2.5389 ' 1.3061 • 19.1501 ' 0.0687 ' 10.3903 ' 0.0335 ' 10.4238 • 2.7557 ' 0.0308 . 2.7865 y 7,428.312 ' 7,428.312 ' 0.1360 ' 0.1699 T 7,482.331
7 7
0 Total

2.7709

10.2466

22.2486

0.1008

11.5388

0.0826

11.6214

3.0866

0.0778

3.1644
10,887.25
10,887.25

0.2316

0.6760
11,094.49
II
56 56
40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 42 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2030
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • . 0.1481 . 0.1481 ; 0.0000 . 2,897.546 • 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000
2,897.546
8 2,897.546
8 0.1162
2,900.452
9 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling LI

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
9 1 7 l 9 1 1 7 T 4
.5 7 1
Vendor
. 0.2320 . 8.9404 • 3.0985 . 0.0321 . 1.1484 . 0.0491 • 1.1976 • 0.3309 • 0.0470 . 0.3779 a 3,458.942 . 3,458.942 . 0.0956 . 0.5061 ? 3,612.163
9 9 0
l 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 T 4
1 7 1
Worker
. 2.5389 . 1.3061 • 19.1501 . 0.0687 . 10.3903 • 0.0335 . 10.4238 • 2.7557 • 0.0308 . 2.7865 y 7,428.312 . 7,428.312 • 0.1360 . 0.1699 T 7,482.331
7 7
0 Total

2.7709

10.2466

22.2486

0.1008

11.5388

0.0826

11.6214

3.0866

0.0778

3.1644
10,887.25
10,887.25

0.2316

0.6760
11,094.49
II
56 56
40 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 43 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2031
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • : 0.1481 : 0.1481 : 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Vendor
. 0.2276 ' 8.8199 • 3.0951 ' 0.0316 ' 1.1485 ' 0.0482 • 1.1967 • 0.3309 ' 0.0461 ' 0.3770 a 3,401.477 ' 3,401.477 ' 0.0967 ' 0.4976 ? 3,552.174
7 7 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T .6
1 1 1
Worker
. 2.3963 ' 1.2196 • 18.4738 ' 0.0672 ' 10.3903 ' 0.0314 ' 10.4217 • 2.7557 ' 0.0289 . 2.7846 y 7,314.648 ' 7,314.648 ' 0.1266 ' 0.1642 T 7,366.731
4 4
2 Total

2.6239

10.0396

21.5689

0.0988

11.5388

0.0796

11.6184

3.0866

0.0750

3.1616
10,716.12
10,716.12

0.2233

0.6617
10,918.90
II
61 61
53 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 44 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2031
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
1 1.3091 1 7.9346 1 16.1570 1 0.0310 1 1 0.1481 1 0.1481 1 1 0.1481 1 0.1481 ; 0.0000 . 2,897.546 1 2,897.546 1 0.1162 1 1 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000
9 1 0.2276
l
1 2.3963
: 0.0000 :
1 1 8.8199 1
1 . 1.2196 1

0.0000 :
1 3.0951 1
7 18.4738 .

0.0000
1 0.0316
1 0.0672
: 0.0000
9 1 1.1485
7 1 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 1 0.0482
9 1 0.0314
: 0.0000 :
1 1 1.1967 1
1 1 10.4217 •

0.0000 :
7 0.3309 1
7 2.7557 •

0.0000

0.0461

0.0289

0.0000 i
T 4
1 0.3770 1
8 T 4
1 2.7846 y

0.0000 :
.5
3,401.477 1
.1
7,314.648 .
4 0.0000 :
7 3,401.477 1
7 1 7 1
7 7,314.648 •
4 0.0000
1 0.0967
1 0.1266
1 0.0000 :
1 0.4976 ?
1 0.1642 T

0.0000
3,552.174
1 7,366.731
2 Total II

2.6239

10.0396

21.5689

0.0988

11.5388

0.0796

11.6184

3.0866

0.0750

3.1616
10,716.12
61 10,716.12
61 0.2233

0.6617
10,918.90
53 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 45 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2032
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • : 0.1481 : 0.1481 : 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000
1 . 0.2239
1 . 2.2617
: 0.0000 :
1 ' 8.7152 •
1 ' 1.1461 •

0.0000 :
1 3.0982 '
1 17.8827 '

0.0000
1 0.0311
1 0.0659
: 0.0000
1 ' 1.1486
1 ' 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 ' 0.0474
1 ' 0.0295
: 0.0000 :
1 • 1.1960 •
1 ' 10.4198 •

0.0000 :
1 0.3309 '
1 2.7557 '

0.0000

0.0453

0.0271

0.0000 i
T 4
' 0.3763 '
I
T 4
. 2.7829 y

0.0000 :
1 3,349.759 '
1 7,213.572 '
1 0.0000 :
1 3 : 3 :
3,349.759 '
1 7,213.572 '
1 0.0000
1 0.0977
1 0.1181
; 0.0000 :
' 0.4900 ?
' 0.1594 T

0.0000
3,498.210
3 7,264.015
9 Total II

2.4857

9.8612

20.9809

0.0970

11.5389

0.0769

11.6158

3.0867

0.0725

3.1591
10,563.33
14 10,563.33
14 0.2158

0.6493
10,762.22
61 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 46 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2032
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
1 1.3091 1 7.9346 1 16.1570 1 0.0310 1 1 0.1481 1 0.1481 1 1 0.1481 1 0.1481 ; 0.0000 . 2,897.546 1 2,897.546 1 0.1162 1 1 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000
-,
1 0.2239
9 1 2.2617
: 0.0000 :
1 1 8.7152 1
1 . 1.1461 1

0.0000 :
1 3.0982 1
7 17.8827 .

0.0000
l

0.0311
1 0.0659
: 0.0000
9 1 1.1486
7 1 10.3903
: 0.0000
-,
1 0.0474
9 1 0.0295
: 0.0000 :
1 1 1.1960 1
1 1 10.4198 •

0.0000 :
7 0.3309 1
7 2.7557 •

0.0000

0.0453

0.0271

0.0000 i
T 4
1 0.3763 1
8 T 4
1 2.7829 y

0.0000 :
.5
3,349.759 1
.1
7,213.572 .
1 0.0000 :
7 3,349.759 1
3 1 3 1
7 7,213.572 •
1 0.0000
1 0.0977
1 0.1181
1 0.0000 :
1 0.4900 ?
1 0.1594 •7,264.015

0.0000
3,498.210
3 9
Total II

2.4857

9.8612

20.9809

0.0970

11.5389

0.0769

11.6158

3.0867

0.0725

3.1591
10,563.33
14 10,563.33
14 0.2158

0.6493
10,762.22
61 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 47 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2033
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • : 0.1481 : 0.1481 : 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
9 1 7 1 9 1 1 7 T 4
7 7 1
Vendor
. 0.2211 ' 8.6270 • 3.1059 ' 0.0306 ' 1.1487 ' 0.0467 ' 1.1954 • 0.3310 ' 0.0447 ' 0.3756 a 3,303.438 ' 3,303.438 ' 0.0986 ' 0.4832 ? 3,449.906
6 6 1
l 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 T .6
1 7 1
Worker
. 2.1472 ' 1.0872 • 17.3787 ' 0.0647 ' 10.3903 ' 0.0278 ' 10.4181 • 2.7557 ' 0.0255 . 2.7813 y 7,123.886 ' 7,123.886 ' 0.1108 ' 0.1555 •7,172.986
5 5
8 Total

2.3683

9.7142

20.4846

0.0954

11.5390

0.0745

11.6134

3.0867

0.0702

3.1569
10,427.32
10,427.32

0.2093

0.6387
10,622.89
II
51 51
29 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 48 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2033
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • . 0.1481 . 0.1481 ; 0.0000 . 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
II

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 '

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Vendor
. 0.2211 ' 8.6270 • 3.1059 ' 0.0306 ' 1.1487 ' 0.0467 • 1.1954 • 0.3310 ' 0.0447 ' 0.3756 j
3,303.438 • 3,303.438 ' 0.0986 ' 0.4832 ? 3,449.906
i
6 6 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Worker
. 2.1472 ' 1.0872 • 17.3787 ' 0.0647 ' 10.3903 ' 0.0278 ' 10.4181 • 2.7557 ' 0.0255 . 2.7813 y
7,123.886 ' 7,123.886 ' 0.1108 ' 0.1555 •7,172.986
5 5
8 Total

2.3683

9.7142

20.4846

0.0954

11.5390

0.0745

11.6134

3.0867

0.0702

3.1569
10,427.32
10,427.32

0.2093

0.6387
10,622.89
II
51 51
29 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 49 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2034
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • : 0.1481 : 0.1481 : 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
ll

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Vendor
. 0.2187 ' 8.5470 • 3.1156 ' 0.0302 ' 1.1487 ' 0.0461 • 1.1948 • 0.3310 ' 0.0441 ' 0.3750 a 3,260.978 ' 3,260.978 ' 0.0995 ' 0.4771 ? 3,405.635
4 4 4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T .6
1 1 1
Worker
. 2.0460 ' 1.0394 • 16.9356 ' 0.0637 ' 10.3903 ' 0.0262 ' 10.4165 • 2.7557 ' 0.0241 ' 2.7798 y 7,044.249 ' 7,044.249 ' 0.1042 ' 0.1523 T 7,092.242
7 7
1 Total

2.2647

9.5864

20.0512

0.0939

11.5390

0.0722

11.6113

3.0867

0.0681

3.1548
10,305.22
10,305.22

0.2038

0.6294
10,497.87
II
81 81
74 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 50 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2034
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.3091 ' 7.9346 • 16.1570 • 0.0310 . • 0.1481 ' 0.1481 • . 0.1481 . 0.1481 ; 0.0000 . 2,897.546 ' 2,897.546 • 0.1162 ' • 2,900.452 -Road
8 8
9 Total
II

1.3091

7.9346

16.1570

0.0310

0.1481

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 '

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Vendor
. 0.2187 ' 8.5470 • 3.1156 ' 0.0302 ' 1.1487 ' 0.0461 • 1.1948 • 0.3310 ' 0.0441 ' 0.3750 j
3,260.978 • 3,260.978 ' 0.0995 ' 0.4771 ? 3,405.635
i
4 4 4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Worker
. 2.0460 ' 1.0394 • 16.9356 ' 0.0637 ' 10.3903 ' 0.0262 ' 10.4165 • 2.7557 ' 0.0241 ' 2.7798 y
7,044.249 ' 7,044.249 ' 0.1042 ' 0.1523 T 7,092.242
7 7
1 Total

2.2647

9.5864

20.0512

0.0939

11.5390

0.0722

11.6113

3.0867

0.0681

3.1548
10,305.22
10,305.22

0.2038

0.6294
10,497.87
II
81 81
74 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 51 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2035
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. •

0.0904
• 0.0904
: .

0.0904
' 0.0904 ;
: 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0904
2,897.546
8 2,897.546
8 0.1079
2,900.244
8 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling LI

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 '

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Vendor
. 0.2164 . 8.4719 • 3.1246 . 0.0299 . 1.1488 • 0.0454 • 1.1942 • 0.3310 • 0.0435 . 0.3745 a 3,222.911 • 3,222.911 . 0.1003 . 0.4716 ? 3,365.952
7 7 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T 4
1 1 1
Worker
. 1.9535 . 1.0006 • 16.5501 . 0.0628 . 10.3903 • 0.0247 . 10.4150 • 2.7557 • 0.0227 . 2.7784 y 6,974.875 . 6,974.875 • 0.0984 . 0.1497 T 7,021.952
3 3
3 Total

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
10,197.78

0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
II
70 70
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 52 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2035
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. •

0.0904
• 0.0904
: .

0.0904
' 0.0904 8 0.0000
. 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000
2,897.546
8 2,897.546
8 0.1079
2,900.244
8 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling LI
Vendor
Worker

0.0000
1 . 0.2164
1 . 1.9535
: 0.0000 :
1 ' 8.4719 •
1 ' 1.0006 •

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 '
1 16.5501 '

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 ' 1.1488
1 ' 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 ' 0.0454
1 ' 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 ' 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 '
1 • 2.7557 '

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227
: 0.0000 '
T 4
' 0.3745 '
8 T 4
. 2.7784 y

0.0000
1 3,222.911
1 6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 7 : 7 :
' 3,222.911 '
1 ' 6,974.875 '
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
' 0.4716 ?
' 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 53 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2036
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. •

0.0904
• 0.0904
: .

0.0904
' 0.0904 ;
: 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 '

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
10,197.78

0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
II
70 70
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 54 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2036
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. •

0.0904
• 0.0904
: .

0.0904
' 0.0904 8 0.0000
. 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000
1 . 0.2164
1 . 1.9535
: 0.0000 :
1 ' 8.4719 •
1 ' 1.0006 •

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 '
1 16.5501 '

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 ' 1.1488
1 ' 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 ' 0.0454
1 ' 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 ' 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 '
1 • 2.7557 '

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227
: 0.0000 '
T 4
' 0.3745 '
8 T 4
. 2.7784 y

0.0000
1 3,222.911
1 6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 7 : 7 :
' 3,222.911 '
1 ' 6,974.875 '
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
' 0.4716 ?
' 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 55 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2037
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. •

0.0904
• 0.0904
: .

0.0904
' 0.0904 ;
: 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 '

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
10,197.78

0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
II
70 70
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 56 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2037
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. :

0.0904
: 0.0904
: .

0.0904
. 0.0904 0.0000
. 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
. • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 .
1 16.5501 .

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 . 1.1488
1 . 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 • 0.0454
1 • 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 . 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 .
1 • 2.7557 •

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227
. 0.0000 a
T 4
. 0.3745 a
T 4
. 2.7784 y

0.0000
1 3,222.911
7 1
6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 • 3,222.911 .
7 1
. 6,974.875 •
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
. 0.4716 ?
. 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 57 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2038
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. :

0.0904
• 0.0904
: :

0.0904
: 0.0904
: 2,897.546 '
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
ll

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000
1 . 0.2164
1 . 1.9535
: 0.0000 :
1 ' 8.4719 •
1 ' 1.0006 •

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 '
1 16.5501 '

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 ' 1.1488
1 ' 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 ' 0.0454
1 ' 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 ' 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 '
1 • 2.7557 '

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227

0.0000 i
T 4
' 0.3745 '
I
T 4
. 2.7784 Z

0.0000
1 3,222.911
1 6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 7 : 7 :
' 3,222.911 '
1 ' 6,974.875 '
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
' 0.4716 ?
' 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 58 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2038
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. :

0.0904
: 0.0904
: .

0.0904
. 0.0904 0.0000
. 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
. • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 .
1 16.5501 .

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 . 1.1488
1 . 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 • 0.0454
1 • 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 . 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 .
1 • 2.7557 •

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227
. 0.0000 a
T 4
. 0.3745 a
T 4
. 2.7784 y

0.0000
1 3,222.911
7 1
6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 • 3,222.911 .
7 1
. 6,974.875 •
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
. 0.4716 ?
. 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 59 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2039
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. :

0.0904
• 0.0904
: :

0.0904
: 0.0904
: 2,897.546 '
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
' • 2,900.244
8 Total
ll

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000
1 . 0.2164
1 . 1.9535
: 0.0000 :
1 ' 8.4719 •
1 ' 1.0006 •

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 '
1 16.5501 '

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 ' 1.1488
1 ' 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 ' 0.0454
1 ' 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 ' 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 '
1 • 2.7557 '

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227

0.0000 i
T 4
' 0.3745 '
I
T 4
. 2.7784 Z

0.0000
1 3,222.911
1 6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 7 : 7 :
' 3,222.911 '
1 ' 6,974.875 '
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
' 0.4716 ?
' 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 60 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2039
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 1.2168
' 7.1613 •

16.1178 •

0.0310
. :

0.0904
: 0.0904
: .

0.0904
. 0.0904 0.0000
. 2,897.546 •
8 2,897.546 •
8 0.1079
. • 2,900.244
8 Total
II

1.2168

7.1613

16.1178

0.0310

0.0904

0.0000 :
1 3.1246 .
1 16.5501 .

0.0000
1 0.0299
1 0.0628
: 0.0000
1 . 1.1488
1 . 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 • 0.0454
1 • 0.0247
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1942
1 . 10.4150
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3310 .
1 • 2.7557 •

0.0000

0.0435

0.0227
. 0.0000 a
T 4
. 0.3745 a
T 4
. 2.7784 y

0.0000
1 3,222.911
7 1
6,974.875
3 : 0.0000 :
1 • 3,222.911 .
7 1
. 6,974.875 •
3 0.0000
1 0.1003
1 0.0984
; 0.0000 :
. 0.4716 ?
. 0.1497 T

0.0000
3,365.952
9 7,021.952
3 Total II

2.1699

9.4725

19.6747

0.0926

11.5391

0.0701

11.6092

3.0867

0.0662

3.1529
10,197.78
70 10,197.78
70 0.1987

0.6213
10,387.90
52 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 61 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2040
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 1.1970

6.8903 '

16.1185 •

0.0310
. •

0.0737
' 0.0737
: .

0.0737
' 0.0737
: 2,897.547 •
1 2,897.547 •
1 0.1041
' • 2,900.150
3 Total
II

1.1970

6.8903

16.1185

0.0310

0.0737

0.0737
2,897.547
1 2,897.547
1 0.1041
2,900.150
3 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling LI

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; 0.0000 : 0.0000
9 1 7 l 9 1 1 7 T 4
.5 7 1
Vendor
. 0.2119 . 8.1206 • 3.1824 . 0.0284 . 1.1490 • 0.0439 • 1.1928 • 0.3311 . 0.0419 . 0.3730 a 3,070.439 • 3,070.439 . 0.1056 . 0.4486 ? 3,206.750
8 8 5
l 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 T .6
1 7 l
Worker
. 1.6039 . 0.8839 • 15.2245 . 0.0598 . 10.3903 • 0.0195 . 10.4098 • 2.7557 • 0.0179 . 2.7737 y 6,740.503 . 6,740.503 • 0.0780 . 0.1422 T 6,784.831
9 9
9 Total

1.8158

9.0045

18.4069

0.0881

11.5393

0.0633

11.6026

3.0868

0.0599

3.1467
9,810.943
9,810.943

0.1836

0.5908
9,991.582
II
7 7
4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 62 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2040
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 1.1970
' 6.8903 '

16.1185 •

0.0310
. •

0.0737
' 0.0737
: .

0.0737
. 0.0737 0.0000
. 2,897.547 •
1 2,897.547 •
1 0.1041
' • 2,900.150
3 Total
II

1.1970

6.8903

16.1185

0.0310

0.0737

0.0000
2,897.547
1 2,897.547
1 0.1041
2,900.150
3 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
Vendor
Worker
w
• 0.0000
1 . 0.2119
1 . 1.6039
: 0.0000 :
1 . 8.1206 •
1 • 0.8839 •

0.0000 :
1 3.1824 •
1 15.2245 •

0.0000
1 0.0284
1 0.0598
. 0.0000
1 . 1.1490
1 • 10.3903
: 0.0000
1 • 0.0439
1 • 0.0195
: 0.0000
1 • 1.1928
1 • 10.4098
: 0.0000 :
1 • 0.3311 •
1 • 2.7557 •

0.0000

0.0419

0.0179
. 0.0000 a
T 4
• 0.3730 a
T 4
• 2.7737 y

0.0000
1 3,070.439
8 1
6,740.503
9 : 0.0000 :
1 • 3,070.439 •
8 1
• 6,740.503 •
9 0.0000
1 0.1056
1 0.0780
; 0.0000 :
• 0.4486 ?
• 0.1422 T

0.0000
3,206.750
5 6,784.831
9 Total II

1.8158

9.0045

18.4069

0.0881

11.5393

0.0633

11.6026

3.0868

0.0599

3.1467
9,810.943
7 9,810.943
7 0.1836

0.5908
9,991.582
4 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 63 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2040
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.0112 ' 3.6566 ' 15.8177 , 0.0281 : 0.1164 ' 0.1164 : : 0.1164 0.1164 2,656.516 : 2,656.516 ' 0.0893 ' • 2,658.748 -Road
8 8 9
n , -I n , -r y n , n
Paving
. 0.0000
: :
,

0.0000
: 0.0000 ,
,

0.0000
: 0.0000 $
,

0.0000 ,
: T 0.0000
Total

1.0112

3.6566

15.8177

0.0281

0.1164

0.1164
2,656.516
2,656.516

0.0893
2,658.748
II
8 8
9 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling ::

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
l 1 7 1 7 1 1 7 T 4
n 9 l
Vendor
. 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 y

0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 T 0.0000
-I 1 7 1 9 -, -, 7 T 4
7 7 1
Worker
. 0.0229 , 0.0126 • 0.2173 • 8.5000e- , 0.1483 • 2.8000e- • 0.1486 • 0.0393 • 2.6000e- , 0.0396 '

96.2013 • 96.2013 • 1.1100e- , 2.0300e- T 96.8340
004
004
004
a
003
003
Total
n 0.0229

0.0126

0.2173

8.5000e-

0.1483

2.8000e-

0.1486

0.0393

2.6000e-

0.0396

96.2013

1.1100e-

2.0300e-

96.8340
II
004
004
004
003
003

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 64 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2040
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
, 1.0112 ' 3.6566 ' 15.8177 : 0.0281 ' : 0.1164 ' 0.1164 : , 0.1164 ' 0.1164 i 0.0000 2,656.516 , 2,656.516 , 0.0893 ' • 2,658.748 -Road
8 8 9
MI
l l -I l , l -, l -r 4 l l l
Paving
. 0.0000
: :
:
: ,

0.0000
: 0.0000 ,
,

0.0000
: 0.0000 ;
,

0.0000 ,
: T 0.0000
Total

1.0112

3.6566

15.8177

0.0281

0.1164

0.0000
2,656.516
2,656.516

0.0893
2,658.748
II
8 8
9 Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
. 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
l 1 l 1 1 1 1 7 T 4
n 9 9
Vendor •.

0.0000 , 0.0000 • 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 y

0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 T 0.0000
9 1 7 l 9 1 1 7 T 4
'7 7 1
Worker
. 0.0229 , 0.0126 • 0.2173 • 8.5000e- , 0.1483 • 2.8000e- • 0.1486 • 0.0393 • 2.6000e- , 0.0396 '

96.2013 • 96.2013 • 1.1100e- , 2.0300e- T 96.8340
004
004
004
a
003
003
Total n

0.0229

0.0126

0.2173

8.5000e-

0.1483

2.8000e-

0.1486

0.0393

2.6000e-

0.0396

96.2013

1.1100e-

2.0300e-

96.8340
II
004
004
004
003
003

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 65 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2041
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
. 1.0112 ' 3.6566 ' 15.8177 , 0.0281 : 0.1164 ' 0.1164 : : 0.1164 0.1164 2,656.516 : 2,656.516 ' 0.0893 ' • 2,658.748 -Road
8 8 9
n , -I n , -r y n , n
Paving
. 0.0000
: :
,

0.0000
: 0.0000 ,
,

0.0000
: 0.0000 $
,

0.0000 ,
: T 0.0000
Total

1.0112

3.6566

15.8177

0.0281

0.1164

0.1164
2,656.516
2,656.516

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
l 1 7 1 7 1 1 7 T 4
n 9 l
Vendor
. 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 y

0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 T 0.0000
-I 1 7 1 9 -, -, 7 T 4
7 7 1
Worker
. 0.0229 , 0.0126 • 0.2173 • 8.5000e- , 0.1483 • 2.8000e- • 0.1486 • 0.0393 • 2.6000e- , 0.0396 '

96.2013 • 96.2013 • 1.1100e- , 2.0300e- T 96.8340
004
004
004
a
003
003
Total
n 0.0229

0.0126

0.2173

8.5000e-

0.1483

2.8000e-

0.1486

0.0393

2.6000e-

0.0396

96.2013

1.1100e-

2.0300e-

96.8340
II
004
004
004
003
003

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 66 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2041
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off
, 1.0112 ' 3.6566 ' 15.8177 : 0.0281 ' : 0.1164 ' 0.1164 : , 0.1164 ' 0.1164 i 0.0000 2,656.516 , 2,656.516 , 0.0893 ' • 2,658.748 -Road
8 8 9
MI
l l -I l , l -, l -r 4 l l l
Paving
. 0.0000
: :
:
: ,

0.0000
: 0.0000 ,
,

0.0000
: 0.0000 ;
,

0.0000 ,
: T 0.0000
Total

1.0112

3.6566

15.8177

0.0281

0.1164

0.0000
2,656.516
2,656.516

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
l 1 l 1 1 1 1 7 T 4
n 9 9
Vendor •.

0.0000 , 0.0000 • 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 y

0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 , 0.0000 T 0.0000
9 1 7 l 9 1 1 7 T 4
'7 7 1
Worker
. 0.0229 , 0.0126 • 0.2173 • 8.5000e- , 0.1483 • 2.8000e- • 0.1486 • 0.0393 • 2.6000e- , 0.0396 '

96.2013 • 96.2013 • 1.1100e- , 2.0300e- T 96.8340
004
004
004
a
003
003
Total n

0.0229

0.0126

0.2173

8.5000e-

0.1483

2.8000e-

0.1486

0.0393

2.6000e-

0.0396

96.2013

1.1100e-

2.0300e-

96.8340
II
004
004
004
003
003

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 67 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2040
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating •: 75.1742 : : : : 0.0000 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 ; : 0.0000 : : : 0.0000
, , -, , , , , -r +
, , n
Off -Road .. 0.1149 0.7270 , 1.7923 ' 2.9700e- ' 7.4300e- 7.4300e- , ' 7.4300e- . 7.4300e- $ 281.4481 • 281.4481 ' 9.9000e- T 281.6957
003
003
003
003
003
003
Total

75.2891

0.7270

1.7923

2.9700e-

7.4300e-

7.4300e-
281.4481
281.4481

9.9000e-
281.6957
003
003
003
003
003
003
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
. 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 s

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
l 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 T 4
1 7 1
Vendor ..

0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 T 0.0000 j

0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 T 0.0000
-, 1 7 1 7 -, 1 7 T 4
7 7 1
Worker
. 0.3205 . 0.1766 • 3.0420 ' 0.0119 . 2.0761 • 3.8900e- • 2.0800 ' 0.5506 • 3.5800e- . 0.5542 ' 1,346.818 ' 1,346.818 • 0.0156 . 0.0284 T 1,355.675
003
:
003
: S
1 : 1
3 Total
n 0.3205

0.1766

3.0420

0.0119

2.0761

3.8900e-

2.0800

0.5506

3.5800e-

0.5542
1,346.818
1,346.818

0.0156

0.0284
1,355.675
II
003
003
1 1
3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 68 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2040
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Archit. Coating •:

75.1742 . : 0.0000 0.0000 : : 0.0000 : 0.0000 S
: 0.0000 : : : 0.0000
l , , -, l l l , -r 1
, l l
Off -Road
' 0.1149 ' 0.7270 • 1.7923 ' 2.9700e- • 7.4300e- ' 7.4300e- • ' 7.4300e- . 7.4300e- $ 0.0000 281.4481 • 281.4481 ' 9.9000e- T 281.6957
003
003
003
003
003
003
Total

75.2891

0.7270

1.7923

2.9700e-

7.4300e-

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

9.9000e-
281.6957
II
003
003
003
003
003
003
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
. 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
l 1 l 1 1 1 1 7 T 4
n 9 9
Vendor
' 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 T 0.0000 yA.

0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 T 0.0000
-, 1 7 l -, -, 1 7 T 4
'7 7 1
Worker
. 0.3205 . 0.1766 • 3.0420 ' 0.0119 . 2.0761 ' 3.8900e- • 2.0800 • 0.5506 ' 3.5800e- . 0.5542 ' 1,346.818 ' 1,346.818 ' 0.0156 . 0.0284 T 1,355.675
003
003
: 8
1 1
3 Total n

0.3205

0.1766

3.0420

0.0119

2.0761

3.8900e-

2.0800

0.5506

3.5800e-

0.5542
1,346.818
1,346.818

0.0156

0.0284
1,355.675
II
003
003
1 1
3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 69 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2041
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 0.1149
' 0.7270 '

1.7923 '

2.9700e-
003
' '

7.4300e-
003
' 7.4300e- •
003
'

7.4300e-
003
' 7.4300e-
003
. 281.4481 •
281.4481 '

9.9000e-
003
. • 281.6957
Total
II

0.1149

0.7270

1.7923

2.9700e-
003

7.4300e-
003

7.4300e-
003
281.4481
281.4481

9.9000e-
003
281.6957
Unmitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling LI

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
9 1 7 1 7 -, 1 7 T 4
7 7 1
Vendor
. 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 , 0.0000 . 0.0000 T 0.0000 i

0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 ? 0.0000
i
l 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 T 4
'1 1 1
Worker ..

0.3205 ' 0.1766 • 3.0420 • 0.0119 ' 2.0761 • 3.8900e- ' 2.0800 • 0.5506 • 3.5800e- ' 0.5542 y
1,346.818' 1,346.818 • 0.0156 ' 0.0284 •1,355.675
003
003
1 1
3 Total

0.3205

0.1766

3.0420

0.0119

2.0761

3.8900e-

2.0800

0.5506

3.5800e-

0.5542
1,346.818
1,346.818

0.0156

0.0284
1,355.675
II
003
003
1 1
3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 70 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2041
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 0.1149
, 0.7270 '

1.7923 ,

2.9700e-
003
, '

7.4300e-
003
, 7.4300e- •
003
,

7.4300e-
003
, 7.4300e- 0.0000
003
, 281.4481 '
281.4481 ,

9.9000e-
003
, : 281.6957
Total
II

0.1149

0.7270

1.7923

2.9700e-
003

7.4300e-
003

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

9.9000e-
003
281.6957
Mitigated Construction Off -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Hauling
Vendor
Worker
w
. 0.0000
9 : 0.0000
l
. 0.3205
, 0.0000 ,
1 : 0.0000 :
1 , 0.1766 ,

0.0000 ,
7 0.0000 :
7 3.0420 ,

0.0000
l

0.0000
1 0.0119
, 0.0000
-I
: 0.0000
7 , 2.0761
, 0.0000
-,
: 0.0000
9 , 3.8900e-
003
, 0.0000
1 : 0.0000
1 , 2.0800
, 0.0000 ,
7 : 0.0000 :
7 , 0.5506 ,
:

0.0000

3.5800e-
003
, 0.0000 a
T 4
T 0.0000 a
T 4
, 0.5542 A.
+

0.0000
n

0.0000
1 1,346.818
1 : 0.0000 :
7 , 0.0000 ,
9 , 1,346.818 ,
1 0.0000
1 0.0000
9 0.0156
; 0.0000 :
, 0.0000 ,
, 0.0284 T

0.0000

0.0000
1,355.675
3 Total II

0.3205

0.1766

3.0420

0.0119

2.0761

3.8900e-
003

2.0800

0.5506

3.5800e-
003

0.5542
1,346.818
1 1,346.818
1 0.0156

0.0284
1,355.675
3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 71 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2042
Unmitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Off -Road
. 0.1149
' 0.7270 '

1.7923 '

2.9700e-
003
' '

7.4300e-
003
' 7.4300e- •
003
'

7.4300e-
003
' 7.4300e-
003
. 281.4481 •
281.4481 '

9.9000e-
003
. • 281.6957
Total
II

0.1149

0.7270

1.7923

2.9700e-
003

7.4300e-
003

7.4300e-
003
281.4481
281.4481

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 i

0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : 0.0000
9 1 7 1 7 -, 1 7 T 4
7 7 1
Vendor
. 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 • 0.0000 . 0.0000 , 0.0000 . 0.0000 T 0.0000 i

0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 . 0.0000 ? 0.0000
i
l 1 7 1 7 9 1 7 T 4
'1 1 1
Worker ..

0.3205 ' 0.1766 • 3.0420 • 0.0119 ' 2.0761 • 3.8900e- ' 2.0800 • 0.5506 • 3.5800e- ' 0.5542 y
1,346.818' 1,346.818 • 0.0156 ' 0.0284 •1,355.675
003
003
1 1
3 Total

0.3205

0.1766

3.0420

0.0119

2.0761

3.8900e-

2.0800

0.5506

3.5800e-

0.5542
1,346.818
1,346.818

0.0156

0.0284
1,355.675
II
003
003
1 1
3 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 72 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2042
Mitigated Construction On -Site
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
S
Off -Road
. 0.1149
, 0.7270 '

1.7923 ,

2.9700e-
003
, '

7.4300e-
003
, 7.4300e- •
003
,

7.4300e-
003
, 7.4300e- 0.0000
003
, 281.4481 '
281.4481 ,

9.9000e-
003
, : 281.6957
Total
II

0.1149

0.7270

1.7923

2.9700e-
003

7.4300e-
003

0.0000
281.4481
281.4481

0.0000 ,
7 0.0000 :
7 3.0420 ,

0.0000
l

0.0000
1 0.0119
, 0.0000
-I
: 0.0000
7 , 2.0761
, 0.0000
-,
: 0.0000
9 , 3.8900e-
003
, 0.0000
1 : 0.0000
1 , 2.0800
, 0.0000 ,
7 : 0.0000 :
7 , 0.5506 ,
:

0.0000

3.5800e-
003
, 0.0000 a
T 4
T 0.0000 i
T 4
, 0.5542 A.
+

0.0000
n

0.0000
1 1,346.818
1 : 0.0000 :
7 , 0.0000 ,
9 , 1,346.818 ,
1 0.0000
1 0.0000
9 0.0156
; 0.0000 :
, 0.0000 ,
, 0.0284 T

0.0000

0.0000
1,355.675
3 Total II

0.3205

0.1766

3.0420

0.0119

2.0761

3.8900e-
003

2.0800

0.5506

3.5800e-
003

0.5542
1,346.818
1 1,346.818
1 0.0156

0.0284
1,355.675
3 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 73 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N20
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
Mitigated • 8.3769 • 9.6920 • 94.1100 • 0.2091 • 31.8757 • 0.1101 • 31.9857 • 8.4836 • 0.1031 • 8.5867 • 23,247.05 • 23,247.05 • 1.1306 • 0.9238 • 23,550.59 8 08 : 08 : , 42
•r Y Y Y Y Y Y -r Y Y f r Y Y Y Y
Unmitigated • 8.3769 • 9.6920 • 94.1100 • 0.2091 • 31.8757 • 0.1101 • 31.9857 • 8.4836 • 0.1031 8.5867 • • 23,247.05 • 23,247.05 • 1.1306 • 0.9238 • 23,550.59 08 08 42

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate
Unmitigated
Mitigated
Land Use
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Annual VMT
Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise •
200.64 •
223.44
173.28
• 915,611
915,611
Apartments Mid Rise •
113.40
N 95.58 #

79.38 Y
485,275

485,275
Apartments Mid Rise •
505.40
• 425.98
353.78 Y•
2,162,770
2,162,770
Government (Civic Center) • 25.99
F
•
1,257.36
610.08
• 5,585,619
5,585,619
Strip Mall •
583.20 •
-f
547.56
265.68

• 2,432,447
2,432,447
Total
3,327.67
2,634.11
1,520.08
13,467,463
13,467,463

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
Apartments Low Rise 23.42
Apartments Mid Rise • 23.42

9.01 9.01 35.80 21.00 •
Y f

9.01 • 35.80 21.00

43.20 86
f f

43.20 • 86
•
f
11 •
.
f
11 •
3 3

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 74 of 80 ends

Date: 11/30/2021 2:10 PM
Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Miles
Trip %
Trip Purpose %
Land Use
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
H -W or C -W
H -S or C -C
H -O or C -NW
Primary
Diverted
Pass -by
Apartments Mid Rise

23.42 9.01

9.01 35.80

21.00 43.20
Government (Civic Center) 12.87 r 10.73 12.48 Y 75.00 20.00 T 5.00 • r r Y f f

24.95 9.60 6.60 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15

46.79 r 18.00 18.00 • 16.60 64.40 r 19.00 • 45 40 15
r
i

46.79 18.00 18.00 •
. 16.60 64.40 19.00 •
. 45 40 15
Office Park
Strip Mall
Strip Mall
86 11
3 16
50 34
3 4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use
LDA
LDT1
LDT2
MDV
LHD1
LHD2
MHD
HHD
OBUS
UBUS
MCY
SBUS
MH
Apartments Low Rise
Apartments Mid Rise
Government (Civic Center)
Office Park
Strip Mall
• • • q• • • El• • • Il• • • RN • •

0.537981

0.060917

0.197944

0.129503

0.022130

0.006150

0.007595

0.005434

0.000841

0.000325

0.027432

0.060917' 0.197944' 0.129503' 0.022130' 0.006150' 0.007595' 0.005434' 0.000841' 0.000325' 0.027432'

0.000740

0.000740
I.

0.0609171 0.197944' 0.129503' 0.022130' 0.006150' 0.007595' 0.005434' 0.000841' 0.000325' 0.027432' 0.000740

0.537981• 0.060917' 0.197944 0.129503' 0.022130' 0.006150' 0.007595' 0.005434' 0.000841' 0.000325' 0.027432' +• 4- +• 4- +• -;--
+• +- +-

0.537981:

0.060917' 0.197944 0.129503' 0.022130' 0.006150' 0.007595' 0.005434' 0.000841' 0.000325' 0.027432 0.000740' 0.003008

I I I I I I I I I F

0.000740

0.003008

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 75 of 80
Date: 11/30/2021 2:10 PM
Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
NaturalGas • 0.5731 • 5.0543 • 3.2348 • 0.0313 • • 0.3960 • 0.3960 • • 0.3960 • 0.3960 • • 6,251.943 • 6,251.943 • 0.1198 • 0.1146 • 6,289.095 Mitigated 8 8 9
Cr f
NaturalGas r 0.5731 T 5.0543 T 3.2348 T 0.0313 T T 0.3960 T 0.3960 T T 0.3960 T 0.3960 • • 6,251.943 .6,251.943 • 0.1198 T 0.1146 ?6,289.095 Unmitigated 8 8 9

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 76 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low • 6163.99 A.

0.0665 • 0.5681 , 0.2417 • 3.6300e- 0.0459 0.0459 0.0459 0.0459 725.1752 725.1752 0.0139 0.0133 729.4846
Rise
Apartments Mid ,
Rise
Apartments Mid ,
Rise
•
Government ,
(Civic Center)
•
Office Park •
•
Strip Mall •
•
Strip Mall •
+,
a,
16579.7 a'
+,
A.

0.1788 •
,

0.0401 •
,

3.0300e- •
003
,

0.2601 •
,

0.0172 •
,

7.4700e- •
003

1.5279
,

0.3428
,

0.0276
,

2.3641
,

0.1559
,

0.0679
, 0.6502 •
,
, 0.1459 •
,
, 0.0232 •
,
, 1.9859 •
,
, 0.1309 •
,
, 0.0570 •
003

9.7500e- •
003
,

2.1900e- •
003
,

1.7000e- •
004
,

0.0142 •
,

9.4000e- •
004
,

4.1000e- •
004
,
,
,
,
,
, 0.1235 •
,
, 0.0277 •
,
, 2.1000e- •
003
,
, 0.1797 •
,
, 0.0119 •
,
, 5.1600e- •
003

0.1235
,

0.0277
,

2.1000e-
003
,

0.1797
,

0.0119
,

5.1600e-
003
, •
,
, •
,
, •
,
, •
,
, •
,
• •

0.1235 •

0.0277 •

2.1000e- •
003

0.1797 •

0.0119 •
-r

5.1600e- •
003

0.1235
r *

0.0277
r *

2.1000e-
003
r *

0.1797
r *

0.0119
*

5.1600e-
003
1,950.547
3 ,
437.6574
,

33.1049
,
2,836.952
9 ,
187.0492
,

81.4569
, 1,950.547 •
3 ,
, 437.6574 •
,
, 33.1049 •
,
, 2,836.952 •
9 ,
, 187.0492 •
,
, 81.4569 •

0.0374
,

8.3900e-
003
,

6.3000e-
004
,

0.0544
,

3.5900e-
003
,

1.5600e-
003
• 0.0358 ? 1,962.138
4 • 8.0200e- ? 440.2582
003
• 6.1000e- • 33.3016
004
• 0.0520 T 2,853.811
5 • 3.4300e- • 188.1607
003
• 1.4900e- • 81.9410
003
Total
II

0.5731
111

5.0543

3.2348

0.0313

0.3960

0.3960
6,251.943
8 6,251.943
8 0.1198

0.1146
6,289.095
9 CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 77 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Land Use
kBTU/yr
lb/day
lb/day
Apartments Low • 6.16399 0.0665 • 0.5681 • 0.2417 • 3.6300e- 0.0459 0.0459 0.0459 i 0.0459 725.1752 725.1752 0.0139 0.0133 729.4846
Rise
Apartments Mid
Rise
Apartments Mid •
Rise
•
Government •
(Civic Center)
•
Office Park •
•
Strip Mall •
•
Strip Mall •
a.
+,
i,
,

1.5279
l

0.3428
,

0.0276
,

2.3641
,

0.0679
,

0.1559
,

0.6502
l
• 0.1459 •
,
• 0.0232 •
,
• 1.9859 •
,
• 0.0570 •
,
• 0.1309 •
003
,

9.7500e-
003
',

2.1900e- •
003
,

1.7000e- •
004
,

0.0142 •
,

4.1000e- •
004
,

9.4000e- •
004
,
l
,
,
,
,
,
• 0.1235 •
l
• 0.0277 •
,
• 2.1000e- •
003
,
• 0.1797 •
,
• 5.1600e- •
003
,
• 0.0119 •
,

0.1235
-,

0.0277
,

2.1000e-
003
,

0.1797
,

5.1600e-
003
,

0.0119
,
, •
-•
, •
,
, •
,
, •
,
, •
,
• •

0.1235 •
-r

0.0277 •

2.1000e- •
003

0.1797 •

5.1600e- •
003

0.0119 •
r *

0.1235
*

0.0277
r *

2.1000e-
003
r *

0.1797
r *

5.1600e-
003
r *

0.0119
,
1,950.547
3 l
437.6574
,

33.1049
,
2,836.952
9 ,

81.4569
,
187.0492
,
• 1,950.547 •
3 l
• 437.6574 •
,
• 33.1049 •
,
• 2,836.952 •
9 ,
• 81.4569 •
,
• 187.0492 •
,

0.0374
l

8.3900e-
003
,

6.3000e-
004
=

0.0544
,

1.5600e-
003
,

3.5900e-
003
• 0.0358 ? 1,962.138
4 • 8.0200e- ? 440.2582
003
• 6.1000e- ? 33.3016
004
• 0.0520 T 2,853.811
5 • 1.4900e- ? 81.9410
003
• 3.4300e- ? 188.1607
003
Total
II

0.5731
111

5.0543

3.2348

0.0313

0.3960

0.3960
6,251.943
8 6,251.943
8 0.1198

0.1146
6,289.095
9 6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 78 of 80
Date: 11/30/2021 2:10 PM
Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
Category
lb/day
lb/day
A
Mitigated •• 50.0945 • 1.0550 • 91.4179 • 4.8500e- 0.5090 i 0.5090 0.5090 i 0.5090 } 0.0000 165.3616 165.3616 0.1577 0.0000 169.3035 003 ;
Unmitigated Sr• 50.0945 • 1.0550 . 91.4179 • 4.8500e-• . 0.5090 • 0.5090 T • 0.5090 • 0.5090 • 0.0000 • 165.3616.165.3616• 0.1577 . 0.0000 ? 169.3035 003

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
Coating
••
Consumer ••
Products
••
Hearth ••
••
Landscaping
• 6.7966 •
1 40.5588 •
1 0.0000 •
1 • 2.7391 •
1 1

0.0000
1 1.0550
1 • •
1 • 0.0000 •
1 • 91.4179 •
1 •
1 0.0000 •
1 4.8500e- •
003 ,
•
1 •
1 •
1 •
,

0.0000 •
1 0.0000 •
1 0.0000 •
1 0.5090 •
,

0.0000
1 0.0000
1 0.0000
1 0.5090
• •
1 • •
1 • •
1 • •
, ,

0.0000 •

0.5090 •
,

0.0000
T e

0.0000 ;
T

0.0000 ; 0.0000
T

0.5090
s
• 1
1 • 0.0000
1 • 165.3616
• 0.0000 •
1 • 0.0000 •
1 • 0.0000 •
1 • 165.3616 •
1 1

0.0000
-

0.1577
•

•
-,-
• 0.0000 •
• T

0.0000
• 0.0000

0.0000
169.3035
Total II

50.0945

1.0550

91.4179

4.8500e-
003

0.5090

0.0000
165.3616
165.3616

0.1577

0.0000
169.3035

CalEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 79 of 80 ends

Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Mitigated
ROG
NOx
CO
SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2
NBio- CO2
Total CO2
CH4
N2O
CO2e
SubCategory
lb/day
lb/day
Architectural
w
. 6.7966 . . : 0.0000 : 0.0000 : . 0.0000 . 0.0000 S
: 0.0000 : ' : 0.0000
Coating
Consumer •.

Products
Hearth ..

Landscaping •.
7 40.5588 .
7 0.0000 :

2.7391 •
l
l

0.0000

1.0550
.
-I
'
,
: 0.0000 :
' 91.4179 •
l
l

0.0000

4.8500e-
003
.
l
l
:
n
•
-,
. 0.0000 .
l
: 0.0000 :
-,
' 0.5090 •
l

0.0000
l

0.0000
n

0.5090
l
. .
l
: :
-i
. •

0.0000 ,

0.0000 :
-r

0.5090 '
T t

0.0000 i
T t

0.0000 S 0.0000
t

0.5090 •
-,
-,

0.0000
-,
165.3616
l
. 0.0000 .
l
: 0.0000 :
,
. 165.3616 •
-
l

0.0000
n

0.1577
. 0.0000
: 0.0000 T 0.0000
. T 169.3035
Total
II
n 50.0945

1.0550

91.4179

4.8500e-
003

0.5090

0.0000
165.3616
165.3616

0.1577

0.0000
169.3035

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Apply Water Conservation Strategy
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System

CaIEEMod Version: CaIEEMod.2020.4.0

Page 80 of 80 ends

8.0 Waste Detail
Pismo Beach GP/LCP PEIR - GHG - San Luis Obispo County APCD Air District, Winter EMFAC Off -Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Days/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type
Number
Hours/Day
Hours/Year
Horse Power
Load Factor
Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type
Number
Heat Input/Day
Heat Input/Year
Boiler Rating
Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type
Number

11.0 Vegetation

Appendix G
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Memorandum

Memorandum
Ina
December 13, 2021
To: Chris Bersbach, Rincon
Project: Pismo Beach GPU
From: Jake Hudson, GHD
Kenneth Isenhower
Rosanna Southern
Ref/Job No.: 11225678
CC:

File No.: 11225678MEM001.DOCX
Subject: Draft: Pismo Land Use Element Update: Transportation Impact Analysis

1. Introduction
Rincon has retained GHD to assess CEQA Impacts under Senate Bill 743 for the proposed Land Use Element update of the City of Pismo Beach's General Plan. This analysis included assessing the update's consistency with Circulation Element Plan & Policy, Vehicle Miles of Travel, Transportation Safety, Emergency Access, & Induced Travel.

Dudek has prepared the proposed land use assumptions based on the methodology provided in attachment A. These assumptions were developed using a combination of parcel information provided by CoreLogic, an inventory of vacant or underutilized parcels, and potential growth & redevelopment growth based dwelling units per acre and floor to area ratios.

The current land use element was adopted in 2008 and was the basis for the subsequent Circulation element adopted in 2018. The 2008 land use element provided for the growth of 476 residential units and growth of 690 jobs. The proposed land use element update increases that growth to 1,111 residential units and 545 jobs.

2. Significance Thresholds
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, impacts are considered significant if implementation of the Land Use Element satisfies any of the following criteria:

A. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities (with the exception of automobile delay & level of service);
B. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts;
GHD
943 Reserve Drive Roseville California 95678 United States T +1 916 782 8688 F +1 916 782 8689 W www.ghd.com

C. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (eg. Sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment); and/or D. Result in inadequate emergency access.

The City has not yet adopted local Vehicle Miles of Travel Thresholds and associated impact/mitigation policies; therefore, impact criteria is based on California Office of Planning & Research Guidance.

3. Threshold A: Would the Land Use Element Conflict with a Transportation program, plan, ordinance, or policy?
The City's current circulation element was adopted in June of 2018 based on the current Land Use element, adopted in 2008. The city is concurrently preparing a focused update of its Circulation Element, consistent the underlying growth assumptions of the proposed Land Use element. The City also adopted its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in June of 2010. The primary plan affected by the proposed Land Use Element is the City's Circulation Element.

3.1 Circulation Element Sections 1 & 3
Circulation Element Section 1 summarizes Citywide traffic operations analysis under buildout conditions and provides justification/support for proposed Multimodal Circulation Plan Improvements throughout section 3. As part of the concurrent focused Circulation Element update, planned improvements have been reassessed under the proposed land use assumptions. This was conducted to identify inconsistencies with the Circulation Element and ensure that the City's transportation network can accommodate the increased traffic generation.

3.2 Circulation Element Section 4
Senate Bill 743 replaced level of service as the primary CEQA metric with Vehicle Miles of Travel.

However, SB 743 allows local agencies to retain automobile level of service as a local policy threshold outside of CEQA.

Increasing traffic generation is projected to result in deficiencies associated with the City's local level of service thresholds, however new transportation improvements are proposed within the City's Circulation Element to offset those deficiencies. Also, under Senate Bill 743 Automobile Delay and Level of Service are no longer considered impact metrics for determining environmental impacts.

The proposed Land Use Element is consistent with the City's Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. The City is also concurrently preparing a focused update of its Circulation Element, consistent the underlying growth assumptions of the proposed Land Use Element. Therefore, if adopted concurrently, consistency impacts associated with transportation program, plan, ordinance, or policy are less than significant.
11225678MEM001.docx
2 Ping

1.1 4. Threshold B: Vehicle Miles of Travel
Under SB 743, automobile delay, traditionally measured as level of service (LOS), is no longer considered the metric for environmental transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), but rather VMT. VMT measures the number and length of vehicle trips made daily. VMT is a valuable indicator of overall land use and transportation efficiency. The most efficient system minimizes VMT by encouraging shorter vehicle trip lengths, more walking, and biking, or increased carpooling and transit.

4.1 VMT Methodology
The VMT estimates with and without the proposed Land Use Element have been evaluated utilizing the Pismo Beach Travel Demand Model (Pismo Model, 2015). The proposed Element's planning Horizon is 2040, whereas the City's travel demand model's planning horizon is 2035. Although these planning horizons have different theoretical years, they both represent buildout conditions. The Pismo Model was built upon the 2014 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Regional Travel Demand Model, with refinements to the traffic analysis zone structure, roadway network, and land uses. To account for non - boundary -based trip lengths, the model's distance associated with the external gateway cordons was adjusted to reflect distances beyond the model boundaries. The average trip length added to these gateway cordons were determined in the EIR for the Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 2035 Master Plan, Appendix G (2019).

The added lengths and gateway cordons are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 External Gateway Link Distance Added
Location
External Node
Link ID
Distance Added (miles)
Hwy 1 N
1 28442
75 US 101 N (A)
2 28443
40 US 101 N (B)
3 28455
40 Hwy 41 N
4 28445
75 Hwy 46 E
5 28447
50 Hwy 58 E
6 28449
50 Hwy 166 E
7 28451
60 Hwy 33 S
8 28450
60 US 101 S (A)
9 28452
2 US101S(B)
9 28453
2 Hwy 1 5
10 28454
10 Notes:

1. Distance added to external Node and corresponding link ID to capture VMT outside of theSLOCOG County boundary.

For the VMT analysis with the proposed Plan, a model scenario was created that modified the Pismo Model forecast land use data to include the proposed General Plan buildout development. The VMT analysis consists of both (1) evaluating net change in total VMT and (2) the change in VMT efficiency metrics for the region. The net change in total VMT Countywide has been evaluated for the proposed Land Use Element against the baseline or "Existing" conditions and the "current General Plan" forecast scenario.

A trip -based VMT assessment was conducted for the model area (County) to estimate the total VMT for each scenario. The trip -based methodology is quantified by the length of the vehicle trips that start or end within the region and does not include VMT associated with vehicles that pass through the region. Project impacts on transportation are determined based on an increase in total VMT with the proposed plan. This methodology is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating 11225678MEM001.docx
3 INA
Transportation Impacts in CEQA (OPR Technical Advisory, December 2018) and CEQA Guidelines. The list below describes the scenarios analyzed.
• "2010 Base Year" scenario represents existing land uses and existing transportation network • "2035 Current GP" scenario represents the current General Plan Buildout • "2035 Proposed GPU" scenario represents the proposed General Plan Buildout (Update) Regional VMT efficiency metrics have also been analyzed as part of this analysis. The change in Residential VMT per capita and Work VMT per employee have been calculated countywide utilizing the Pismo Model, as previously described. For Residential VMT, all home -based automobile trips were selected for evaluation.

For Work VMT, all home -based -work automobile trips were selected for evaluation. The population and employment metrics utilized to calculate residential VMT per capita and work VMT per employee were based on the model's inputs for each scenario.

4.2 VMT Analysis Results
Table 3.2 presents the summary of the net change in total VMT results.

Table 3.2 Total VMT Results Summary
Model Scenario
2010 Base Year
Net VMT
11,226,484
Buildout Current GPU
Buildout Proposed GPU
Difference from 2035
Difference from 2010
13,311,157
13,476,666
+ 165,510
+ 2,250,182
The VMT results show a net increase in VMT and therefore the proposed land use plan would create a significant and unavoidable impact on transportation.

Table 3.3 presents the Residential VMT per capita results comparing the proposed Plan against the 2010 base year and current General Plan forecast. Table 3.4 present the Work VMT per employee results comparing the proposed Plan against the 2010 base year and current General Plan forecast.

Table 3.3 Residential VMT Results Summary
Pismo Model
Scenario
2010
2035
2035 GPU
Difference
from 2035
Difference
from 2010
Residential
VMT
7,420,936
8,684,684
8,694,346
Residential
Tries
717,564 255,085
861,337 282,559
860,802 283,671
9,662 (535) 1,112 -0.28%
Residential
VMT per
Ca • ita

29.09 30.74

30.65 1,273,410 143,237 28,586 5.35%
Average Trip
Distance

10.34 10.08

10.10 0.17%
-2.34%
11225678MEM001.docx
4 1.1
Table 3.4 Work VMT Results Summary
Pismo Model
Scenario
Work VMT
177,372
197,741
199,498
92,732
113,867
112,982
Work VMT per
Em lo ee
Average Trip
Distance
2010
2035
2035 GPU
Difference
from 2035
Difference
from 2010
2,046,641
2,260,727
2,293,885

22.07 19.85

20.30 11.54

11.43 11.50
33,158 1,757 (885) 2.26% 0.57%
247,244
22,126 20,250
-8.01% -0.35%
As shown in Table 3.3, the regional Residential VMT per capita is estimated to decrease by 0.28% with the proposed land uses. As shown in Table 3.4, the regional Work (commute) VMT per employee is estimated to increase by 2.26% with the proposed land uses. Although there are more residents and jobs within Pismo Beach, the model estimates a resulting higher VMT for the work trip purpose.

4.3 Thresholds C & D Induced Travel
The proposed Land Use Element Update proposes no changes to transportation facilities and therefore can be assumed to have a less than significant travel -inducing effect.

The proposed Land Use element is forecasted to increase Net VMT, Residential VMT per Capita, & Work VMT per Employee. These increases exceed thresholds established by the State Office of Planning & Research Guidance as well as the Caltrans Transportation Impact Study Guide.

Therefore, this increase is considered a significant an unavoidable transportation impact.

5. Transportation Safety & Emergency Access
In 2020 the City of Pismo prepared a Citywide Systemic Traffic Safety Analysis & Local Roadway Safety Plan. This analysis & plan found that the number of annual traffic collisions remained relatively static from 2014 to 2018. The highest collision concentrations were within the Downtown core, and the primary contributing factor was visibility for vehicles turning from side streets and two-way stop -controlled intersections.

Planned land use growth is expected to occur primarily on vacant or underutilized sites, mainly located in the Downtown core and the U.S. 101 corridor in Shell Beach. Although this coincides with the City's highest collision concentrations, the primary factors associated with those concentrations are roadway geometrics, not incompatible land use patterns. Although more growth is planned as part of the proposed update, overall land use designations are essentially unchanged and have proven not to be incompatible uses in the context of vehicle types.

The proposed Land Use element does not change to the City's roadway network and therefore would not increase hazards due to geometric design features or affect overall Emergency Access.

Therefore, the impacts to Transportation Safety & Emergency Access are considered less than significant.
11225678MEM001.docx
5 ATTACHMENT A

DUDEK LAND USE PROJECTION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
11225678MEM001.docx 6

Pismo General Plan/Local Coastal Plan: Methodology for Determining Projected Development at Full Build Out
Used to create the LU-4 Table in the Land Use Element

1. Urban Footprint Base Canvas Assumptions
Urban Footprint's Base Canvas constitutes a baseline assessment of existing land use, demographic characteristics, and other conditions in the City, providing the context for scenario planning and the foundation for analysis of alternative scenarios. The default source for parcel information in Urban Footprint is CoreLogic, which is a leading provider of real estate data in the United States.

2. Determination of Land Uses for Inclusion
This buildout compares existing on -the -ground Base Canvas development to the buildout potential of four General Plan land use categories in the City where change is anticipated, including Commercial, Central Commercial, High Density Residential, Mixed Use, and Public/Semi-Public land uses. Only vacant and underutilized parcels within these designations were selected for potential growth.

3. Creation of Future Assumptions
When generating assumptions for the four land uses, Dudek first looked at the stated requirements or maximums for residential dwelling units per acre (du/ac), floor area ratio (FAR), height, and parking where possible. For each land use, employment and density limits were determined by matching them closely to the average employment and du/ac of current developed parcels within each land use category. An example formula to calculate commercial employment density can be seen below.

Current Commercial Employment Density
Total Commercial Zoned Jobs — Underutilized Commercial Zoned Jobs — Total Commercial Zoned Acres — Underutilized Commercial Zoned Acres) Future assumptions for each land use were built in Urban Footprint using combinations of building components which created numbers closest to the determined employment and residential densities, and that worked to be within FAR, height, and parking requirements. Previous limitations within Urban Footprint required us to match Pismo's land use designations to prescribed building typologies in Urban Footprint, and adjusting them to match as closely as possible with Pismo's land use requirements and growth expectations.

Current standards per the Land Use Element Update and Future Assumptions used in the build out model can be seen for each of the included land uses below.

Current Land Use Density/Intensity Standards
Height**
Implementing
Zone(s)
Total
Acreage
_
Land Use
Designations I
FAR or Density
Coastal Zone/Non-
Coastal Zone
Coastal Zone
Low -Density
Residential
1 to 8 units per ac.
25 feet
R-1, R -R

76.5 Medium -Density
Residential
9 to 15 units per ac.
25 - 35 feet
R-2, R -R
247.5
High -Density
Residential
16 to 30 units per ac.
25 feet
R-3, R -R

22.2 Very High -Density
Residential Overlay
20 to 50 units per ac.
35 — 45 feet***
R-3

1.1 Mobile Home Park
Maximum 8 units to
the acre
M -H

58.5 Commercial
Maximum FAR of 2.0
25 - 42 feet
R-4, R -R, C -R, C-1,
C-2, C -M

32.5 Resort Commercial
Maximum FAR of 1.25
35 feet
RR, R-4, and CR

73.9 Central
Commercial
Maximum FAR of 1.25
35 feet
R-4, R -R, MU

66.4 Mixed -Use
Residential 1.25
maximum
Commercial uses: 2.0
maximum
Determined by
overlay zone
C-1, C-2, MU

57.2 Industrial
Maximum FAR of 0.5
25 feet
C -M

30.2 Public/Semi Public
Maximum FAR of 2.0
25 feet
G
468.38
Open Space
N/A
15 feet*
OS -1, OS -R

32.21 * Consistency with the View Consideration Overlay Zone must be determined for applicable properties ** Coastal height limits are provided to ensure that the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas are considered and protected consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251. *** Buildings may be up to forty-five (45) feet in height where the Planning Commission finds that significant public views to and along the coast and other scenic areas are protected.

Central Commercial Assumptions
Building Type Name
Central Commercial Pismo (new)
Land Use Category
Commercial centers
Description
cs
Building Type Summary
Floor area ratio - FAR
Residential density (net)
Population density (net)
Employment density (net)

0.58 du/ac
pap/ac

28.49 emp/ac
The Central Commercial land use had a maximum FAR of 1.25, and a maximum height of 35 feet. In looking at the currently built out Central Commercial sites, an FAR of 0.58 was determined to be more in line with what Pismo is likely to see built out, with an employment density of 28.49 employees per acre.

Commercial Assumptions
Building Type Name
Commercial Pismo (new)
Land Use Category
Commercial centers -
Description
Building Type Summary
Floor area ratio - FAR
Residential denary (net)
Population density (net)
Employment density (net)

0.31 0 du/ac
U pop/ac

15.8 emp/ac
The Commercial land use had a maximum FAR of 2.0, with maximum heights between 25 and 42. Due to the parking required and often offered at commercial sites and in looking at previously built out Commercial sites, an FAR of 0.31 was determined to be more in line with what Pismo is likely to see built out, with an employment density of 15.8 employees per acre.

High -Density Residential Assumptions
Building Type Name
High -Density Residential
Land Use Category
Multifamily -
Description
16-33 units per acre
Building Type Summary
Floor area ratio - FAR
Residential density (net)
Population density (net)
Employment density (net)

0.93 25.6 du/ac

45.71 pop/ac
0 emp/ac
The High -Density Residential land use had an allowable range of 16-30 du/ac and a maximum height of 25 feet. Within the model, 25.6 du/ac were allotted for this land use.

Mixed -Use Assumptions
Building Type Name
Low-rise Mixed Use Pismo (new)
Land Use Category
Mixed use commercial -
Description
16-30 un is per acre
Building Type Summary
Floor area ratio - FAR
Residential density (net)
Population density (net)
Employment density (net)

3.66 88.67 du/ac
150.03 pop/ac

33.39 emp/ac
The Mixed -Use land use had a maximum FAR of 1.25 for residential and 2.0 for commercial. Height maximums varied based on the overlay zoning. The model's FAR for mixed use is shown to be 3.66, far higher than what is allowed by these regulations. Heights were pre-set within the model and its

components, so to balance this in the model and create a zoning which is within the FAR requirements, vacant space was added to this mixed use zone. This is the equivalent of reducing the building height, and in turn the FAR, because by removing buildable space building volume is reduced to meet standards.

Medium -Density Residential Assumptions
Building Type Name
Medium-Densty Residential
Land Use Category
Single-family detached
Description
MR
9-15 ands per acre
Building Type Summary
Floor area ratio - FAR
Residential densely (net)
Population density (net)
Employment density (net)
031

15.92 du/ac

32.93 pop/ac
0 emp/ac
The Medium -Density Residential land use had an allowed range of 9-15 dwelling units per acre, and a maximum height of 25-35 feet. The closest building type in the model to these requirements slightly overshoots these requirements, coming in at 15.92 dwelling units per acre and leading to 32.93 people per acre. Sites that this assumption applied to were only those that are currently vacant (32 sites), as those were decided to be the only parcels in this land use designation that would experience growth.

The slightly increased density is offset by the reduced density in the High -Density Residential designation.

Public/Semi-Public Assumptions
Component Name
Urban Public Library (Main BrancR nakland CA)
Land Use Category
Civic facilities -
Address
nenstly
Medium -
aakland.CA
Component Summary
Floor area ratio -FAR
Besrtlenaal density (net)
Population density (net)
Employment density (net;

0.53 du/ac
0 pop/ac
5b 7 emp/ac
The Public/Semi-Public land use has a maximum FAR or 2.0, and a maximum height of 25 feet. The closest building type in the model to these requirements is a modified public library, coming in at a 0.53 FAR and 68.7 employees per acre. Only one site was identified for build out.

4. Application of Future Assumptions
Future assumptions were applied to all underutilized and vacant parcels. For the Medium -Density Residential land use, as described above, only vacant parcels had future assumptions applied to them.

The result of this was a "built out" Pismo Beach. Numbers generated and recorded include increases in population, DU, jobs, and non-residential square footage from 2020 to 2040. These increases can be seen on the table below.

Land Use
Number of
Vacant or
Underutilized
Parcels
Potential
Increase in
Population
Potential
Increase in
Dwelling Units
Potential
Increase in
Jobs
Commercial
42 N/A
N/A
242
Central
Commercial
26 N/A
N/A
33 Land Use
Number of
Vacant or
Underutilized
Parcels
Potential
Increase in
Population
Potential
Increase in
Dwelling Units
Potential
Increase in
Jobs
High Density
Residential
139
289
162
-12
Mixed Use
48 1,221
722
272
Medium
Density
Residential
32 471
228
0 Public/Semi-
Public
1 -2
-1
10 Total
288
1,979
1,111
545

5. Comparison to SLOCOG Predictions
To compare to SLOCOG employment and dwelling unit predictions, growth per year ratios were utilized.

SLOCOG's predictions are from 2015 to 2030, or a 15 year range. Dudek's predictions are from 2020 to 2040, a 20 year range. Build outs and assumptions were altered to create predictions closer to SLOCOG's predicted growth, while staying within the land use requirements.

The discrepancies between growth predictions can be seen on the table below.

Growth Comparisons
Increase in DU
Increase in Jobs
Dudek Growth Per Year

55.5 25.8
SLOCOG Growth Per Year

47.7 27.4
Dudek's current methodology assumes a 100% build out for the identified underutilized and vacant parcels.

Appendix H
Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study

r� -►• -
� :��= •
City of Pismo Beach
Citywide Transportation Model
and Circulation Study
'\\\ (
\ 4'
\\
\
•
•
•
\�4.4v«••
i ♦ •

FINAL REPORT
LAMHatch Mott
MacDonald
1300 First Street, Suite B
Gilroy, CA 95020
T: 408.848.5912 I F: 408.848.2202
www.hatchmott.com
<•,**S A'4
t
\\ \ i ..***** ,
% ; t R
I t :1 • 4
?'1 ♦j •u,
• • rn
I�� r7;
`, -rt•-, „,_ rfiA DAVENUE

Hatch Mott
1M MacDonald

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1
A. Background 1
B. Specific Transportation Issues Facing Pismo Beach 6

2. Existing Conditions 7
A. Roadway Network 7
B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation 7
C. Pedestrian Facilities 9
D. Bicycle Facilities 13
E. Support Facilities 17
F. Trip Generators and Attractors 18
G. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity 18
H. Transit 25
I. Parking 27
J. Traffic Operations and Recommendations — Existing Conditions 31 K. Community Participation 53

3. General Plan Buildout Conditions 57
A. Weekday PM — Volume Derivation 57
B. Summer Sunday and Memorial Day Sunday — Volume Derivation 63 C. Traffic Operations and Recommendations - General Plan Buildout 64 D. Improvements Recommended in Previous Studies 75
E. Network Alternatives 79
F. Regional Highway Improvements 113

4. Recommendations 115
A. Pedestrian and Bicycle 115
B. Transit 122
C. Rail 122
D. Parking 122
E. Traffic Operations 123
F. Transportation Demand Management 124

5. Public Comments on Recommendations 129

6. References 130

7. Report Preparation 132
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY List of Exhibits

1. Regional Setting of Greater Pismo Beach Area 2

2. Historical Growth on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at Pismo Creek 4

3. Historical Growth on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at US 101 4

4. Historical Growth on US 101 at Pismo Creek 5

5. Historical Growth on US 101 North of Price Street 5

6. Existing Pedestrian Facilities in Pismo Beach 11

7. Existing Bicycle Facilities in Pismo Beach 15

8. Pedestrian Volumes — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 19

9. Pedestrian Volumes — Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour 20

10. Pedestrian Volumes — Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour 21

11. Bicycle Volumes — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 22

12. Bicycle Volumes — Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour 23

13. Bicycle Volumes — Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour 24

14. Existing Transit Routes in Pismo Beach 26

15. Downtown Pismo Beach Parking Space Inventory 28
16A. Location of Current Public Parking Facilities within Downtown Pismo Beach 29 16B. Location of Time -Limit On -Street Parking Areas in Downtown Pismo Beach 29 17A. Greater Pismo Beach Study Area (North) 35
17B. Greater Pismo Beach Study Area (South) 36
18A. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes 37
18B. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes (Continued) 38 18C. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes (Continued) 39 18D. Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes (Continued) 40=

19. Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour Volumes 41

20. Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour Volumes 42

21. Intersection Levels of Service — Existing Conditions 43-47 22A. Intersection Operations — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 49 22B. Intersection Operations — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour (Continued) 50

23. Intersection Operations — Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour 51

24. Intersection Operations — Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour 52

25. Public Comments from September 2014 Workshop 54

26. Street Network Issues Discussed at September 2014 Workshop 55 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I ii

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY List of Exhibits (Continued)

27. Suggested Future Parking Areas Discussed at September 2014 Workshop 56

28. Other Issues Discussed at September 2014 Workshop 56 29A. Segment Volumes in Greater Pismo Beach Area — Roadways 59-60 29B. Segment Volumes in Greater Pismo Beach Area — Freeways 61 29C. Segment Volumes in Greater Pismo Beach Area — Ramps 62

30. Intersection Levels of Service — General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) 66-70 31A. Intersection Operations — General Plan Buildout Weekday PM Peak Hour 71 31B. Intersection Operations — General Plan Buildout PM Peak Hour (Continued) 72

32. Intersection Operations — General Plan Buildout Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour 73

33. Intersection Operations — General Plan Buildout Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour 74

34. Dolliver St. (SR 1) / Price St. Roundabout 77

35. Dolliver St. (SR 1) / Price St. Roundabout with Future US 101 SB Onramp 78

36. Price Street / James Way Extension Alternatives 81

37. Projected Traffic Diversions with Price Street Extension (Year 2035) 82

38. Intersection LOS - GPBO Weekday PM Peak Hour — With Price Street Extension 83

39. Five Cities Drive / US 101 SB Ramps — Outlets Main Entrance Improvements with Price Street Extension 85

40. Projected Traffic Diversions with James Way Extension (Year 2035) 86

41. Frady Lane Improvements 89

42. Projected Traffic Diversions with Frady Lane
Realignment and Mattie Road Extension (Year 2035) 90
43A. Mattie Road Extension Conceptual Plan / Profile 93 43B. Mattie Road Extension Conceptual Cross Sections — STA 5+00 to STA 20+00 94 43C. Mattie Road Extension Conceptual Cross Sections — STA 25+00 to STA 40+00 95

44. Mattie Road Area Intersection Levels of Service — General Plan Buildout Weekday PM Peak Hour— With Mattie Road Extension 97
45A. Stimson Ave. / Ocean View Ave. One Way Couplet
With Two Eastbound Price St. Through Lanes 99
45B... Stimson Ave. / Ocean View Ave. One Way Couplet
With Two -Way Cycle Track 100
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I iil

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY List of Exhibits (Continued)

46. Recommended Pier Area Improvements 103

47. Example of a Pedestrian Scramble 105

48. Left Turn Pocket Alternatives on Dolliver St. (SR1) 107

49. Example of Bike Boulevard Pavement Striping 109

50. Regional Improvement Concept List in Five Cities Area 114

51. Summary of Recommendations 116-117

52. Transportation Demand Management Options 124
53A. Price St. from San Luis Ave. to Pomeroy Ave. -
Possible Double Loaded Median Back -In Angled Parking 125 53B. Pomeroy Ave. from Cypress St. to Price St. — Possible Back -In Angled Parking 126 53C. Hinds Ave. from Cypress St. to Price St. — Possible Back -In Angled Parking 127 List of Appendices
A. Intersection Traffic Counts
B. Level of Service Calculations — Existing Conditions
C. Summary of Stakeholder Interviews
D. Summary of Public Workshops
D1. September 2014
D2. January 2015
E. Citywide Model Volume Plots
E1. Existing (Year 2014)
E2. General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) with Existing Street Network E3. Model Documentation
F. Net Change in Land Use — 2014 vs. 2035
G. General Plan Buildout Volume Adjustment Factors — 2014 vs. 2035 H. Future Sunday Land Use — 2014 vs. 2035
Future Statewide Growth Projections
J. Level of Service Calculations — General Plan Buildout (Year 2035) Conditions K. Year 2035 Network Alternative Model Volume Plots
L. Two -Way Bicycle Lanes — Best Practices
M. Pismo Creek Recreational Path — Proposed Alignment
N. Transportation Demand Management Report
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I iV

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

1. Introduction
Pismo Beach is a coastal city in southern San Luis Obispo County, within the "Five Cities" region south of the City of San Luis Obispo. Its population has remained at about 8,000 people since the 1980's. This is due to the limited expansion that is possible given its geographic location between the Pacific Ocean and the steep coastal mountains. Also during this time, the city has realized an increase in vacation home ownership and a reduction in resident occupied homes. Pismo Creek flows through Price Canyon, which forms a natural barrier between the downtown and the southern part of the city. A rail line — owned by Union Pacific Railroad — also follows Price Canyon and serves as an additional barrier. US 101 provides the only roadway connection across these barriers, although other routes exist outside of Pismo Beach (such as State Route 1 and West Grand Avenue, to the south).

Exhibit 1 (Page 2) depicts the location of Pismo Beach in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County.

The city experiences an inundation of traffic during the summer months, especially in its downtown, as well as on weekends, special events and holidays. This is due to the attractive unique small businesses and a classic California coastal city culture, as well as its beachfront and pier, located adjacent to its downtown. Pismo State Beach, in Grover Beach, is the only beach in California that allows vehicles to drive on its sand dunes, attracting thousands of visitors each year.

Special events occur frequently in Downtown Pismo Beach throughout the year, including the annual downtown Jazz Festival, The Classic at Pismo Beach Car Show in June, Fourth of July celebrations, and the Clam Festival in October, which attract tens of thousands of visitors per event from across the country. In May 2014 and 2015, the Amgen Tour of California bicycle race started or ended in Downtown Pismo Beach, attracting thousands of visitors and temporarily closing some of the city street network.

A. Background
Pismo Beach is facing a number of major policy and program decisions that will guide the quality of life, economic vitality, and overall future character of the community, with its transportation system being one key factor. It has updated elements of its General Plan and an update to the Circulation Element is anticipated. The General Plan was last updated in 1992. Much has changed since 1992, including major retail and hotel development along Five Cities Drive, residential and retail development on James Way and residential development along Mattie Road. In addition to land use changes within Pismo Beach, substantial development has occurred throughout the Five Cities Area as well as southern San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara Counties.

Other important changes have taken place in our society's overall approach to providing transportation services for our communities. There is now more emphasis on providing a safer, healthier, friendlier environment for pedestrians and bicyclists. Transit is being enhanced to provide an alternative to automobiles. The interrelationship between land use and transportation in terms of energy consumption and environmental impacts is now officially recognized at the State level, most notably with the passage of Senate Bill 375. In response, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) recently adopted a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as a part of the Regional Transportation Plan. This further encourages the development of transportation modes other than single occupant vehicles as well as compatible land use patterns.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 1— Regional Setting of Greater Pismo Beach Area Calttc;t, Id Polytechnic.

State University
DWI Bird
4k‘i,
•
lush Hills
Natural Reserve
Avila Beach
•
-Lifts ObtyPQeoty
Map Source: Google Maps.

San Luis
Obispo
Tank Farm Rd
Girt; 1 ..
y.Y
Buckley Rd
CD
o
• Pismo Preserve
Pismo = ach
11 Y
4 c
rb
Grover Beach
t
r-,
Oceano
N
Orri
Arroyo
Grande
v
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 12

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Despite these changes, the population of Pismo Beach itself has remained relatively constant over the past several decades. The 2000 United States Census reported a population of approximately 8,600 people, while the 2010 United States Census reported a population of about 7,700 people. Much of the traffic growth on regional routes through Pismo Beach has been due to through traffic, not only from other Five Cities communities like Grover Beach, Oceano and Arroyo Grande, but also regional travel between Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties and statewide travel between Northern and Southern California. US 101 is the only alternate route to Interstate 5 and Highway 99 for traffic between northern and southern California. This is illustrated by Exhibits 2 through 5 (Pages 4-5), which depict the traffic growth on Dolliver Street (State Route 1, or SR 1) and US 101 between 1980 and 2013, according to Caltrans counts. While traffic has been relatively stable on Dolliver Street (SR 1) over the past 20 -plus years, growth on US 101 has been substantial. Traffic volumes on US 101 in the Pismo Beach area are noticeably higher than normal when incidents occur on Interstate 5 such as major accidents or road closures from construction or weather (San Joaquin Valley fog or snow on the Grapevine).

SLOCOG has a regional transportation model that forecasts traffic growth in all of San Luis Obispo County. SLOCOG also recently completed the U.S. 101 Corridor Mobility Study, which evaluates the need for U.S. 101 corridor improvements in San Luis Obispo County, including in Pismo Beach. The City has determined that specific circulation issues and alternatives should be evaluated, building on the SLOCOG model and the U.S. 101 Corridor Mobility Study. Therefore, the City has commissioned the preparation of this Citywide Multimodal Transportation Model, which encompasses the City's current City limits and its Sphere of Influence (SOI). It also includes a Citywide Circulation Study that incorporates community input through a public outreach program and exploration of complete streets transportation improvements to meet the needs of the community.

The City has been actively and continuously engaging the community in recent years to address multimodal transportation issues. Public comment, concerns and recommendations have been well documented and helped guide the preparation of the Shell Beach Road Streetscape Plan (Phase I) and Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and most recently the Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan. This Citywide Multimodal Transportation Model and Circulation Study incorporates these local plans, programs, and projects, as well as regional transportation policies to address circulation and mobility in Pismo Beach. The Plan focuses on automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility in an effort to reduce congestion, vehicle miles traveled and associated emissions, meet diverse socioeconomic and mobility needs, and to advance public health, quality -of -life, and economic prosperity.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 13

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 2 — Historical Growth on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at Pismo Creek 30,000
U
w
170 25,000
T
•,' 20,000
0 3 15,000
c
c
a 10,000
CO
CO 5,000
a
0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
—0—AADT
Exhibit 3 — Historical Growth on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at US 101 30,000
V
w
L 25,000
i-
>.

T, 20,000
0 3 15,000
c
c
< 10,000
CU
oa
✓ 5,000
a
., _, A - 4 - - - " " - • 1 s\•'. . \ \ . , .
0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
—•—AADT
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 14

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 4 — Historical Growth on US 101 at Pismo Creek
90,000
V_
E 80,000
f0
H 70,000
T
•,� 60,000
m 50,000
c 40,000
c
< 30,000
a
O 20,000
Q 10,000
.//'.'"''
0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Year
tAADT
Exhibit 5 — Historical Growth on US 101 North of Price Street 90,000
V_
80,000
it 70,000
T
60,000
A 50,000
c 40,000
a< 30,000
20,000
Q 10,000
0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year
2015
tAADT
Data Source (Exhibits 2 through 5): Caltrans traffic counts, 1980 through 2013.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 15

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY B. Specific Transportation Issues Facing Pismo Beach
The City of Pismo Beach has a range of specific transportation goals that are addressed in this study. Several of them are listed below.
• Identify major transportation improvement projects. The 1992 General Plan identified a number of major street improvements that will be needed as the City approaches the buildout of the land uses anticipated at the time of that update. These include widening US 101 and Price Canyon Road, US 101 frontage roads to connect the downtown area with Five Cities Drive and/or James Way, various interchange improvements and other street extensions. A variety of studies have been prepared over the years to identify improvements along US 101. These are referred to throughout this document with regard to their relation with current and future travel demand. • Provide a safe, efficient system for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pismo Beach has also been on the leading edge of multi -modal transportation planning, evidenced by the recently adopted Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan, March 2014, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, June 15, 2010 and the City of Pismo Beach Bikeshare Feasibility Study, August 25, 2014 ( http://pismobikeshare.com) . Summaries are provided of these studies in Section 2.B - Existing Conditions — Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation (page 8).
• Promote transit usage by providing better connectivity with existing and proposed transit facilities as well as transit oriented development. The South County Transit Plan, San Luis Obispo County Highway 101 Bus Rapid Transit Applications Study, June 2013, and SLOCOG 2013 Park & Ride Lot Study, August 2013are referenced herein.
• Analyze traffic impacts of land use alternatives. The November 2014 election included the City of Pismo Beach Planning Area R Development Standards General Plan Amendment - Measure H, which was approved by Pismo Beach voters in November 2014. Measure H amended the General Plan to limit development on 1,100 acres in Price Canyon area if annexed into the City. The initiative designates the land with "watershed and resource management" zoning, a new category that will be in effect for at least the next 30 years. Land with this zoning restricts parcels to a minimum of40 acres in size, which yields a maximum of two residential units for this development area. The measure precludes development projects such the Spanish Springs project, which was proposed to consist of hundreds of homes, a hotel, conference center and a nine -hole golf course. With the reduction in development potential in and near Price Canyon, future development in Pismo Beach will be comprised primarily of infill and redevelopment projects within the existing city limits. • Develop strategies and improvements to enhance access to the Downtown and Pier area. Several substantial development projects are in various stages of implementation in the downtown and pier area. One of the challenges will be to reduce the congestion that already occurs in the peak season while providing more convenient access and parking. The Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan provided a valuable start on this effort.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 6

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

2. Existing Conditions
A. Roadway Network
As indicated on Exhibit 1 (Page 2), Pismo Beach is located in the southern coastal area of San Luis Obispo County.

It is a part of the "Five Cities" region, comprised of Pismo Beach, Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, Shell Beach and Oceano. It is located approximately 10 miles south of the City of San Luis Obispo.

US 101 is the backbone for travel to and from the Five Cities region. It also serves as an important route for regional and state-wide travel. It is a four -lane freeway through most of Pismo Beach, with auxiliary (weaving lanes) and truck climbing lanes in specific locations. Interchanges along US 101 in Pismo Beach include Spyglass Drive, Mattie Road (northbound on ramp and off ramp only), Price Street north of downtown (southbound off ramp only), State Route (SR) 1 (southbound off ramp only), Wadsworth Avenue (northbound off ramp only), Hinds Avenue — Price Canyon Road (southbound off ramp only), Price Street south of downtown (northbound off ramp and southbound on ramp only), Five Cities Drive (southbound off ramp and on ramp only), Fourth Street and Oak Park Boulevard. Other routes that provide access into and out of the region include SR 1, Price Canyon Road, Noyes Road, and State Route 227.

Within Pismo Beach, there are many arterial and collector roadways that provide local and regional circulation routes. These include Price Street, Shell Beach Road, Mattie Road, Dolliver Street (SR 1), Wadsworth Avenue, Pomeroy Avenue, Hinds Avenue, Fourth Street, James Way, Five Cities Drive and Oak Park Boulevard.

The directional designation of the majority of streets in this study is based upon their orientation, i.e., "north - south" streets are roadways that generally travel in a general north -south alignment. However, exceptions include many streets in downtown, where Price, Dolliver (SR 1), and Cypress Streets are designated north -south streets and their cross streets (e.g. Pomeroy Avenue, Hinds Avenue) are designated as east -west streets.

B. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The climate and topography of Pismo Beach provide an attractive environment for bicycling, walking, and recreational trail use within the City. The primarily level terrain in the downtown area, extending along the Pacific Ocean, combined with its abundant sunshine, low levels of precipitation, and increasingly dense land use pattern, help make bicycling and walking viable transportation and recreational options year-round. The City has made bicycle and pedestrian mobility a priority with adoption of the following plans related to multimodal circulation access and enhancement:

Pismo Beach General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (Adopted 1992/Updated 2014) The currently adopted City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Program (City of Pismo Beach, 1992) was originally developed in 1992 and certified in 1993 by the California Coastal Commission. It was most recently updated in April, 2014; however, no changes were made to the Circulation Element at that time. The General Plan guides growth, development, and infrastructure in Pismo Beach and contains elements that address: land use, housing, growth management, transportation and circulation, conservation, design, public facilities and services, parks and recreation, noise and safety. The City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is intended to serve as the bicycle, pedestrian, and trails component of the General Plan.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 17

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (2010)
According to the California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 891.2 and 891.4, local agencies must complete a Bicycle Transportation Plan to qualify for Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grant funds issued by the California Department of Transportation Division of Local Assistance. Conforming plans must contain required Bicycle Transportation Plan elements and be no more than five years old. The City of Pismo Beach developed the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2010 and updated it in 2015. This plan establishes goals, policies, implementation actions, and priorities for the development of bicycling and walking facilities in Pismo Beach, as envisioned by the General Plan. Key elements of the plan include maps of existing and proposed bicycle facilities and their proximity to major activity centers. The implementation plan identifies project priorities, locations, improvement descriptions, facility types, and cost estimates. The plan will guide development of the proposed improvements.

Recommendations from this Plan are summarized in Section 4.A — Recommendations - Pedestrian and Bicycle.

Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan (2013)
The "Complete Street" Plan provides design concepts, goals and a framework for enhancing Pismo Beach's street network. The plan area extends approximately five miles through the City from its northern boundary to the City of Grover Beach, and includes Shell Beach Road, Price Street and Dolliver Street (Pacific Coast Highway). The plan directs improvements along this major north -south corridor with the goal of increasing the frequency of bicycle and pedestrian use by enhancing the corridor's safety, comfort, connectivity and attractiveness.

Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan (2014)
The City of Pismo Beach prepared the Downtown Strategic Plan as a visioning and guidance tool, developed to help shape future development in the City's downtown. It incorporates adopted transportation infrastructure and mobility strategies from the General Plan, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the Complete Street Plan. The Downtown Strategic Plan includes suggestions ideas such as a roundabout at the Price Street/Dolliver Street intersection and new bike facilities on Dolliver Street. It also builds on the Complete Street Plan by providing additional pedestrian, bicycle, transit, vehicular, and parking opportunities.

City of Pismo Beach Bikeshare Feasibility Study (2014)
The Downtown Strategic Plan noted that a bicycle sharing program — where the public can freely use a city - provided bicycle — may be worth pursuing within the downtown area. A feasibility study was subsequently prepared that determined that a bicycle sharing program is feasible, and identified locations in the downtown area that the shared bicycles can be stored. The website http://pismobikeshare.com was also created to educate citizens and tourists about the concept of bike sharing. The City anticipates that a bike sharing program may be operational by 2019.

US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan (2014)
The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) sponsored the preparation of the US 101 Mobility Master Plan in partnership with the City of Pismo Beach and other municipalities and agencies in San Luis Obispo County.

The purpose was to develop a unified transportation and mobility vision for the US 101 corridor throughout the entire County. The plan contains data and transportation improvement recommendations along US 101 through the City of Pismo Beach; including evaluating opportunities to enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and safety, alleviate traffic in Pismo Beach and improve transit and roadway connectivity. Recommendations from this study that are related to Pismo Beach are included in Section 3.F — Regional Highway Improvements.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 18

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Statewide Initiatives and Legislation
Bicycle and pedestrian planning in the City must strive to be consistent with statewide programs governing the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. These include:
• Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 375 (2008)
Senate Bill375 (SB 375) (Steinberg, 2008) is the implementation legislation forAssembly Bill32 (AB 32) (Nunez and Pavley, 2006). AB 32 requires the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) by 28 percent by the year 2020 and by 50 percent by the year 2050. Reducing automobile trips is one method of reducing GHG emissions.

This may be achieved by promoting modes other than the automobile, such as walking, bicycling, or riding transit. Land use strategies that create less auto -dependent development is also encouraged. • Assembly Bill 1358 (2007)
Assembly Bill 1358 (Leno and Levine, 2007) is the Complete Streets Act. It calls for the inclusion of all modes of transportation (pedestrian, bicycles, transit, and automobile) into the design of roadways. • Assembly Bill 1581 (2012)
Assembly Bill 1581 (Wieckowski and Wolk, 2012) requires that new actuated traffic signals or modified existing traffic signals include technology that is able to detect bicycles and motorcycles. It also calls for the timing of actuated traffic signals to account for bicycles.
• Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 (Revision 1) DD -64-R1 (2008) Deputy Directive 64-R1 (DD -64-R1) (Caltrans, 2008) was issued to ensure that travelers of all ages and modes may move "safely and efficiently along and across a network of 'complete streets'." The directive establishes responsibilities for Caltrans staff to safely accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users.

C. Pedestrian Facilities
Walkability is an important component of every city. Common pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, marked crosswalks, and curb ramps. There are several different types of crosswalk enhancements that aim to improve safety for pedestrians. Exhibit 6 (Page 11) provides the locations of pedestrian facilities within the Pismo Beach Area.

SIDEWALKS AND CURB RAMPS
Sidewalks typically are at least 4 feet of width in most non-commercial areas throughout the City. Sidewalks are typically 9 to 10 feet wide in the downtown and 6 feet wide in newer subdivisions. Streets in Downtown Pismo Beach generally have sidewalks on both sides of the street, with the exception of parts of Park Avenue (east of Dolliver Street), Addie Street (west of Dolliver Street), and Cypress Street (north of Main Street).

There are numerous streets within the City of Pismo Beach where sidewalks are not provided or are intermittently available. These occur primarily in Shell Beach, Pismo Heights, along portions of Mattie Road and within private mobile home parks, parks and gated communities.

Curb ramps provide wheelchair and stroller access to sidewalks at corners of intersections. Truncated domes alert visually impaired pedestrians as they approach a street crossing. New standards for the construction of ADA compliant curb ramps have prompted recent renovation of several street corners by the City.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 19

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 110

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 6 — Existing Pedestrian Facilities in Pismo Beach Pismo Beach Existing Pedestrian Access
Legend
Full Sidewalk
Partial Sidewalk
Se pa rated Path
L _ ; Sphere of Influence
City Limit
0 45
9'27,D00
!.40
114110,..
i.
1 4 sN jni
r
.3 —
r
Source: Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted June 15, 2010. Minor modifications have been made by Hatch Mott MacDonald.

I
I
Ire
I
•
s`.
•
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 2

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks are defined as either "that portion of a roadway included within the prolongation or connection of the boundary lines of sidewalks at intersections" or "any portion of a roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings" (California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 275). Therefore, legal unmarked crossings are those at intersections defined by the prolongation of sidewalk areas.

Marked crosswalks feature striping and other enhancements to delineate a street crossing for pedestrians. There are two types of crosswalks: controlled and uncontrolled. At uncontrolled crosswalks, drivers are legally required to yield to pedestrians, but do not have to stop when a pedestrian is not present. Controlled crosswalks are located at intersections with stop signs or traffic signals.

D. Bicycle Facilities

EXISTING BIKEWAYS AND TRAILS
Bicycle facilities can be classified into two types: 1) Bikeways or facilities provided for bicycle travel; and 2) Support facilities for use by bicyclists while travelling or once they have reached their destination. Both types of facilities are described below. The locations of bikeways in Pismo Beach are indicated on Exhibit 7 (Page 15).

BIKEWAYS
The Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials [AASHTO], 2011) and Chapter 1000 of the Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2015) identify four primary types of bikeways: Class I Bike Paths, Class II Bike Lanes, Class I II Bike Routes, and Class IV Bikeways. • Bike Path or Shared Use Path (Class I Bikeway)
Off-street bike paths are facilities for use exclusively by bicycles, pedestrians, equestrians, and other non - motorized users, with minimal cross -flow by motor vehicles. They are almost always located in an exclusive right-of-way.
• Bike Lane (Class II Bikeway)
Bike lanes are areas within paved streets that are identified with striping, stencils, and signs for preferential (semi -exclusive) bicycle use.
• Bike Route or Shared Roadways (Class III Bikeway)
Shared roadways are on -street routes intended to provide continuity to the bikeway system. Bike routes are designated by signs or pavement marking and are shared by motorists. Many bike routes provide shoulders that can be used by bicyclists or pedestrians.
• Cycle Tracks or Separated Bikeway (Class IV Bikeway)
Cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred to as "Class IV bikeways," promote active transportation.

They provide a separate travel way that is designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking. • Innovative Bikeways (Including Bicycle Boulevards)
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (National Association of City Transportation Officials [NACTO], 2014) includes design guidance for a standardized set of treatments for bicycling streets in the United States. Several of these treatments can be implemented using guidance in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) (Caltrans, 2014). The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide also includes design guidance for a variety of bike lanes, cycle tracks, signal enhancements, intersection enhancements, signing and marking enhancements, and bicycle boulevards.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 113

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 114

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 7 — Existing Bikeways in Pismo Beach
Legend
0 Existing Class I
Existing Class II
Existing Class I I I
Sphere of Influence
City Limit
045

1.27,000

0.9 Miles
Pismo Beach Existing Bikeways
Source: Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted June 15, 2010 I'
•
•
•
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
r
ti
• ',
•
•
.'
•
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 15

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 116

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Roadways with bicycle lanes (Class II) in Pismo Beach include Dolliver Street (SR 1/Pacific Coast Highway) through the downtown, Mattie Street and James Way. Bicycle path (Class I) examples include the bike path over Pismo Creek, adjacent to and immediately south of US 101 that connects Price Street and Five Cities Drive as well as along a portion of Mattie Road.

E. Support Facilities
Support facilities include pedestrian and bicycle bridges and overpasses, short and long-term bicycle parking and gear storage, showers and changing stations, and other amenities not exclusive to, but supportive of walking and bicycling (including wayfinding signage, benches, water fountains and restrooms). The primary examples in Pismo Beach include:
• A pedestrian pathway underneath US 101 at Pismo Avenue, connecting the downtown and Bello Street neighborhood. This is currently the only exclusively non -motorized connection across the US 101 freeway in Pismo Beach.
• A pedestrian bridge exists across Pismo Creek along Dolliver Street, which connects the downtown area to Pismo State Beach and the mobile home parks south of downtown. • The Cypress Street bridge over Pismo Creek accommodates vehicle and bicycle travel with a separated pedestrian walkway.
• Pedestrian access along Price Street and Shell Beach Road, connecting Downtown Pismo Beach to the Shell Beach neighborhood, is maintained through a network of sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. • A promenade, or boardwalk, currently extends along the beachfront from Main Street south to Addie Street. The Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan proposes to extend this promenade to the north, in order to provide a convenient facility to walk between the downtown and the neighborhoods and hotels north of the downtown.
• There are multiple companies in Pismo Beach and the surrounding area that offer pedicab rides, rent bicycles (capacity for one and two people) and surreys (capacity for two to four people) to members of the public.
• The City of Pismo Beach has prepared a feasibility study to consider initiating a bicycle sharing program.

The program would provide bicycles for rent at key locations around the City.

REGIONAL CONNECTIONS
There is currently no continuous dedicated bicycle or pedestrian facility between San Luis Obispo and the Five Cities region. The Bob Jones Trail currently is a discontinuous multi -use paved pathway along San Luis Obispo Creek in the city of San Luis Obispo and the unincorporated community of Avila Beach. In San Luis Obispo, the trail connects Prado Road near Higuera Street with Los Osos Valley Road at US 101. In Avila Beach, the trail starts at a trailhead and parking lot along Ontario Road north of Avila Beach Drive and extends westward to the intersection of San Juan Street and Avila Beach Road. A connection of these two distinct trails is currently being studied.

Within the Five Cities region, the City of Grover Beach published a trail feasibility study in 2010 — Beach Cities Multi -Purpose Trail — to create a new multi -use trail between the unincorporated community of Oceano and eastern Pismo Beach via Pismo State Beach, downtown Pismo Beach, and the Pismo Lakes Ecological Reserve (in HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 117

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY southeastern Pismo Beach). This route would be usable by both pedestrians and bicyclists. It is currently not funded and is in need of garnering support throughout the Five Cities Area.

F. Trip Generators and Attractors
Pismo Beach includes a diversity of land uses that range from high density and pedestrian -focused retail commercial in the downtown area, commercial development along Five Cities Drive and Oak Park Boulevard, medium and low density residential throughout the foothill and ocean side communities, and recreation land uses to the south.

Destination areas include multiple City parks, Shell Beach neighborhood commercial and beach access areas, downtown shopping, the beach, and three large shopping areas on the southeast side of the City. The Shell Beach area and downtown are prime bicycling and walking areas given the limited parking during busy periods. Shopping centers located along Five Cities Drive and Oak Park Boulevard in the southeasterly portion of the City have large parking lots, by providing improved bicycling facilities (such as bike racks and bike lockers), they could encourage customers and shopping center employees to travel there by bicycle.

G. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity
Exhibits 8 through 10 (Pages 19-21) depict the existing pedestrian volumes in Downtown Pismo Beach during the Weekday PM, Summer Sunday Midday, and Memorial Day Sunday Midday (i.e., the Sunday before Memorial Day) peak hours. The corresponding tabular traffic count worksheets are included in Appendix A. The most recent counts indicate that pedestrian activity in the downtown is greatest during the Summer Sunday and Memorial Day Sunday peak hours, with hundreds of pedestrians per hour travelling along and across Dolliver Street (State Route 1 — SR 1) and Pomeroy Avenue to and from the beach, pier, and various small businesses. These large concentrations of pedestrians are a main contributor to the circulation challenges in the downtown.

Pedestrian volumes are relatively low outside of the downtown. Pedestrians do not contribute to any vehicle congestion issues in other portions of the city and are generally accommodated by existing sidewalks. The exceptions are locations where sidewalks are not provided. These have been identified in the previously cited Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

Exhibits 11 through 13 (Pages 22-24) depict the existing bicycle volumes in Downtown Pismo Beach under Weekday PM, Sunday Summer Midday, and Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hour conditions. Traffic count worksheets for these volumes are tabulated in Appendix A. Bicycle volumes are relatively low in the downtown.

The largest volume was about 20-30 bicycles an hour in each direction on Dolliver Street (SR 1) during the Memorial Day Sunday peak hour.

Bicycle use outside of Downtown Pismo Beach is negligible and does not contribute to vehicle congestion.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 18

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 8 — Pedestrian Volumes - Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour LEMOORE AVE q�—►
p

4.... 4.

D
F.Eb
ea 15
r'
19 ° !�F
1Y
I—
re
8 +
2 *�.a
13 re
Z
1,3
N.T.S.
.,
�F _
'
D�

BELLO ST
___________
EL CANIINO REAL (US 101)
Q
D
4 •
1 PRICE ST ► T ►
p�
E1
14 3
{
Eft{
��r
4r
16 a
#I�rfF
=
ce
O
t
23 i6
Z
a
>
y
w
a
d
w
4 in
0 z
32 iiJ
4 o
2 0
3 I
'
W
Z
w
20 U
6 1
5�t
��
19 mreQ
14 5
22 DOLLIVER
r
f164
ST
5-M
0 qq-3--►
ikij
ter,
fi
34 36
S_ 3
72 .2 11J
z 2
0 29A
!)
it
l
= INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE 5, 2014
21 2

CYPRESS ST
30 r � 1
14 6Lu}>
W
1 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 119

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 9 — Pedestrian Volumes - Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour

LEMOORE AVE
W
I-
C
O
O
4 BELLO ST
cr'
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)

PRICE ST
8 CANYON RD
3 0
= INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE 29, 2014
58 47
8 POMEROY
4 IL
26 223
84 71 39 547t �F 1149 52I �i j 40
284 #1243
77 DOLLIVER ST 25
25 584
CI
270
1411
�--�F
24 1139
12 STIMSON AVE
23 5
0 110
44 31
125
Il
2[1°

CYPRESS ST
5 um
}
a
W_
z
O
14 4
N.T.S.

W
0 m x
M0
00w

2.1 68
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 120

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 10 — Pedestrian Volumes - Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour H
m

WADSWORTH AVE

LEMOORE AVE
2 BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
5 4yz#
60 VEI
X
0 75 4
41 4-11'1
60 = INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON MAY 25, 2014
29 PRICE ST
ass
F

POMEROY
4 .;�F
1171F
24 iG 120
* 1 2f1

IINQS AVE
81 13$ dF--! I139 892I iii 4216 76I i 91
359 316 92
O ©OLLIVER ST
970 I
420
351

STIMSON AVE
79 8
60 C1
9 367 "131 x #
• 15 125 t 4r 153
�F 210
26 CYPRESS ST
10 34
89 St
I ift b I
N.T.S.
21 37
—r
130
QH0
1:0 L.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 121

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 11— Bicycle Volumes - Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour

LEMOORE AVE
IC O
4- °
1 to
4-°
it0

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
O5
0 4
4O
re,
7)
1-s
1♦
1fa ♦
42 t LEI
a
S
CC
O
a
4 3
F5

PRICE ST
NOTE: BOXED VALUES
'INDICATE ILLEGAL CROSSINGS
L J
= INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE 5, 2014
1 fl'
z
5 -► 41 l'
11, 2 1
2 8-)
22 a
♦
4-a
1 O
rr
O
o .

X12
C 1h

CANYON RD
t
4 p 21,

HINDS AVE
2549
t� C
[1 1] DOLLIVER ST
t2
4-7
♦fl
0O

STIMSON AVE
4=1
0 ,,3
4 2-P
11 4
4447 ♦
5 3 3
2 4
Ott
a 1j
5-1
1 [2]� u CYPRESS ST
31 6-'
x
a
W
U
a
4-5
to 34
4-1
4-11
,r1
r33

BIKE PATH
N.T.S.
1 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 122

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 12 — Bicycle Volumes - Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour

LEMOORE AVE
w
I -
IC
O
Gh
4 3

BELLO ST
LTt) --�-
1 EL CAMINO REM. (US 101)
5 94 7
8 FJ
f 8 PRICE ST
9C )
T
NOTE: BOXED VALUES
'INDICATE ILLEGAL CROSSINGS
L J
= INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE 29, 2014
19;
0 w
f
13 N 4-19
28 ;
0 1.
7;
1 F5

POMEROY AVE
C
IL
Z
O
Z
U
4-0
t
4 0; t(27
Ip4-2
2�
5;
r
rz
7 2 `1
(► 17; P r 21-1.
2 1-; 1 DOLLIVER ST
21 9
F
9f t 1'
[2 T 31
21"
12 -)
t 2E)

HINDS AVE
0 ti5 i9
4-15
t
4J9,
1-4.
23 2 3
4J4
♦♦ 18;
T 1� 2I,.
6 CYPRESS ST
fa
Z
O
4-25
t
3 4-0
3 2-+
19;
4- 10 1 1
6 4I4
19 -Y
♦ I�
W
4 U'
z
4 U'
a
4-16
0 1-.15
1 BIKE PATH
23 • X18
12 1
N.T.S.
t. 1
2 4- 28
37 it 3
q

31.E
10 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 123

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 13 - Bicycle Volumes - Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour

LEMOORE AVE
}
m
4 Z
I-
ce
a
3 a

BELLO ST
4- 0
t4
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
12 ii
9 4
11D
Z
41 �3 W
C
3 A
4-14

PRICE ST
15+i
2z
NOTE: BOXED VALUES
'INDICATE ILLEGAL CROSSINGS
L J
= INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON MAY 25, 2014
t
0 E
18-4 $j I.
5 3 3
23�
34 2 Z
4 2E -P
14 —1
u
4—a
[4
t1
W
4 C
re
2 O
— 27
a4"
—
wI
2-
3-P
2 W
}
4 so
IS
C.

4..18 �'t3
r 1 41 4 411
184
a DOLLIVER ST
1 473
tr'
9 2
5 2
12 -}'
2 t
♦ 13
e1 ]
t 15 24
2 CYPRESS ST

3.4 1
2�
194
3,,
F 4
1,67+1
t1
c•

MSON AVE
Bn
t
♦ 23
0O
4- 20
r 7
36 0
41 1-*
10-P
t 2
;1
5 tO
i 416

4.? 'h 3®
18♦ 1 12(:)
2 BIKE PATH
24 17
1 AA1
1 20
N.T.S.
4 4- 33
29—D.
5 4
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 124

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY H. Transit

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) operates four transit routes through Pismo Beach. Exhibit 14 (Page 26) depicts the transit routes in the Pismo Beach Area.

Route 10 is a regional route between San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria, operating hourly on weekdays between roughly 5:45 AM and 8:30 PM in the northbound direction and 6:30 AM and 9:45 PM in the southbound direction.

Route 10 also operates every three hours on Saturdays (roughly 7:15 AM — 7:30 PM northbound and 8:30 AM - 8:45 PM southbound) and three trips in each direction on Sundays (between roughly 8:15 AM and 6:45 PM). The only stop along this route in Pismo Beach is at the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets. Approximately 35 passengers were observed exiting from the southbound Route 10 bus on Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM, which represented the evening peak commute period. Route 10 has approximately 1,100 passengers per weekday and approximately 300 passengers per weekend day according to RTA.

The remaining routes are contracted through and branded as "South County Transit," and provide local service within Pismo Beach and to the surrounding communities. Routes 21 and 24 are interlocking routes that travel in opposing directions on overlapping portions of their routes, with Route 21 traveling clockwise and Route 24 traveling counterclockwise. Route 21 serves the communities of Shell Beach, downtown Pismo Beach, the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets, downtown Grover Beach, and eastern Arroyo Grande. Route 24 follows a similar route, except that it also serves downtown Arroyo Grande and does not serve Shell Beach. Both routes operate hourly between approximately 6:30 AM and 6:30 PM. Three or fewer passengers boarded or disembarked the Route 21 and Route 24 buses at 6pm, which is the evening peak commute period. Route 21 has approximately 240 passengers per day and Route 24 has approximately 200 passengers per day according to RTA.

Finally, RTA also operates the Avila to Pismo Trolley, a local bus built to look like a trolley car. The trolley only operates between late March and mid -October, with extended service between June and September. During normal operations, the trolley operates hourly between 10:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. During the summer months, the trolley operates from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Thursdays through Sundays. It travels between Avila Beach and Pismo Beach, stopping at the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets and many local stops within greater Avila Beach, Shell Beach, and downtown Pismo Beach. The route forms a loop between Avila Beach and Pismo Beach. All of the local bus stops in Shell Beach are bypassed on the way from Pismo Beach Premium Outlets to the outskirts of Avila Beach. The trolley carries approximately 160 passengers per day according to RTA.

FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICE
SLOCOG has been studying potential upgrades to transit service in the South County for the past few years. In 2011, SLOCOG commissioned the South County Transit Plan, which evaluated current transit service and identified opportunities to expand service and increase revenues. In 2013, SLOCOG studied the establishment of bus rapid transit along the US 101 corridor (San Luis Obispo County Highway 101 Bus Rapid Transit Application Study), including service to the park and ride lot and bus stops at the Pismo Beach Premium Outlets. As a corollary to the bus rapid transit study, SLOCOG also released its 2013 Park & Ride Lot Study in August 2013, which suggested adding a new park and ride facility on Mattie Road near Spyglass Drive and adjacent to US 101. SLOCOG and the City are now evaluating the implementation of this facility.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 125

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 14 — Existing Transit Routes Within Pismo Beach SCT Service Hours
I0
TOWARD

SAN LUIS ORISPO
e d
T
SP/ltoanarde
o
Q
10 Shell Beach
5CT Route 21
SCT Route 23
SCT Route 24
RTA 10
Re iora foure
L.gend
Transfer Huh at
Premium Outlets
O Park St Ride
W
Pismo Beach
See stop Intl on other side
to determine order or stops
• Bus Stop
O Bus Stop
CB
bad•d„eu,eo,
CB Timed Stop
)) 1 away Direction
of Service
regimen 2 way Travel
bus earth. le
bath doe. ..
✓ Direction for
Route 23
a.way foretells
Weekday Hourly Connections to
RTA 10 Regional Transit.

Premium Outlets: Local SCT Routes 21
& 24 connect to RTA 10 regional route to
San Luis Obispo and Santa Marta
Halcyon Park & Ride: Local SCT Route 23
connect to RTA 1O regional route to San Luis
Obispo and Santa Marra
MAP NOT TO S{AU
South County Transit
a
Phma Cow
Velaye
bent o
Le'u oa
Grover Beach
Pier Ave.
94 Effective September 201 S
—. Atlantic Clty
S,r-,rr,na
° O o r>° S ,>§ >t8
ulrperi
Oceano
O
•;•aadreorhe. r
Farrell
Hourly Service on All Routes
weekdays 6x29 AM- 5,55 MM'• &1 J
tunes-vremes 7.24 PM 1:21 PM 715 PM
Saturday 7:39 AM- 6:55AM'- 7:29AM-
Wade 7:24 PM 711PM 725 PM
Sunday 723AM- 755 AM'- 729AM-
Owingo 614 PM 621PM 625PM
NO service on Thanksorong Day, Christmas Day
and New Years Day.

SCT wal operate Sunday service hours. on Christmas Eve., New Years Eve., Memorial Day. Independence Day& Labor Day.

On the first trip of the day, SCT 23 service starts at Oak Park Blvd at Longbranch Ave at 5:55 AM. All other SCT 23 trips depart Pomona Garden Park at :29 past each hour.

Qn the first trip of the day, SCT 218,24 service starts at Ramona Garden at 6'.29 AM, All other trips depart from the Premium Outlets at 0S and 04 past the hour
The Pike
7 All mhumaro a Raver! ro['range mthout norrcr.

Arroyo Grande rs
saemy 6 2
HWY 1 f CIIMIGA
na.�r,onorra..
hip
TOWARD

SANTA MARIA
RrA
10 .0B JONES e1O1.!
IJff t " T�Itk€AD 11�► II t �L

UBLA BEACH
s �If AVILA BEACH DR.
�,.►' @ ONTARIO ROAp G
AVILA BEACH DR DAVI BEACH D i#B
LA � . s
�it1STS7 o
SAN LUIS BAY IN 6�
NMINsoun

SHELL BEACH RD SPYGLASS
SHELL BEAC JIt1,I,
SHELL BEACH RD@''�il
SHELL BEACH RD @ PIER A

SHELTER COVE LODGE I DINOSAUR CAVES
Source: San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority, 2015

ISMO BEACH

PREMIUM
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 126

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

EXISTING TRAIN SERVICE
A railroad track owned by Union Pacific Railroad extends through Pismo Beach by way of Price Canyon between the greater San Luis Obispo area and Grover Beach. The only roadway crossing of the railroad within Pismo Beach is a grade -separated crossing at US 101. The nearest crossing of the railroad in the vicinity of Pismo Beach is to the south at Grand Avenue in the City of Grover Beach. This is an at -grade crossing near State Route 1.

The nearest rail station is adjacent to the Grand Avenue crossing in Grover Beach and is commonly referred to as "The Train Station". It is serviced four times each day (two northbound and two southbound trains) by the Pacific Surfliner service operated by Amtrak on its route between San Luis Obispo and San Diego. The station also is served three times per day by buses connecting to other train stations along the Pacific Surfliner route and by twice daily, round-trip bus service to the Central Valley and Southern California.

I. Parking
Pismo Beach, due to its beach front location, is typical of numerous coastal communities in California. It is inundated with guests and visitors that not only increase traffic during the summer months, but also significantly increase parking demand. This, in turn, increases traffic volumes and congestion as drivers circulate the downtown area in search of parking. Improving parking operations will assist the City in improving the experience of visitors to the downtown area.

This seasonal swell of traffic and parkers results in high parking occupancies during the seasonal peak periods and very low parking demands during the off-season. The exception is the pier parking lot, which is heavily used throughout the year. These swings in overall downtown parking demand present challenges for how much parking to provide, how to manage the parking and how it is maintained and supported financially.

This parking assessment is designed to provide a high level overview of the parking challenges, and recommendations to adjust parking to enhance the traffic, circulation and public parking operations. This parking study is not intended to serve as a detailed, microscopic level parking strategic plan or parking management plan.

EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY WITHIN DOWNTOWN PISMO BEACH
Exhibit 15 (Page 28) tabulates a parking space inventory of Downtown Pismo Beach. Most parking in Downtown Pismo Beach is on -street parking — virtually all streets in the downtown allow on -street parking. Approximately 873 parking spaces are on -street parking spaces with seasonal enforcement of time limits. The exceptions are Pomeroy and Hinds Avenues from Dolliver Street [SR 1] to the pier area and Cypress Street from Pomeroy to Hinds Avenues, which all have pay parking year round. A total of 588 spaces are provided in parking lots in the downtown. A small number of parking spaces are located in lots with time limited parking only (e.g. Addie Street at Mary Harrington Park of Dolliver Street (SR 1) and a small lot behind the Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce building at the corner of Dolliver Street (SR 1) and Hinds Avenue). The total number of public parking spaces in downtown, including the Addie Street lot and the Price Street lot is approximately 1,461 spaces. The downtown hotel parking lots provide 816 spaces and the private parking lots include approximately 495 spaces. Thus, a total 2,772 parking spaces are provided.

There are multiple parking lots in the downtown, some of which are heavily utilized. Exhibit 16A (Page 29) depicts their locations within the downtown. Except as noted above, on -street parking spaces operate as free parking with no charge for parking but are managed with time -limited parking during the timed parking season. Their locations are illustrated on Exhibit 16B (Page 29). A small number of on -street pay parking spaces are provided on Cypress Street, Hinds Avenue and Pomeroy Avenue near the pier.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 127

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 15 — Downtown Pismo Beach Parking Space Inventory Parking Type
Number
of Spaces
Public Parking
Pay Parking — Downtown (lots)
380
Time -Limit Parking
Downtown (street)
114
Price Street (street)
94 Year -Round Free Spaces (street)
873
Downtown Hotel Spaces
816
Downtown Commercial Spaces
495
Total Spaces
2,772
Source: City of Pismo Beach, 2014.

Two of the largest lots are located near the pier. The largest public lot (210 spaces) is accessible off of Pomeroy (inbound only) and Hinds Avenue (outbound only) and is located at the foot of the pier. This parking lot is the parking location most desired by patrons who want to go to the beach, pier and associated commercial area. As it is located the closest to the beach and pier, many patrons unsuccessfully attempt to park at this location first, and then circulate throughout the downtown looking for other places to park. This causes vehicles to recirculate on downtown streets, which compounds traffic congestion.

Until recently, the second largest parking lot in the downtown was a private dirt parking lot on Cypress Street between Pomeroy and Hinds Avenues, directly adjacent to the pier area. There was no charge for parking in this private lot. This property is being developed as a hotel; thus, this parking lot is no longer available.

The public parking lot at the beach end of Addie Street and Park Avenue is free to the public with no time limits.

It serves beach activity at the south end of downtown. This lot, which also has approximately 100 spaces, is not utilized as much as the pier parking lot during most of the year, but during peak seasons it is heavily used.

Lifeguard towers are also stored here during the off-season.

The parking lots on Main Street (bordered by Main Street, Dolliver Street (SR 1) and Pismo Avenue) are pay to park lots. Ownership is split between the City of Pismo Beach and a private owner. These lots have approximately 130 spaces.

The public lot on Pomeroy Avenue between Price and Dolliver (SR 1) Streets has approximately 40 spaces and is the public parking lot with the lowest utilization. While it is located less than three blocks from the beach and pier, it is routinely bypassed by patrons hoping to get a parking space closer to those attractions. This could be due to the lot being accessed by Pomeroy, with one-way traffic in the opposite direction of traffic that would attempt to enter it from Dolliver.

A few smaller private lots are available for public use scattered throughout the downtown area, each having between 20 and 40 spaces.

Private lots are not managed or patrolled by the City's Parking Division.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 128

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 16A — Location of Public Parking Facilities in Downtown Pismo Beach Source: Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan, 2014. Minor modifications by Hatch Mott MacDonald.

Exhibit 16B — Location of Time -Limit On -Street Parking Areas in Downtown Pismo Beach 01 ,n,..\-N,R,"-
, \\\„,,, http://www.pismobeach.org) . Accessed December 14, 2015.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 129

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

PARKING DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS -- DOWNTOWN PISMO BEACH Information about the City's parking program was collected from a variety of sources including the following:
• Interviews with City staff, downtown stakeholders, and members of the Parking Advisory Committee. • Collection of data and parking policy and management information from City Staff. • Review of historical data collected during the last decade including previous parking studies, and other studies with parking information.
• Discussion with the Parking Advisory Committee during a regularly scheduled meeting. • Weekday and Weekend day and evening parking counts of public parking areas in downtown during the peak seasonal time period in late July, 2014.

This data collection and review provided a good understanding of how parking is utilized and managed. During the summer weekday and weekend counts, parking lots for the most part fill to capacity and remain fully occupied as do on -street spaces. As soon as one vehicle leaves a space, another vehicle is waiting to take its place. All downtown lots and pay parking spaces exceed 85% capacity from approximately 10:00 AM through 4:00 PM for both weekday and weekend count periods. The lot located on Pomeroy Avenue, between Dolliver (SR 1) and Price Streets, is the last to become fully occupied. This is believed to be caused by the lack of parking wayfinding signs and the one-way flow to access that parking lot at the time of the observations in July, 2014.

Parking utilization in Downtown Pismo Beach is similar to that in other coastal communities, in that:

1. There is a seasonal use of parking spaces, i.e., high parking occupancy occurs during the late spring, summer, and early fall. Demand is lower during the other times of year. Parking occupancies were noted to exceed the 85% level for on -street spaces, the pier lot and parking lots located off of Main Street from 11:00 AM until 4:00 PM during the weekday and 10:00 AM through 4:00 PM count during the weekend.

2. There is an adequate supply of parking during the off-season and "shoulder" seasons (i.e., the very start and very end of the peak season). This was based on a review of the data provided by City staff and the Parking Committee for parking occupancy counts during shoulder and off-season time.

3. There is a shortage of parking spaces within select areas of the downtown. The prime downtown destination for visitors during the peak periods is the pier and surrounding core area. This results in parking demand exceeding supply in this area. Consequently, traffic congestion is intensified as vehicles circulate around the downtown area in search of available parking.

4. In several locations, the on -street parallel parking further adds to traffic congestion due to vehicle maneuvers to enter and leave the parking spaces impeding traffic flows. This is especially true for on - street spaces along Pomeroy and Hinds Avenues (from Price Street to the pier parking lot) and along Price Street (both the curb spaces and the center aisle spaces).

5. The parking lot on Pomeroy Avenue, between Price Street and Dolliver Street (SR 1), rarely reaches 100% occupancy, even though it is within a short walking distance from the pier area. This is primarily due to the one-way access of Pomeroy to the lot. Users of this lot have to be traveling from Price Street to Dolliver Street (SR 1) to access the lot and current wayfinding signage does not indicate how to access this lot from Dolliver Street. Wayfinding signs were recently added by the City that substantially improve the ability of visitors to navigate to parking facilities throughout the downtown area. This will result in better utilization of the current parking supply, but overall demand will continue to exceed the supply during peak times.

6. The City of Pismo Beach recently completed the "Downtown Parking Enhancements and Opportunities Study," Walker Parking Consultants, April 14, 2016, which can be found at HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 130

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY ( http://www.Dismobeach.org/DocumentCenter/View/47660) . It made similar observations to those described above. The study also made an additional observation that enhanced parking management (primarily parking fees that vary according to demand) would largely increase efficiency and reduce the parking supply deficiency during peak seasons.

J. Traffic Operations and Recommendations — Existing Conditions Exhibit 17 (Pages 35 and 36) shows the study area, which encompasses all of Pismo Beach plus areas in surrounding communities that provide immediate access to Pismo Beach, such as portions of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and unincorporated Avila Beach.

Areas outside of the downtown region experience relatively little variation during the year, traffic volumes within the downtown area substantially increase during the peak season (i.e., roughly June through September).

Therefore, in addition to the standard Weekday PM peak hour for the peak season, the downtown area was also analyzed for Summer Sunday and Memorial Day Sunday peak hours in order to obtain data to evaluate peak traffic conditions.

Exhibits 18A -D, 19, and 20 (Pages 37-42) depict the existing traffic volumes in the city. These volumes were collected in May and June, 2014. The three collection periods include Weekday PM Peak Hour, Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour, and Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour (i.e., the Sunday before Memorial Day). In total, there are 50 study intersections included in the Weekday PM peak hour and 23 study intersections counted during the Summer Sunday Midday and Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hours. Raw traffic count data is tabulated in Appendix A.

Intersection operations were characterized using the concept of Level of Service (LOS). Average control delays experienced at an intersection correspond to a letter -grade scale of "A" through "F", with LOS A representing little to no delay and LOS F representing very long delay. For signalized and all -way stop intersections, a single level of service grade — representing overall intersection conditions — is presented. For one-way and two-way stop - controlled intersections, both overall and worst side street approach levels of service are presented.

INTERSECTIONS WITH ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
Exhibit 21 (Pages 43-47) summarizes the existing levels of service at the study intersections. Exhibits 22A -B, 23, and 24 (Pages 49-52) graphically depict the levels of service at those same intersections. The level of service calculations are included in Appendix B. The study intersections were evaluated based on the City standard of LOS C (1992 City of Pismo Beach General Plan Circulation Element Principle P -1.c), the San Luis Obispo County standard of LOS C (2009 San Luis Bay Coastal Area Plan) and the Caltrans standard of the transition between LOS C and LOS D (Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002; henceforth referred to as LOS C/D). A total of 47 of 50 intersections studied during the Weekday PM peak hour, 13 of the 21 intersections during the Summer Sunday Midday peak hour, and 12 of the 21 intersections studied under the Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hour operate acceptably and require no operational improvements based on congestion.

INTERSECTIONS WITH DEFICIENT OPERATIONS
Exhibit 21 (Pages 43-47) also indicates the study intersections that currently operate deficiently, as well as the recommended improvements to correct each deficiency and the resulting operations with implementation of the identified improvements. The deficient intersections, their current operations and their respective improvements are also described below, listed by intersection number. More information about the recommended HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 131

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY improvements and why they are recommended is provided in Section 3.D — Improvements Recommended in Previous Studies (Page 75) and Section 3.E - Network Alternatives (Page 79).

The following four (4) intersections operate deficiently under the Weekday PM peak hour:

26. Price Street/Hinds Avenue (Overall LOS B, but long queues on Southbound Hinds) — Review signal timing and consider widening the Hinds bridge over US 101. Vertical clearance about US 101 may be an issue.

34. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View — Stimson Couplet)

42. Fourth Street / Five Cities Drive (Signal LOS D - Add Right Turn Overlap Phase on Eastbound Five Cities Drive)

48. US 101 Southbound Ramps / El Camino Real (AII-Way Stop LOS D - Install Signal) The following eight (8) intersections operate deficiently under the Summer Sunday Midday peak hour:

14. US 101 Southbound Off -ramp - Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Price Street (AII-way stop LOS E - Install Roundabout)

20. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Main Street (Side Street LOS F - Eliminate One On -Street Parking Space to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Westbound Main. Consider left turn pockets as an alternative.)

21. Cypress Street / Pomeroy Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Install Signal with Pedestrian Scramble — described in Section 3.5.a — General Plan Buildout Conditions - Network Alternatives — Pier Area Improvements — Cypress Street/Pomeroy, see discussion below)

22. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue (Signal LOS E - Eliminate Three On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Southbound Dolliver. Consider northbound left turn pocket as an alternative. Also consider Modifying Signal to include Pedestrian Scramble — described in Section 3.5.b — General Plan Buildout Conditions - Network Alternatives — Pier Area Improvements — Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy, see discussion below)

25. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Hinds Avenue (Signal LOS D - Eliminate Two On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Northbound Dolliver Consider left turn pockets as an alternative..)

32. Price Street / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

34. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

35. US 101 Ramps - Price Street / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)
The following nine (9) intersections operate deficiently under the Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hour:

14. US 101 Southbound Off -ramp - Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Price Street (AII-way stop LOS E - Install Roundabout)

20. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Main Street (Side Street LOS F - Eliminate One On -Street Parking Space to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Westbound Main. Consider left turn pockets as an alternative.)

22. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue (Signal LOS F - Eliminate Three On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Southbound Dolliver. Consider northbound left turn pocket as an alternative. Also consider Modifying Signal to include Pedestrian Scramble — described in Section 3.5.b — General Plan Buildout Conditions - Network Alternatives — Pier Area Improvements — Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy, see discussion below)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 132

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

25. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Hinds Avenue (Signal LOS F - Eliminate Two On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Northbound Dolliver. Consider left turn pockets as an alternative.)

31. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

32. Price Street / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

34. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

35. US 101 Northbound Ramps - Price Street / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)
Intersection 22, Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue - Left turns from northbound Dolliver (SR 1) onto Pomeroy (i.e., towards the pier area) are prohibited during peak tourist periods. This prohibition is indicated by the activation of a NO LEFT TURN (R3-2) "activated blankout" (i.e., back lit) electronic sign posted on a signal mast arm at the intersection.

Intersections 16, 20, 22, 25, 31 and 34 - Dolliver Street (SR 1) Between Wadsworth Avenue and Ocean View Avenue - The addition of short exclusive left turn pockets on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at key intersections in Downtown Pismo Beach, such as at Pomeroy Avenue and Hinds Avenue, should be considered. These are discussed in more detail in Section 3.E.5) c — General Plan Buildout — Network Alternatives — Pier Area Improvements — Dolliver Street Left Turn Pockets.

Intersections 21 and 22, Cypress Street / Pomeroy Avenue and Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue - Within Downtown Pismo Beach, some of the traffic congestion on Sundays during the peak season is created by the very large volumes of pedestrian crossings. This is especially true near the pier area, which is one of the primary destinations of many visitors to the area. At the Cypress / Pomeroy intersection, these crossings — both mid -block and at intersections — combine with the congestion caused by the parking maneuvers to create vehicle queues that can extend back to the Dolliver (SR 1) / Pomeroy intersection one block away. This congestion can then radiate out to affect operations at other intersections in the downtown area.

Pedestrian activity is still relatively high on Sundays during the peak season at the Dolliver (SR 1) / Pomeroy intersection, although it is not as high as at the Cypress / Pomeroy intersection one block to the south. Here, the large number of right turning vehicles from southbound Dolliver Street (SR 1) onto westbound Pomeroy (i.e., bound for the pier area) can limit the number of pedestrians that can cross Pomeroy Avenue. This is especially true when congestion at the Cypress / Pomeroy intersection affects upstream operations at Dolliver (SR 1) / Pomeroy, just one block away. A detailed discussion of the causes of this congestion and the recommended remedial measures is included in Section 3.E.5.a and b - General Plan Buildout Conditions— Network Alternatives - Pier Area Improvements (Page 79).

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 133

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 134

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 17A — Greater Pismo Beach Study Area
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 135

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 17B— Greater Pismo Beach Study Area
0 Lents
S
a
6;7o�f c-.
a
Pismo Be ch Q`\• �
Cafe Pismo Beach • •
S 0
SeaVenture Beachfront ., 5"
Resort & Restaurant bye i
II
• el'
k
Pismo Coast
Village HV Resort
vd'e
S
Price
Historical Park
IMO
Pismo Beach
Mobile Home Park
Clydell et
T1)
.galley Vi '
LP 0
C
m
9 <It
Nib
s Way
1 9D
Pismo Dunes Senior Park
Monarch Butterfly Grove e
Map data © Google 2016
-e
�Gry,tee
ovico
F�°t
IL.a
La
L.
•ities [}r
Pismo Lake
Ecological
Pismo ke Reserve
to;
z
Ocean +View Ave
Park View Ave
Atlantic City AWa
s'c'43 \gay
J arms
R"tchi
0 e°:9
r`'Pt° 4
�t e •.
le
10,12t
4,9000
Nark
�' 9,0p
Vcy co
for
TOUCAN

TERRA CF
N
C?
z
co
ciFr
Bre'Joh st
0 gi- of
ca
0 7
orn �
Oak Park Plaza
$r $ Shopping Center
Chilton st
1y1•
4Ql
Wa
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 136

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 18A — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes
AVILA BEACH DR ass -r # 1251
74 �� 4, 39 1 1,7
0 = INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE S. 2014
10 f 202
25 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 137

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 18B — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes (continued) HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 138

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 18C — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes (continued) LEMOORE AVE i
2S
_ �
"'
I-
gh
d
4174
*-1
W
Ct
Ill
0 I

4 en i
J
_ 79
y � ^.
4 l 4

3.4'

9.4. W
3: r
X 2i
nap
Z 4- 7o-
4-7
h t
p
..-v
Z
ZO
13�
4-6
i9
t t►
W
4 0
2 +
lal
4 _
RW7 N.T.S.
0 - —
On-
—
—
10-4.

81. rrnns
7$
24 `'3� BELLO ST 24-
553
410
��N
it m EL CAMINO REAL (US 707)
It
{ *—'5-
'1:56
�2 1
27 :� F0393
;1
N
-.4
i
mmon
�a �^r �v
444-4 I
4�` 72 c.c.
#'9 4144
Q
4-165 h n
4-161 43 I.
*- 216 ry no
4-176 444

4.365 .q q
.-27 474
x100
-
�(
I,�
F
fh
4 m
..j
W
C
Z
624
186-r
W 9�
4 40
Z 7fi
-60 ''''',1

44.4 11 1•
4- 0 r'
H
it
44-10
Fi4
W
4 it
3i
4 tO
20 104
256-r
-19i
'l' 1
lo -t
2 243
3 28 ILI
W
C
a. tri

PRICE ST
..(2.;,t, & 14
t 1012-4
bs
41 t 0 977
O O N 83-.4.
r
Ill 35
rn
W
d
U
W
C.

111
W
3: J x
la rt
O CC
83 314
6'�
41tlr
q
_
9,_s
41 4 1r

4.19 X236 co
Q' ro
-14 4J 4 4
4-266 25
4'74
*-SS -, N 1'
4-296 41 4 4
4-7
r[- 328 t°iv
,r28 4 41r
4-54
4-337
#8
2 1I
go 2 CL
Q

JCYPRE S
$7'
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES
74 569-r
197
41tIr 33 -g -r
wr-n 68-
o ti
NO, r--
X114
0 32-!
22 360-r
t
X7 4

DOLLIVERST
1 t 1' 13!
vno 341 7
327
v�¢7
Aso �fi4
40 347
0,_

4.5 ,� �
4-23 a,evr
fib
1tt'
.an
�a�I`
�,I► ILI
*- 5
4-1'8
s�
N
0 4
$8
,O
pi
�� 4

4.6$
¢ �, 9,0
�
to x
W
. 37
S
t eon
a��4
0 4- 2
4-352
$-16
3, 4

CYPRESS ST
:2
t t' 2 3
41 t e'
o 113
--:_ r
``�
43tlr
)Cif = INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE S, 2014
�
\.,\L.,"
37'-r
t
tir 1$i
me. 48-r
.3, .4- 9i
L
mom 564.
.8'1.
30 or -0
o
F
4 473
427
A.(„)
,--O,1
n v
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 139

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 18D — Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour Volumes (continued)

JAMES WAY

OFF -RAMP
5 CITIES DR
_.. 121
414 4-156

INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE 5, 2014
Z 43

4.167
;46
56 105 -4
4 PISMO BEACH

PREMIUM

OUTLETS
US 101
ati

ON -RAMP

PISMO COAST

SHOPPING
PLAZA
PISMO

MEDICAL
CENTER
k
Offl
�r f ash
,z5"i malt
o
PACIFIC WEST 4a
SHOPPING °6
et
CENTER

4.278

4.�4
41ia rays
54 3
44R w
3'4
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 140

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 19 — Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour Volumes

LEMOORE AVE
10 CC VI
W
4 J
IZ
_
>
CO
J
Z
ct
o
V
W
Z N.
re
O
28 CI co
ig
41 i 4
Z
4 4-9
i1'
0t
W
Z
1i
g
to
NJ
I
5 W N.T.S.
a
t8
12-t
DELLOST 44
126-4
t.
83 NLsv
--
3t EL CAMINO REAL (US 101) Olt
CD
1 Q'r €$

t 140
4 2 7
27 X491
1 i'c'4 OP
155 Lls
�r4i
41 l 4
4-134 0-0
4'32 ill 4
¢
4-304 Lon
5240 41 IF

5.198 oo-
4-406 41 i 4
4-553 -cw

4.26 41 4 1i
rtl¢

0 l
th

4. 7
000
41 Z
744
229
LIJ 4�
A
Z i 6
a
go �,m v
414.4
41t0
} NCOa
u1
I�tsa
44-477
$4-22
Q
x
W
m
20 124O
340 .41,
74 2 4
304
320
W
w t
O
IL

PRICE ST
41t� ps
wroao 65j3
Z
E
�t 5�
won �64�
W 35
g
mtn
W
d
=
a
W
O
r-,
G.

ILI
l
a
us
x 1
m
CICI
26-t
468-)
12-4
"11 t o
mrN
aP4 7cv
��
4-87
87 .a m
4416 arr
4-57 414,4
4-509 00
#23
t-8. `TMr
4-440 41-44
t. 31 n
4-496 -N
4'33 4144
4- 167
4-527
C11
V
Ix
m
0 (gW
2pE
O4.

PISMO
SHIRES

ESTATES
20f
4434
444
41te 37.3.,ti
147 �,
47#
0t
4201
to

DOLLIVER ST
41t1� 1 3
Ora,* ,404
1► 45 4 r.

Bryn .'}4 �
23�
31 � +D
34 ^ In
4L14
y
IU
li
CI
36 f4)
't.19
yr.7
X11 Z
iiic0r,
W
+A s 3i
�E r O d0
O
t 1 1
4-600
Sr
[v 4�
414.4
�y
+11 2
/
LP L7 n

5.127 4114
4-43 N
r 4144
f . F]
4'3
4,6)...).4.0
r �
y il�d►
$�
439
3�

CYPRESS ST
i1T1' 21s
41t1i
�"� 24.'
f
l'\-il
0 = INTERSECTION NUMBER
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON JUNE 29, 2014
+
s.f t
t
t 1� 31 �
,0, 62�
� `� 28 �
ra ni $0 w
`� 20�
30 Lou:,uo w is
vr,
33 F
Ul
W
446
48 a
� o
- la
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 141

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 20 — Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour Volumes

LEMOORE AVE

HARLOE AVE
U)
J
z
W
4 I,-
O
3 BELLO ST
18 t
z
W OO
2 ZO
414 4
4 7-1
199 1
4 EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
ir 2.64
▪ 313
yb
lek1a.T uy
�t *I L'
Ui
]Q( = INTERSECTION NUMBER

HARLOE AVE
VOLUMES COLLECTED ON MAY 25, 2014
I'
N d
41 4
4135

4.209
C28
7:13 •
e� ry 4336
41 4 1245
r-. µ
4' 4

4.1 4-5
018.
41t1�
^ I,-

STIMSON AVE

OCEAN VIEW AVE
▪ 64
*421
rn�o
4144
C50 4.117
t.9

4.513
4549 . oT
45 •1 4

SAN LUIS AVE
1214
278 -'
24-4
R N
M] N
4144
4ttILI 1!
n7 n n
4 X
O
U)
Dti62
44341
$sz1

HOLLISTER AVE
264
406.4
131
41t1,
CO�

PISMO AVE
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES
I..
z
70 ¢2N t.137
414 4 *357
4-49
74 537-4
I Z
4 I," k
4I1�r
044
4-486
4°12
124
333
C.)
t

PRICE ST
�tl1 24
Chrvrn 7745
80 W
4 G7
O
Z
2 4v90
4-348
N .f1
4144
4tt�
N
a r1

STIMSON AVE

4.48 ♦411
4-25
94 694 .4
121'1
35 ,C:74
f CJ
444
fr.

W
z
O
U
1139
4-439
4-28
'U
4 4
IY
274 41 t 1�
3554
25 276-*
176-4.
4 O NN
41 4 4

DOLLIVER
I ST
t
ot‘io 281
1191

4.176
c0 M1U7
4144
41t1"
NfNPl
3i

4.23 4-74
4-2
24 4
303 -4
40 1
N 1
» N
4144
ti'
34 4.31
4-48
4-14
4 364
44-1,

CYPRESS ST
t 284
655

32. 4ttP
N N -t
N N}
22 3
100-r
34 =.

U
O
7 sI .41
7Q
M.T.S.
3i
u7 0 u7
414 4

4.s
*529
441

18.4 456 4-
551
41t�
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 142

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 21— Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions Existing Conditons
Existing Conditions
With Improvements
Existing
Existing
Weekday
Summer
Memorial Day
Weekday
Summer
Memorial Day

N -S E -W
Street Street
Lane
Configuration
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday Mid
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday Mid
Proposed Improvement(s)
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
1 Shell Beach
Road -
Avila Beach
Drive
NB 1-UR
SB 1 -UT, 1-R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

4.2 A

21.3 C
US 101
EB 1-T/R
SB Ramps
WB 1 -UT
(County)
2 Monte
Road
Avila Beach
Drive-
SB 1-R
EB 1-L
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

3.0 A

9.4 A
US 101 NB
WB 1-T/R
Ramps
(County)
3 Spyglass
Drive
US 101 NB
Ramps
NB 1-L, 1-T
SB 1-T/R
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

8.1 A

14.5 B
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
4 Spyglass
Drive
US 101 SB
Ramps
NB 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

5.4 A

12.1 B
WB 1 -UT, 1-R
5 Spyglass
Drive
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
All -Way Stop
C

13.4 B
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
6 Terrace
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-UR
EB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.7 A
WB 1-L, 1-T
7 Vista Del
Mar
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-L/R
EB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.2 A
Avenue
WB 1 -UT
8 Esparto
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-L/R
EB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.3 A
WB 1 -UT
9 Windward
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-UR
EB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.4 A
WB 1 -UT
10 Mettle
Road
US 101 NB
Ramps
NB 1 -UT
SB 1-T/R
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

7.0 A

12.0 B
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 143

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 21— Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions (Continued)

NS E -W
Street Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Improvement(s)
Existing Conditons
Existing Conditions
With Improvements
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
11 US 101 SB
On -ramp
Price
Street
EB 1 -UT
WB 1-T/R
None
C
Side Street

0.0 A

0.0 A
12 Mattie
Road
Price
Street
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1 -UT
WB 1-T/R
Signal
C

6.6 A
13 US 101 SB
Of -ramp
Price
Street
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1-T
WB 1-T
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

2.3 A

11.6 B
14 US 101 SB
Off -ramp -
Dolliver
Street (SR 1)
Price
Street
NB 1-L, 1-R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
All -Way Stop
C/D

14.0 B

43.0 E

48.6 E

7.4 A

12.4 B

16.3 C
Roundabout
15 US 101 NB
On -ramp -
Bello
Street
Bay
Street
T
NB 1-L/T/R
EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-L/T/R
Two -Way Stop
C/O
Side Street

0.3 A

9.5 A
16 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L/T/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

2.4 A

15.1 C

3.5 A

32.0 D

4.0 A

27.0 D
17 Price
Street
3 Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.4 A

12.0 B

14.1 B
18 US 101 NB
Off -ramp
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1-T
WB 1-T
One -Way Stop
CID
Side Street

5.2 A

9.9 A

3.0 A

11.3 B

3.0 A

11.4 B
19 Bello
Street
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L/T/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
All -Way Stop
C

8.4 A
20 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Main
Street
NB 1-L/T/R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
CID
Side Street

1.6 A

15.2 C

18.2 C
146.7 F

42.4 E
248.8 F

1.5 A

14.8 B

8.8 A

60.4 F

18.4 C
111.5 F
Eliminate 1 On -Street Parking Space
to Accommodate Right Turn Lane on
Westbound Main
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 144

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 21— Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions (Continued) Existing Conditons
Existing Conditions
With Improvements
Existing
Existing
Weekday
Summer
Memorial Day
Weekday
Summer
Memorial Day
N -S
Street
E -W
Street
Lane
Configuration
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday Mid
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday Mid
Proposed Improvements)
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
Delay LOS
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
21 Cypress
Street
Pomeroy
Avenue
WB 1-UT/R
One -Way Stop
C
Side Street

16.1 C

16.3 C
* F
* F
* F
* F

5.5 A

4.8 A

5.1 A
Signal with Pedestrian Scramble
IllIM
22 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Pomeroy
Avenue
NB 1 -UT
SB 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C/D

17.4 B

65.0 E
210.1 F

9.3 A

24.6 C

39.4 D
Eliminate On -Street Parking to
Accommodate Right Turn Lane
on Southbound Dolliver
23 Price
Street
Pomeroy
Avenue
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-UT/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.3 A

12.2 B

12.7 B
WB 1-L/T/R
24 Cypress
Street
Hinds
Avenue
NB 1-R
SB 1-L.T
All -Way Stop
C

7.6 A

8.1 A

8.3 A
EB 1-T/R
25 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Hinds
Avenue
NB 1-T/R
SB 1 -UT
EB 1 -UT, 1-T/R
Signal
C/D

5.7 A

35.8 D
144.2 F

6.5 A

19.7 B

26.6 C
Eliminate On -Street Parking to
Accommodate Right Turn Lane
on Northbound Dolliver
1 1

1. Review signal timing to minimize SB
26 Price
Hinds
NB 1-T, 1-T/R
Signal
C

14.1 B

13.2 B

14.8 B

14.1 B

13.2 B

14.8 B
Hinds queue
Street
Avenue
SB 1 -UT, 1-T
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-UR

2. Consider widening Hinds bridge
over US 101 to mitigate SB Hinds
queue
27 US 101 SB
Of -ramp
Hinds
Avenue
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1-T
*
One -Way Stop
CID
Side Street

1.2 A

30.4 D

1.2 A

10.9 B

1.7 A

12.0 B
WB 2-T
28 Bello
Street
Price
Canyon
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

1.6 A

30.4 D

4.1 A

18.1 C

5.1 A

19.0 C
Road
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
29 Lemoore
Avenue
Price
Canyon
NB 1-L, 1-T
SB 1-T/R
One -Way Stop
C
Side Street

0.2 A

16.0 C
Road
EB 1-UR
30 Cypress
Street
Stinson
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

6.2 A

10.3 B

12.9 B

22.6 C

15.2 C

28.6 D

6.5 A

10.4 B

14.0 B

24.2 C

18.2 C

33.1 D
Implement Ocean View - Stinson
Couplet
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 145

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 21— Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions (Continued)

N -S E -W
Street Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Improvement(s)
Existing Conditons
Existing Conditions
With Improvements
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
31 Dolliver
Street
(SRI)
Stimson
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-UT/R ,
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

4.9 32.3
A
D

5.0 40.0
A
E

8.1 54.9
A
F

8.4 A

7.4 A

8.6 A
Implement Ocean View -Stimson
Couplet and Signal
32 Price
Street
Stimson
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1 -UT, 1-T/R
EB 1 -UT, 1-R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

1.o

23.4 A
C

3.9 58.5
A
F

4.7 80.5
A
F

1.1 9.7
A
A

1.0 21.9
A
C

1.2 10.7
A
B
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet and Price Street Restriping
33 Cypress
Street
Ocean View
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

4.2 9.9
A
A

6.5 12.7
A
B

7.2 15.0
A
B

3.6 10.1
A
B

5.4 13.3
A
B

6.3 14.9
A
B
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet
34 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Ocean View
Avenue
NB 1-L/T/R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
CID
Side Street

10.3 52.9
B
F

28.3 221.8
D
F

45.8 264.1
E
F

1.1 /7.6
A
C

1.3 21.1
A
C

2.1 21.1
A
C
Implement Ocean View - Stlmson
Couplet
35 US 101
Ramps -
Price
Street
Ocean View
Avenue
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-L/T, 1-R
WB 1-L/T/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

2.6 30.9
A
D

13.1 76.6
B
F

11.4 91.2
B
F

1.8 18.6
A
C

8.1 37.0
A
E

6.5 37.3
A
E
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet and Price Street Restriping
36 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Cypress
Street -
Holiday
RV Park Ent.

NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

1.1 13.0
A
B

1.8 18.0
A
C

2.2 15.8
A
C
37 Dolllver
Street
(SR 1)
Pismo Beach
Senior MHP -
Pismo Coast
Village
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Signal
C/D

7.2 A

11.0 B

9.9 A
38 US 101 NB
On -ramp
James
Way
EB 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T
None
CID
Side Street

0.0 0.0
A
A
39 Fourth
Street-
Paseo Ladem
Lane
James
Way
NB 1 -UT, 1-R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1 -UT, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

10.0 A
40 Fourth
Street
US 101 NB
Ramps
NB 2-L, 2-T
SB 1-T, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C/D

12.1 B
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 146

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 21— Intersection Levels of Service Existing Conditions (Continued)

N -S E -W
Street Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Improvement(s)
Existing Conditons
Existing Conditions
With Improvements
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
41 US 101 SB
Ramps-
Outlets
Main Entrance
Five Cities
Drive
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1 -UT, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
Signal
C/D

27.1 C
42 Fourth
Street
Five Cities
Drive
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C

36.3 D

26.8 C
Add Right Tum Overlap Phase on
Eastbound Five Cities Drive
43 US 101 SB
Ramps-
Hotel
Driveway
Five Cities
Drive-
EI Camino
Real
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1 -UT, 1-R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
All -Way Stop
C/D

13.8 B
44 Ridge
Road
James
Way
SB 1-UR
EB 1-L, 1-T
WB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.0 A
45 Oak Park
Boulevard
James
Way
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C

25.7 C
46 Oak Park
Boulevard
US 101 NB
On -Ramp -
West Branch
Street
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1 -UT, 1-R
Signal
C

11.1 B
47 Camino
Mercado-
US 101 NB
Ramps
West
Branch
Street
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T
Signal
(Arroyo Grande)
C/D

28.3 C
48 US 101 SB
Ramps
EI Camino
Real
SB 1-L, 1-UR
EB 1 -UT
WB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
(Grover Beach)
C/D

33.8 D

10.1 B
Signal
49 Oak Park
Boulevard
EI Camino
Real
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R
EB 1-L, 1 -UT, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C

22.3 C
50 US 101 SB
On -ramp
Avila Beach
Drive
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -LIT
None
(County)
C/D
Side Street

0.0 A

0.0 A
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 147

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 148

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 22A — Intersection Operations Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour 00t,
4 Kit
LEGEND
T)

HARLOE AVE

OVERALL OPERATIONS
clii5",
r- SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)
SAN

LEMOORE AVE

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" AND "E")
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "F")
W
U
n.
z
0€3
Z0
eg

CYPRESS ST
N.T.S.

O ▪ UP
go
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 149

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 22B — Intersection Operations Existing Weekday PM Peak Hour (Continued) EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)

OFF -I AMP
5 CITIES DR
0t4

PISMO BEACH

PREMIUM

OUTLETS

PISMO COAST

SHOPPING
PLAZA
ON.RAMP
PA
OXFORD
SUITES
(HOTEL)
N.T.S.

LEGEND

OVERALL OPERATIONS
- SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS

DEFICIENT OPERATIONS
(LEVEL OF SERVICE - ---�
AND "E") -

DEFICIENT OPERATIONS
(LEVEL OF SERVICE -----
..F..)

RIDGE RD
US 'I0

OFF -RAMP
CRAM"
PISMO

MEDICAL
CENTER
tileS

PACIFIC WEST

SHOPPING
CENTER
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 50

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 23 — Intersection Operations Existing Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour LEGEND
G>z
40>N tt

HARLOE AVE

OVERALL OPERATIONS

SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)
SAN
cypitess sr
W
CC
0 fh
4 LEMOORE AVE

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" AND "E")
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "F")

DOLLIVER ST

CYPRESS ST
onto
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 151

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 24 — Intersection Operations Existing Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour

LEMOORE AVE

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
I -
Z
4 2
LEGEND
IG5,,,,-- SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)

OVERALL OPERATIONS
CpReSS Sr
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" AND "E")
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "F")
•
00 zo
Qre

PRICE ST
W
4 U)
x

DOLLIVER ST

CYPRESS ST
0 2 en ex
O.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 152

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY K. Community Participation
Public participation played an essential role in this Study. Public input was solicited especially regarding existing conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, desired bicycling and walking infrastructure, and types of support facilities or programs needed to improve bicycling in Pismo Beach. Public input was also used to generally develop and prioritize recommended network improvements.

Stakeholders within the community were interviewed, including city staff, the Parking Advisory Committee, the Pismo Beach City Council, the Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce, and city residents. Other adjacent cities were also contacted, such as the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, as well as other agencies whose jurisdictions are either adjacent to or within portions of Pismo Beach, such as County of San Luis Obispo, Caltrans, and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). A brief summary of the common themes identified by the stakeholders follows below. A full summary of the stakeholder comments is included in Appendix C.

Common themes identified by the stakeholders included the following:

1. Parking capacity and circulation demand varies with the peak season, with very high demand during the summer months and little demand during other times of the year.

2. General desire for a new parking structure within the downtown core. However, it was understood that public spending for a parking structure that may only be used for three months out of the year makes this fiscally challenging.

3. The Pomeroy -Hinds one-way couplet had greatly reduced collision rates at the Price Street / Hinds Avenue intersection. Other one-way couplets within the downtown area may be useful.

4. Price Street between Price Canyon Road and the US 101 Ramps at the south side of Downtown is used as a primary thoroughfare for commuters to and from San Luis Obispo. Extending Price Street to Five Cities Drive and adding other frontage roads to US 101 would allow for these and other local trips to avoid using the freeway when traveling between southeastern and downtown Pismo Beach.

5. Strategically placed satellite parking lots (i.e., park and ride lots) are being considered to serve bus routes along US 101. Some of the satellite parking lots are within the City of Pismo Beach.

The City also hosted two public workshops to encourage public feedback on existing circulation issues for all modes of transportation in Pismo Beach. The purpose of the first workshop was to provide an opportunity for members of the public to identify key transportation and circulation issues (including bicycle and pedestrian related issues) throughout the City of Pismo Beach. The second workshop was held to summarize the findings of the analysis, including identifying existing and future circulation problems and corresponding solutions, and physical or operational improvements needed citywide. The workshops were held on:
• Wednesday, September 17, 2014 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM — at City Hall (Council Chambers), 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach.
• Wednesday, January 7, 2015 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM — at City Hall (Council Chambers), 760 Mattie Road, Pismo Beach.

Summaries of each public workshop are provided in Appendix D.

The following points of discussion during the first workshop are summarized in Exhibit 25 (Page 54). (A summary of the second workshop can be found in Chapter 5 of this document.) HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 153

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 25 — Public Comments from September 2014 Workshop Item No.

Comment

1. Elevated Pedestrian Boardwalk— Important to construct between Pier and Shell Beach along hotel beach frontage. Would provide safe, attractive alternative to driving. Would alleviate parking demand within the downtown and enhance local connectivity.

2. Attractive, Clean Streets — Important to provide. Should feature wide sidewalks, visible bicycle facilities, working streetlights, and readable directional signs.

3. Emphasis Away from Vehicle Level of Service in Downtown — Should instead focus on efficient use of existing and proposed parking facilities, maintaining high-level of pedestrian usability, increase bicycle use, and increase public safety. However, should use criteria to determine investment in future capital projects.

4. High Visitor Demand to Pismo Beach Area:
a. 2.4 million visitors to Pismo Beach each year
b. 1+ million visitors to Pismo State Park (specifically the Dunes) each year c. $600,000 in sales tax generated in Pismo Beach each year from tourist activity d. Hotel Occupancy — an annual average of about 70%, much higher during the peak season and much lower during the off-season

5. Paid Parking:
a. 200,000 cars utilize paid parking facilities annually b. Average length of stay in paid parking — 2 hours
c. Visitors within campgrounds, hotels and RV parks park for free

6. Bus Tour Groups — not common:
a. Few areas for buses to stage within downtown
b. Hotels within downtown charge more than outside of downtown

7. Hotels, RV Parks and Vacation Rentals have high occupancy:
a. 75% to 80% of Transient Occupancy Tax is generated by hotels, followed by vacation rentals and RV parks
b. RV park occupancy never drops below 85% during summer months and approaches 100% during holidays and peak summer periods
c. Person Occupancies:
i. Hotel — 2.1 person/room (estimated)
ii. RV Parks — above 2.1 persons/RV

8. Tourist Activity Growth:
a. Most visitors to Pismo Beach are driving from within a 5 -hour radius, including from the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Central Valley metropolitan areas. Growth in population within those areas will lead to tourist growth within Pismo Beach
b. Transient Occupancy Tax is not good measure of past tourist growth, as increase is more tied to increased room rates rather than increased demand
c. Building permits and retail sales are up dramatically within the year. Sales tax may be used to project future retail growth in Pismo Beach

9. Other Traffic Issues:
a. Many visitors drive, walk, and bicycle into the downtown from hotels and RV parks located outside of downtown
b. Number of surreys and bicycles within downtown are increasing c. Parking demand has remained relatively flat — annual paid parking occupancy changed from 35% to 39% over six years
d. More demand for hotel and RV area parking than downtown parking In addition, a workshop exercise was conducted to discuss specific street network and congestion issues within the greater Pismo Beach region. Exhibit 26 (Page 55) summarizes those network issues.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 154

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 26 — Street Network Issues Discussed at September 2014 Workshop Item No.

Network Issue

1. Trail parking at Cave Landing and Shell Beach Road (near Avila Beach) creates potential traffic hazard, as well as parking availability issues on El Portal Drive and Indio Drive (adjacent residential roadways) for trail users.

2. Southbound US 101 merge from three lanes to two lanes, between Avila Beach Drive and Spyglass Drive and creates traffic congestion on US 101.

3. Increasing congestion at the Spyglass Drive / Shell Beach Road intersection during peak hours.

4. Mattie Road sidewalks and bicycle lanes are not connected to the rest of the city:
a. Lack of sidewalk or bicycle lanes on Spyglass Drive between Mattie Road and Shell Beach Road. b. No striped bike lane along northbound Mattie Road.
c. Lack of sidewalk along Mattie Road between 2400 Mattie Road and just south of Bayview Lane (i.e., Spyglass Drive).
d. Lack of sidewalk and bicycle lanes between 1050 Mattie Road and Price Street. e. Bicycle lanes on Price Street near Mattie Road ends abruptly.

5. Left turn from Price Street onto Wadsworth Avenue is problematic.

6. Turning movement conflicts at Price Street / Dolliver Street (SR 1) — Southbound US 101 Off -Ramp cause traffic to back up onto southbound US 101.

7. Lack of crosswalks across Dolliver Street (SR 1) creates pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and a safety hazard, especially during peak hours and peak season.

8. Lack of surface street connections between north and south Pismo Beach. Extend Price Street to Five Cities Drive to relieve congestion at Five Cities Drive/US 101 interchange and provide direct pedestrian and transit connection to downtown.

9. Ma'or Perceived Traffic Congestion Locations (outside of downtown):
a. Price Street / Hinds Avenue (Price Canyon Road)
b. Oak Park Boulevard / US 101 Interchange
c. Fourth Street/James Way
d. Five Cities Drive / US 101 Interchange

10. Ma'or Perceived Traffic Congestion Locations (within downtown):
a. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue
b. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue
c. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue
d. Price Street / Ocean View Avenue
e. Price Street / Stimson Avenue
f. Price Street / Hinds Avenue (Price Canyon Road)
g. Price Street /Pomeroy Avenue

11. Consider One -Way Turning Movements and Road Reconfiguration at:
a. Ocean View Avenue
b. Stimson Avenue
c. Hinds Avenue
d. Pomeroy Avenue

12. Provide a pedestrian bridge across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks from James Way/Five Cities Drive to Pismo Beach Sports Complex on Frady Lane.

13. Replace the US 101 bridge over Frady Lane and Pismo Creek to improve vehicular and emergency travel time for traffic underneath bridge.

14. Consider converting part of Cypress Street into a bicycle boulevard, including lane configurations with one-way and two-way vehicle travel.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 155

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Possible future downtown and recreational parking areas were also suggested. These sites could provide access to the downtown, the future boardwalk promenade extension and the Pismo Preserve trailhead.

Exhibit 27 summarizes these suggestions. Other issues discussed are summarized in Exhibit 28.

Exhibit 27 — Suggested Future Parking Areas Discussed at September 2014 Workshop Item No.

Suggested Future Parking Area

1. New public parking lot off Terrace Avenue at Shell Beach Elementary School.

2. Pismo Preserve trailhead at 850 Mattie Road (in addition to paving an existing dirt parking area along Price Street near Mattie Road)

3. Kon Tiki Inn hotel, Steamers restaurant and Bank of America building near the intersection of Price and Dolliver (SR 1) Streets, including below -grade parking structures.

4. Pismo Beach Self Storage site on Five Cities Drive.

Exhibit 28 — Other Issues Discussed at September 2014 Workshop Item No.

Other Item

1. Southbound US 101 off -ramp to Hinds Avenue — preserve, because it provides direct freeway access to downtown.

2. Perhaps add signing to direct RV traffic from northbound US 101 to use Price Street, Pomeroy Avenue, and Dolliver Street (SR 1) and avoid Ocean View Avenue. Direct RV traffic bound for southbound US 101 to use Dolliver Street (SR 1), Hinds Avenue, and Price Street to avoid Ocean View Avenue.

3. Color the existing bike lanes along Dolliver Street (SR 1).

4. Vehicles utilize the one -lane bridge on Cypress Street over Pismo Creek to exit the downtown during high traffic periods.

5. Pedestrians and bicyclists also use the Cypress Street bridge.

6. Optimize downtown parking by adding spaces where possible and removing red curb and consolidating driveways.

7. Heavy pedestrian traffic along Pomeroy Avenue near pier.

8. Congestion on Hinds Avenue (Price Canyon Road) between Price Street and Bello Street HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 156

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

3. General Plan Buildout Conditions
A. Weekday PM — Volume Derivation
SLOCOG manages a transportation demand model that forecasts future traffic growth throughout San Luis Obispo County, including Pismo Beach in the Year 2035. This model, updated in 2014, was modified to add additional land use and street network detail in Pismo Beach to create a citywide model for Pismo Beach. The Existing Conditions model (i.e., Year 2010) land use information was updated in Pismo Beach to reflect 2014 conditions (i.e., the Year 2014 model). The resulting existing and 2035 volumes from the Pismo Beach model are included in Appendix E, in addition to the documentation of the SLOCOG model modifications.

Appendix F tabulates the net change in land use in the Pismo Beach area between the Existing Year model (Year 2014) and the Future Year model (Year 2035). In total, an additional 476 new homes (286 single family and 190 multi -family) and 690 new jobs are anticipated by both SLOCOG and the Pismo Beach Planning Department in Pismo Beach by the Year 2035. The net change in land use in Appendix F has been estimated for each of the 17 Neighborhood Planning Areas defined in the 1992 General Plan. For reference, Appendix F also includes the 1992 General Plan Neighborhood Planning Area Map. The Neighborhood Planning Areas where the highest growth in housing is expected include Area N - Oak Park Heights (144 dwelling units-d.u.), Area K - Commercial Core (103 d.u.), Area P - Pismo Heights and Freeway Foothills (101 d.u.) and Area B - South Palisades (48 d.u.).

These represent 406 dwelling units, or 85% of the citywide growth. The remaining residential growth is scattered throughout the city. Most of the employment is anticipated in the hospitality and retail industries, primarily in Areas K (future downtown hotels) and N (retail).

The average percentage growth in volume forecasted on city streets from 2014 to 2035 was determined for six distinct regions of the city. This was then applied to forecast the resulting traffic volumes at each intersection in the study area. The future percentage growth will vary by region, ranging from a low of 12% to a high of 28% over existing conditions, averaging about 19% at study intersections citywide. Appendix G provides a table summarizing the growth factor for each intersection.

Exhibits 29A -C (Pages 59-62) depict the existing and future Weekday PM peak hour segment traffic volumes in the Pismo Beach region along city streets, the US 101 freeway, and freeway on- and off -ramps. Overall, the Pismo Beach region is projected to experience an overall 15% growth in traffic volumes along all city streets, freeways, and ramps between 2014 and 2035.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 157

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 158

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 29A — Weekday PM Peak Hour Segment Volumes on Greater Pismo Beach Area — Roadways Street Name
Limits
Direction
Actual
N or E
Count
S or W
(2014)
Total
Existing Model
N or E S or W
(2014)
Total
Percent
Existing
Buildout
N or E
Model
S or W
(2035)
Total
Percent
Growth
Avila Beach Drive
Shell Beach Road - US 101 SB Offramp to US 101 SB Onramp E -W
516
205
721
363
147
510
71%
393
149
542
6%
Bello Street
Price Canyon Road to Bay Street
N -S
178
68 246
330
85 415
169%
321
88 410
-1%
Cypress Street
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Ocean View Avenue
N -S
23 72
_ 95
11 148
159
167%
20 194
215
35%
Cypress Street
Ocean View Avenue to Stimson Avenue
N -S
32 66
98 11
155
166
169%
21 203 225
35%
Cypress Street
Stimson Avenue to Hinds Avenue
N -S
60 77
137
2 137
_ 138
101%
2 166 169
22%
Cypress Street
Hinds Avenue to Pomeroy Avenue
N -S
N/A
77 77
N/A
185
185
240%
N/A
232 232
26%
Cypress Street
Pomeroy Avenue to Main Street
N -S
20 N/A
20 47
N/A
47 234%
50 N/A 50
6%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
South of Pismo Beach Senior MHP - Pismo Coast Village
N -S
370
500
870
174
502
676
78%
219
664 883
31%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Pismo Beach Senior MHP - Pismo Coast Village to Cypress Street - Holiday RV Park Ent.

N -S
600
526
1126
215
588
803
71%
261
754 1015
26%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Cypress Street - Holiday RV Park Ent. to Ocean View Avenue N -S
410
502
912
230
470
700
77%
267
591 858
23%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Ocean View Avenue to Stimson Avenue
N -S
363
398
761
124
245
369
48%
148
323 471
28%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Stimson Avenue to Hinds Avenue
N -S
354
390
744
134
213
347
47%
167
284 451
30%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Hinds Avenue to Pomeroy Avenue
N -S
345
382
727
168
210
378
52%
212
284 496
31%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Pomeroy Avenue to Main Street
N -S
279
414
693
104
151
254
37%
130
220 350
37%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Main Street to Wadsworth Avenue
N -S
253
395
648
117
176
293
45%
140
247 386
32%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
Wadsworth Avenue to Price Street
N -S
190
337
527
80 140
220
42%
96 203 299
36%
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
North of Price Street
N -S
N/A
247
247
N/A
88 88
36%
N/A
105 105
19%
Esparto Avenue
South of Shell Beach Road
N -S
15 27
42 0
0 0
0%
0 0 0
0%
Five Cities Drive
West of US 101 SB Ramps - Outlets Main Entrance
E -W
175
324
499
49 218
267
53%
57 248 305
14%
Five Cities Drive
US 101 SB Ramps - Outlets Main Entrance to Fourth Street E -W
950
395
1345
540
307
847
63%
695
355 1050
24%
Five Cities Drive
East of Fourth Street
E -W
473
237
710
161
166
327
46%
271
232 503
54%
Fourth Street
South of Five Cities Drive
N -S
601
863
1464
371
528
899
61%
423
574 996
11%
Fourth Street
Five Cities Drive to US 101 NB Ramps
N -S
646
589
1235
481
379
860
70%
556
401 957
11%
Fourth Street
US 101 NB Ramps to James Way
N -S
338
257
595
356
235
591
99%
408
255 663
12%
Hinds Avenue
West of Cypress Street
E -W
136
N/A
136
173
N/A
173
127%
177
N/A 177
2%
Hinds Avenue
Cypress Street to Dolliver Street (SR 1)
E -W
187
N/A
187
223
N/A
223
119%
245
N/A 245
10%
Hinds Avenue
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Price Street
E -W
178
N/A
178
187
N/A
187
105%
200
N/A 200
7%
Hinds Avenue
Price Street to US 101 SB Offramp
E -W
294
823
1117
262
682
944
85%
301
721 1022
8%
Hinds Avenue
US 101 SB Offramp to Bello Street
E -W
314
752
1066
279
363
643
60%
319
428
746
16%
James Way
West of US 101 NB Onramp
E -W
229
62 291
237
63 300
103%
262
65 327
9%
James Way
US 101 NB Onramp to Fourth Street - Paseo Ladera Lane
E -W
174
175
349
139
143
282
81%
156
168
324
15%
James Way
Fourth Street - Paseo Ladera Lane to Ridge Road
E -W
277
195
472
246
131
377
80%
278
137
415
10%
James Way
Ridge Road to Oak Park Boulevard
E -W
501
310
811
316
211
527
65%
179
106
285
-46%
James Way
East of Oak Park Boulevard
E -W
296
241
537
177
134
310
58%
195
141
336
8%
Main Street
West of Dolliver Street (SR 1)
E -W
51 34
85 47
0 47
55%
50 0
50 6%
Main Street
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Price Street
E -W
33 19
52 509
21 530
1019%
485
21 506
-5%
Mattie Road
Price Street to US 101 NB Ramps
N -S
134
263
397
39 162
201
51%
44 199
243
21%
Mattie Road
North of US 101 NB Ramps
N -S
67 53
120
41 52
_ 93
78%
57 68
125
34%
Mattie Road
South of Spyglass Drive
N -S
65 62
127
63 108
171
135%
86 140
226
32%
Oak Park Boulevard
South of El Camino Real
N -S
709
1098
1807
699
910
1609
89%
842
1039
1881
17%
Oak Park Boulevard
El Camino Real to US 101 NB Onramp - West Branch Street N -S
1096
1099
2195
953
679
1632
74%
1110
835
1945
19%
Oak Park Boulevard
US 101 NB Onramp - West Branch Street to James Way
N -S
729
1043
1772
590
691
1281
72%
692
866
1558
22%
Oak Park Boulevard
North of James Way
N -S
294
439
733
217
204
421
57%
280
319
599
42%
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 159

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 29A — Weekday PM Peak Hour Segment Volumes in Greater Pismo Beach Area — Roadways (Continued) Street Name
Limits
Direction
Actual
N or E
Count
S or W
(2014)
Total
Existing
N or E
Model
S or W
(2014)
Total
Percent
Existing
Buildout
N or E
Model
S or W
(2035)
Total
Percent
Growth
Ocean View Avenue
West of Cypress Street
E -W
18 35
53 0
0 0
0%
0 0
0 0%
Ocean View Avenue
Cypress Street to Dolliver Street (SR 1)
E -W
20 46
66 145
134
279
422%
149
146
295
6%
Ocean View Avenue
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Price Street - US 101 Ramps
E -W
100
183
283
330
387
716
253%
257
381
638
-11%
Pomeroy Avenue
West of Cypress Street
E -W
N/A
99 _ 99
N/A
129
129
131%
N/A
_ 136
136
5%
Pomeroy Avenue
Cypress Street to Dolliver Street (SR 1)
E -W
N/A
197
197
N/A
286
286
145%
N/A
330
330
15%
Pomeroy Avenue
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Price Street
E -W
N/A
121
_ 121
N/A
563
563
466%
N/A
_ 571
571
1%
Price Canyon Road
East of Bello Street
E -W
218
741
959
173
290
463
48%
211
357
568
23%
Price Street
South of Ocean View Avenue
N -S
493
1068
1561
667
1059
1726
111%
752
1135
1887
9%
Price Street
Ocean View Avenue to Stimson Avenue
N -S
401
1062
1463
633
1007
1639
112%
704
1155
1858
13%
Price Street
Stimson Avenue to Hinds Avenue
N -S
386
1078
1464
616
1103
1720
117%
674
1196
1870
9%
Price Street
Hinds Avenue to Pomeroy Avenue
N -S
272
256
528
592
472
1065
202%
601
503
1104
4%
Price Street
Pomeroy Avenue to Main Street
N -S
165
285
450
29 472
501
111%
30 503
533
6%
Price Street
Main Street to Wadsworth Avenue
N -S
131
231
362
254
210
464
128%
234
244
478
3%
Price Street
North of Wadsworth Avenue
N -S
145
257
402
162
276
438
109%
200
319
520
19%
Price Street
South of US 101 SB Offramp - Dolliver Street (SR 1)
N -S
113
222
335
134
249
383
114%
151
282
433
13%
Price Street
North of US 101 SB Offramp - Dolliver Street (SR 1)
N -S
266
295
561
203
291
494
88%
231
356
586
19%
Price Street
South of US 101 SB Offramp
N -S
210
304
514
98 93
191
37%
113
153
266
39%
Price Street
US 101 SB Offramp to Mattie Road
N -S
251
244
495
124
63 188
38%
116
124
241
28%
Price Street
Mattie Road to US 101 SB Onramp
N -S
295
171
_ 466
199
14 213
46%
214
_ 46
260
22%
Price Street
US 101 SB Onramp to Windward Avenue
N -S
233
290
523
148
167
315
60%
179
206
385
22%
Shell Beach Road
West of Avila Beach Drive
E -W
132
N/A
132
95 N/A
95 72%
111
N/A
111
17%
Shell Beach Road
East of Avila Beach Drive
E -W
150
87 237
125
68 193
81%
182
101
283
47%
Shell Beach Road
West of Spyglass Drive
E -W
216
215
431
210
143
353
82%
166
237
403
14%
Shell Beach Road
Spyglass Drive to Terrace Avenue
E -W
401
205
606
291
150"
441
73%
294
156
450
2%
Shell Beach Road
Terrace Avenue to Vista Del Mar Avenue
E -W
324
156
480
238
123
361
75%
274
144
419
16%
Shell Beach Road
Vista Del Mar Avenue to Esparto Avenue
E -W
292
222
514
141
73 214
42%
171
88 259
21%
Shell Beach Road
Esparto Avenue to Windward Avenue
E -W
296
238
534
159
133
291
55%
196
161
357
23%
Spyglass Drive
South of Shell Beach Road
N -S
86 100
186
65 73
139
75%
74 82
156
13%
Spyglass Drive
Shell Beach Road to US 101 SB Ramps
N -S
281
490
771
338
420
758
98%
433
541
974
29%
Spyglass Drive
US 101 SB Ramps to US 101 NB Ramps
N -S
188
185
373
249
134
383
103%
293
157
450
17%
Stimson Avenue
West of Cypress Street
E -W
44 57
101
74 61
135
134%
133
105
238
77%
Stimson Avenue
Cypress Street to Dolliver Street (SR 1)
E -W
57 89
146
51 47
98 67%
89 79
167
71%
Stimson Avenue
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Price Street
E -W
52 92
144
35 73
108
75%
63 109
172
59%
Terrace Avenue
South of Shell Beach Road
N -S
29 26
55 40
30 71
129%
44 35
79 11%
Vista Del Mar Avenue
South of Shell Beach Road
N -S
19 43
62 50
98 148
238%
56 103
159
8%
Wadsworth Avenue
Cypress Street to Dol liver Street (SR 1)
E -W
41 30
71 0
0 0
0%
0 0
0 0%
Wadsworth Avenue
Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Price Street
E -W
77 61
138
38 37
75 55%
51 52
103
37%
Wadsworth Avenue
Price Street to US 101 NB Offramp
E -W
168
136
304
360
179
540
178%
363
225
588
9%
Wadsworth Avenue
US 101 NB Offramp to Bello Street
E -W
234
26 260
457
43 500
192%
470
44 513
3%
Wadsworth Avenue
Bello Street to Lemoore Avenue
E -W
116
63 179
179
75 255
142%
200
87 288
13%
West Branch Street
Oak Park Boulevard to Camino Mercado - US 101 NB Ramps
E -W
616
791
1407
374
385 759
54%
404
361
765
1%
Windward Avenue
South of Shell Beach Road
N -S
23 20
43 0
0 0
0%
0 0
0 0%
Total:
20514
24533
45047
17543
19638 37181
83%
19697
23031
42728
15%
1ATCH MOTT MACDONALD 160

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 29B — Daily and Weekend PM Peak Hour
Segment Volumes in Greater Pismo Beach Area — Freeways
US 101
Caltrans Count
(AADT)
PM
North
Peak Hour*
South
Total
Existing
North
Model (2014)
South
Total
Percent
Existing
Buildout Model
North South
(2035)
Total
Percent
Growth
South of Oak Park Boulevard
57500
2013
3738
5750
2306
3351
5657
98%
2612
3612
6223
10%
Oak Park Boulevard to Fourth Street
62900
2202
4089
6290
2639
3862
6501
103%
3022
4086
7107
9%
Fourth Street to Price Street (South)
69400
2429
4511
6940
2804
4264
7068
102%
3236
4624
7860
11%
Price Street (South) to Price Street (North)
63100
2209
4102
6310
2137
3542
5679
90%
2484
3800
6284
11%
Price Street (North) to Mattie Road
62200
2177
4043
6220
2267
3630
5897
95%
2562
3905
6467
10%
Mattie Road to Spyglass Drive
66450
2326
4319
6645
2156
3664
5820
88%
2418
3937
6355
9%
Spyglass Drive to Avila Beach Drive
67800
2373
4407
6780
2226
3657
5883
87%
2500
3986
6486
10%
North of Avila Beach Drive
64600
2261
4199
6460
2138
3447
5586
86%
2425
3778
6202
11%
Total:
17988
33407
51395
18673
29418
48091
94%
21260
31726
52986
10%
* PM Peak Hour volumes estimated by assuming 10% of daily traffic is in PM Peak Hour and 65% of that is in SB direction HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 161

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 29C — Daily and Weekend PM Peak Hour
Segment Volumes in Greater Pismo Beach Area — Ramps
US 101
Ramp Type
Location
Caltrans
ADT
Count
PM Pk Hr*
Actual
Count
Existing
Model
Percent
Existing
Buildout
Model
Percent
Growth
NB Offramp
West Branch Street / Camino Mercado
2900=
290
332
163
49%
166
2%
NB Onramp
West Branch Street/ Camino Mercado
2500
250
227
111
49%
118
6%
NB Onramp
Oak Park Boulevard
6300
630
486
386
79%
459
19%
SB Onramp
El Camino Real
2300
230
270
32 12%
43 34%
SB Offramp
El Camino Real
1800
180
740
543
73%
517
-5%
SB Onramp
Fourth Street (South)
2100
210
245
90 37%
112
25%
NB Offramp
Fourth Street
450O 450
459
267
58%
283
6%
SB Offramp
Fourth Street (South)
6700 670
200
233
116%
272
17%
NB Onramp
Fourth Street
6300 630
435
250
57%
284
14%
NB Onramp
James Way
1600 160
193
182
94%
213
17%
SB Onramp
Five Cities Drive / Premium Outlets
1100 110
135
227
168%
155
-32%
SB Offramp
Five Cities Drive / Premium Outlets
7300
730
791
486
61%
533
10%
NB Offramp
Price Street (South)
590O 590
493
667
135%
752
13%
SB Onramp
Price Street (South)
8400 840
1068
1059
99%
1135
7%
SB Offramp
Hinds Avenue
757, 76
91 336
370%
311
-8%
NB Offramp
Wadsworth Avenue
1548 155
176
234
133%
288
23%
NB Onramp
Bello Street
1686,
169
175
364
208%
366
0%
SB Offramp
Dolliver Street (SR 1)
2070, 207
247
88 36%
105
19%
NB Offramp
Mattie Road
2567
257
258
138
53%
171
24%
SB Offramp
Price Street
810
81 109
34 31%
32 -5%
NB Onramp
Mattie Road
1282;
128
115
27 23%
27 1%
SB Onramp
Price Street (North)
1973
197
171
204
119%
195
-4%
SB Onramp
Spyglass Drive
1812 181
143
173
121%
160
-8%
NB Offramp
Spyglass Drive
1717 172
169
112
66%
123
10%
NB Onramp
Spyglass Drive
1877 188
175
182
104%
204
12%
SB Offramp
Spyglass Drive
1988
199
355
370
104%
404
9%
SB Onramp
Avila Beach Drive
2560 256
391
305
78%
319
5%
NB Offramp
Avila Beach Drive
2562 256
210
146
70%
149
2%
SB Offramp
Avila Beach Drive
975 98
132
95 72%
111
17%
NB Onramp
Avila Beach Drive
987
99 125
59 47%
74 25%
Total: 8687
9116
7563
83%
8081
7%
* PM Peak Hour volumes estimated by
assuming 10% of daily traffic is in PM Peak Hour
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 162

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY B. Summer Sunday and Memorial Day Sunday — Volume Derivation The SLOCOG model forecasts traffic volume for typical weekdays. It does not forecast traffic volumes during Sundays. Two different methods were used to forecast traffic growth during the Summer Sunday and Memorial Day Sunday analysis periods:
1) Downtown Projects — The trip generation was estimated on a Sunday for each of the anticipated development projects in the downtown area. Their trips were assigned to the downtown street system on an intersection -by -intersection basis; and
2) Tourist Growth — projected tourist activity traffic growth in the downtown area.

Appendix H includes a trip generation table documenting Sunday peak hour traffic generated by future downtown developments. This was developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' publication Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012. These trips were then distributed throughout the downtown region, using the trip distribution also depicted in Appendix H. It was assumed that none of these trips would remain within the downtown; instead, it was assumed that all of these trips would be coming from or going to destinations outside of the downtown. All visitor serving uses such as hotels and rental homes are assumed to be 100% occupied, which represents a worst case condition, but is typical of the busy summer weekends.

Future tourist growth in Downtown Pismo Beach is projected based on two sources. The first is the State of California projections for statewide population growth by county by the Year 2035. Appendix I contains those projections, along with calculations of the net percentage population growth in the five metropolitan regions of California from which most tourists to Pismo Beach are anticipated — San Francisco Bay Area, Monterey Bay Area, Central Coast, Southern California (Coastal), and the Southern Central Valley. These growth projections indicate an average population growth of about 1% per year between 2014 and 2035, or 21% total. Assuming that tourist activity in the Pismo Beach region would increase at the same rate as the statewide population growth, tourist activity would also increase by 21% between 2014 and 2035.

The conversion of the increase in tourist activity to an increase in vehicular activity was achieved in part by estimating the net increase in traffic volumes at key intersections in in the downtown during the summer season above the off-peak season. This represents the net increase in traffic in Pismo Beach during the summer season created by existing tourist activity. The percentage increase varied by intersection, but was approximately 30% for the Summer Sunday Midday peak hour and 25% for the Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hour. When applied to the 21% growth in tourist activity anticipated by the Year 2035, they equated to a 6% increase in overall vehicle traffic by the Year 2035 for the Summer Sunday Midday peak hour, and a 5% increase in overall vehicle traffic by the Year 2035 for the Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hour. These percentages were added to the forecasted traffic growth from increased development at intersections on the major roadways within the downtown that lead to the pier and beach areas.

The total increase in traffic at intersections in the downtown area during the Summer Sunday Midday and Memorial Day Sunday peak hours will range from 9% to 25% above Existing volumes over the next 20 years. For comparative purposes, Dolliver Street (SR 1) volumes have not increased over the past 35 years.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 163

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY C. Traffic Operations and Recommendations - General Plan Buildout

INTERSECTIONS WITH ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
Exhibit 30 (Pages 66-70) summarizes the levels of service at the study intersections under General Plan Buildout Conditions (i.e., Year 2035), while Exhibits 31A -B, 32, and 33 (Pages 71-74) graphically depict the levels of service at those same intersections. The level of service calculations can be found in Appendix J. Most of the study intersections continue to operate better than the City and County standard of Level of Service (LOS) "C" and the Caltrans standard of the transition between LOS C and LOS D (i.e., LOS C/D). This includes 44 of 50 intersections studied during the Weekday PM peak hour, 11 of the 21 intersections during the Summer Sunday Midday peak hour, and 11 of the 21 intersections studied under the Memorial Day Sunday Midday peak hour.

INTERSECTIONS WITH DEFICIENT OPERATIONS
Exhibit 30 (Pages 66-70) also indicates the study intersections under General Plan Buildout Conditions that would operate at a deficient level of service, as well as the recommended improvements to correct each deficiency and the resulting operations with implementation of the identified roadway improvements. The deficient intersections, their projected operations and their respective improvements are also repeated below, organized by intersection number. More information about the recommended improvements and why they are recommended is provided in the following two sections, Section 3.D — Improvements Recommended in Previous Studies (Page 75) and Section 3.E - Network Alternatives (Page 79).The following six (6) intersections will operate deficiently under the Weekday PM peak hour:

31. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet) 34 Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

35. US 101 Ramps - Price Street / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

42. Fourth Street / Five Cities Drive (Signal LOS E - Add Right Turn Overlap Phase on Eastbound Five Cities Drive and Optimize Signal Timing)

47. Camino Mercado - US 101 Northbound Ramps/ West Branch Street (Signal LOS D - Optimize Signal Timing)

48. US 101 Southbound Ramps / El Camino Real (AII-Way Stop LOS E - Install Signal) The following ten (10) intersections will operate deficiently under the Summer Sunday Midday peak hour:

14. US 101 Southbound Off -ramp - Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Price Street (AII-way stop LOS E - Install Roundabout)

16. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Wadsworth Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Eliminate Two On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Eastbound Wadsworth. Consider left turn pockets as an alternative.)

20. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Main Street (Side Street LOS F - Eliminate One On -Street Parking Space to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Westbound Main. Consider left turn pockets as an alternative. )

22. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue (Signal LOS E - Eliminate Three On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Southbound Dolliver. Consider a northbound left turn pocket as an alternative. Also consider Modifying Signal to include Pedestrian Scramble — described in Section 3.5.b — HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 164

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY General Plan Buildout Conditions - Network Alternatives — Pier Area Improvements — Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy)

25. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Hinds Avenue (Signal LOS F - Eliminate Two On -Street Parking Spaces to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Northbound Dolliver. Consider a southbound left turn pocket as an alternative.)

31. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

32. Price Street / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

34. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

35. US 101 Ramps - Price Street / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)
The following ten (10) intersections will operate deficiently under the Memorial Day Midday peak hour:

14. US 101 Southbound Off -ramp - Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Price Street (All -way stop LOS F - Install Roundabout)

20. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Main Street (Side Street LOS F - Eliminate One On -Street Parking Space to Accommodate a Right Turn Lane on Westbound Main. Consider left turn pockets as an alternative.)

22. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Pomeroy Avenue (Signal LOS E - Eliminate On -Street Parking to Accommodate Right Turn Lane on Southbound Dolliver. Consider a northbound left turn pocket as an alternative. Also consider Modifying Signal to include Pedestrian Scramble — described in Section 3.5.b — General Plan Buildout Conditions - Network Alternatives — Pier Area Improvements — Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy)

25. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Hinds Avenue (Signal LOS F - Eliminate On -Street Parking to Accommodate Right Turn Lane on Northbound Dolliver. Consider a southbound left turn pocket as an alternative.)

30. Cypress Street / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

31. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

32. Price Street / Stimson Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

34. Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)

35. US 101 Ramps - Price Street / Ocean View Avenue (Side Street LOS F - Implement Ocean View - Stimson Couplet)
Exhibit 30 (Pages 66-70) also lists the improved levels of service at the deficient intersections resulting from the implementation of the corresponding recommended improvements. In many cases, the improvements are identical to those suggested under Existing conditions (i.e., in Exhibit 21 (Pages 43-47)).

Additional considerations for intersection improvements under General Plan Buildout conditions are identical to those described under Existing Conditions on Page 36.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 165

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 30 — Intersection Levels of Service General Plan Buildout (Year 2035)

N -S E -W
Street Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Improvements)
General Plan Buildout
(Year 2035)
General Plan Buildout
With Improvements
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
1 Shell Beach
Road -
US 101
SB Ramps
Avila Beach
Drive
NB 1-UR
SB 1 -UT, 1-R
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
Two -Way Stop
(County)
C/D
Side Street

5.6 A

30.7 D

12.2 B
Roundabout
2 Monte
Road
Avila Beach
Drive -
US 101 NB
Ramps
SB 1-R
EB 1-L
WB 1-T/R
Two -Way Stop
(County)
C/D
Side Street

3.1 A

9.6 A
3 Spyglass
Drive
US 101 NB
Ramps
NB 1-L, 1-T
SB 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

9.0 A

16.7 C
4 Spyglass
Drive
US 101 SB
Ramps
NB 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T
WB 1 -LIT, 1-R
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side S/reel

5.9 A

13.3 B
5 Spyglass
Drive
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
All -Way Stop
C

16.4 C
6 Terrace
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-UR
EB 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T
All -Way Stop
C

10.5 B
7 Vista Del
Mar
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-L/R
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
All -Way Stop
C

9.9 A
8 Esparto
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-L/R
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
All -Way Stop
C

9.9 A
9 Windward
Avenue
Shell Beach
Road
NB 1-UR
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
All -Way Stop
C

10.1 B
10 Mettle
Road
US 101 NB
Ramps
NB 1 -UT
SB 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street
77 A

13.2 B
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)

8. N/A = Not Applicable. Proposed improvement combines intersections #1 and #50 into a single intersection.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 166

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 30 — Intersection Levels of Service General Plan Buildout (Year 2035 -Continued) General Plan Buildout
(Year 2035)
General Plan Buildout
With Improvements
Existing
Existing
Weekday
Summer
Memorial Day
Weekday
Summer
Memorial Day

N -S I E -W
Street Street
Lane
Configuration
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday Mid
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday Mid
Proposed Improvements)
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
11 US 101 SB
On -ramp
Price
Street
EB 1 -UT
WB 1-T/R
None
C
Side Street

0.0 0.0
A
A
12 Mattie
Road
Price
Street
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1 -UT
Signal
C

6.9 A
WB 1-T/R
13 US 101 SB
Off -ramp
Price
Street
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1-T
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

2.4 12.4
A
B
WB 1-T
14 US 101 SB
Off -ramp -
Price
Street
NB 1-L, 1-R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
All -Way Stop
C/D

16.8 C

49.8 E

58.7 F

8.9 A

17.3 C

24.4 C
Roundabout
Dolliver
EB 1-T/R
Street (SR 1)
WB 1 -UT
15 US 101 NB
On -ramp-
Bay
Street
NB 1-UT/R
EB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
CID
Side Street

0.3 9.7
A
A
Bello
WB 1-UT/R
Street
16 Dolliser
Street
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

2.8 18.1
A
C

5.3 56.4
A
F

5.0 38.5
A
E

2.7 17.2
A
C

4.7 50.1
A
F

43.0 31.5
E
O
Eliminate 2 On -Street Parking Spaces
to Accommodate Right Turn Lane on
(SR 1)
EB 1-L/T/R
Eastbound
WB 1-UT/R
Wadsworth
17 Price
Street
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

10.2 B

13.5 B

16.4 C
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
18 US 101 NB
Off -ramp
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1-T
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

5.4 10.3
A
B

3.2 12.0
A
B
32 12.2
A
B
WB 1-T
19 Bello
Street
Wadsworth
Avenue
NB 1-L/T/R
SB 1-UT/R
All -Way Stop
C

8.9 A
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
20 Dolliver
Street
Main
Street
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

1.8 17.9
A
C

40.0 *
E
F

85.7 F
F

1.7 17.2
A
C

17.9 145.9
C
F

37.7 284.4
E
F
Eliminate 1 On -Street Parking Space
to Accommodate Right Turn Lane on
(SR 1)
EB 1-UT/R
Westbound Main
WB 1-UT/R
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)

8. N/A = Not Applicable. Proposed improvement combines intersections #1 and #50 into a single intersection.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 167

N -S E -W
Street Street
Lane
Configuration
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday MA
PM Peak Hr
Sunday Mid
Sunday MA
Proposed Improvement(s)
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
21 Cypress
Street
Pomeroy
Avenue
WB 1-L/T/R
One -Way Stop
C
Side Street

17.7 17.9
C
C
F
F
F
F

4.6 A

4.5 A

4.5 A
Signal with Pedestrian Scramble
22 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Pomeroy
Avenue
NB 1 -UT
SB 1-TIR
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C/D

17.1 B
106.4
F
287.9
F

16.4 B

40.9 D

76.6 E
Eliminate On -Street Parking to
Accommodate Right Turn Lane
on Southbound Dolliver
25 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Hinds
Avenue
NB 1-T/R
SB 1 -UT
EB 1 -UT, 1-T/R
Signal
C/D

5.9 A

81.3 F
177.9
F

5.8 A

47.0 D

38.4 D
Eliminate On -Street Parking to
Accommodate Right Turn Lane
on Northbound Dolliver

1. Review signal timing to minimize
26 Price
Hinds
NB 1-T, 1-T/R
Signal
C

18.1 B

16.8 B

18.8 B

18.1 B

16.8 B

18.8 B
SB Hinds queue
Street
Avenue
SB 1 -UT, 1-T
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-L/R

2. Consider widening Hinds bridge
over US 101 to mitigate SB Hinds
queue
27 US 101 SB
Off -ramp
Hinds
Avenue
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1-T
One -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

1.4 17.6
A
C

1.5 11.3
A
B

2.0 11.9
A
B
WB 2-T
28 Bello
Street
Price
Canyon
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-L/T/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

2.1 46.9
A
E

4.4 23.4
A
C

5.3 24.2
A
C
Road
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
29 Lemoore
Avenue
Price
Canyon
NB 1-L, 1-T
SB 1-T/R
One -Way Stop
C
Side Street

0.3 19.0
A
C
Road
EB 1-UR
30 Cypress
Street
Stimson
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

6.4 10.6
A
B

21.7 34.6
C
D

31.1 55.1
0 F

7.8 A

9.2 A

9.9 A
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet and All -Way Stop Control
EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-UT/R
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)

8. N/A = Not Applicable. Proposed improvement combines intersections #1 and #50 into a single intersection.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 168

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 30 — Intersection Levels of Service General Plan Buildout (Year 2035 -Continued)

N -S E -W
Street Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Incprovements)
General Plan Buildout
(Year 2035)
General Plan Buildout
With Improvements
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
Delay
(sec)
LOS
31 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Stimson
Avenue
NB 1-L/T/R
SB 1-L/T/R
EB 1-1./T/R
WB 1-L/T/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

8.2 60.4
A
F

16.9 129.5
C
F

27.6 194.4
D
F

9.2 A

9.7 A

10.5 B
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet and Signal
32 Price
Street
Stimson
Avenue
NB1-UT/R
SB 1 -UT, 1-T/R
EB 1 -UT, 1-R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

1.5 37.4
A
E

7.9 117.3
A
F

9.2 155.6
A
F

1.3 10.1
A
B

1.1 25.8
A
D

1.3 11.0
A
B
Implement Ocean View -Stimson
Couplet
33 Cypress
Street
Ocean View
Avenue
NB 1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C
Side Street

4.3 10.1
A
B

7.3 12.6
A
B

7.2 16.0
A
C

3.6 10.4
A
B

5.3 14.0
A
B

6.3 15.9
A
C
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet
34 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Ocean View
Avenue
NB1-UT/R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street

32.7 175.6
D
F

50.6 F
F

82.9 F
F

1.4 22.9
A
C

1.8 29.6
A
D

2.7 28.2
A
D
Implement Ocean View -Stimson
Couplet
35 US 101
Ramps -
Price
Street
Ocean View
Avenue
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1 -UT, 1-R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
CID
Side Street
42 55.5
A
F

22.4 147.5
C
F

19.7 174.3
C
F

2.5 25.7
A
D

14.1 67.6
B
F

10.9 64.1
B
F
Implement Ocean View - Stimson
Couplet and Price Street Restriping
36 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Cypress
Street -
Holiday
RV Park Ent.

NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-L/T/R
WB 1-UT/R
Two -Way Stop
C/D
Side Street
13 14.7
A
B

2.1 21.5
A
C

2.5 17.9
A
C
37 Dolliver
Street
(SR 1)
Pismo Beach
Senior MHP -
Pismo Coast
Village
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-UT/R
Signal
C/D

8.3 A

12.9 B

11.1 B
38 US 101 NB
On -ramp
James
Way
EB 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T
None
C/D
Side Street
00 0.0
A
A
39 Fourth
Street-
Paseo Ladem
Lane
James
Way
NB 1 -UT, 1-R
SB 1-UT/R
EB 1 -UT, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-TIR
All -Way Stop
C

10.6 B
40 Fourth
Street
US 101 NB
Ramps
NB 2-L, 2-T
SB 1-T, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C/D

15.1 B
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)

8. N/A = Not Applicable. Proposed improvement combines intersections #1 and #50 into a single intersection.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 169

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 30 — Intersection Levels of Service General Plan Buildout (Year 2035 -Continued)

N -S E -W
Street Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Improvements)
General Plan Buildout
(Year 2035)
General
With
Plan Buildout
Improvements
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Summer
Sunday Mid
Memorial Day
Sunday Mid
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
Delay LOS
(sec)
41 US 101 SB
Ramps -
Outlets
Main Entrance
Five Cities
Drive
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1 -LIT, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
Signal
CID

29.2 C.
42 Fourth
Street
Five Cities
Drive
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C

61.3 E

34.5 C
Add Right Turn Overlap Phase on
Eastbound Five Cities Drive and
Optimize Signal Timing
43 US 101 SB
Ramps -
Hotel
Driveway
Five Cities
Drive -
El Camino
Real
NB 1-LTT/R
SB 1 -UT, 1-R
EB 1-UT/R
WB 1-L/T/R
All -Way Stop
C/D

21.7 C
'
44 Ridge
Road
James
Way
SB 1-UR
EB 1-L, 1-T
WB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
C

9.3 A
45 Oak Park
Boulevard
James
Way
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
C

34.9 C
46 Oak Park
Boulevard
US 101 NB
On -ramp -
West Branch
Street
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1 -LIT, 1-R
Signal
C

14.8 B

27.6 C
Revise NS Oak Park Blvd.

Protected/Pemissive Left Turn
Phasing to Protected Only
47 Camino
Mercado-
US 101 NB
Ramps
West
Branch
Street
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T
Signal
(Arroyo Grande)
CID

41.0 D

34.9 C
Optimize Signal Timing
48 US 101 SB
Ramps
El Camino
Real
SB 1-L, 1-UR
EB 1 -UT
WB 1-T/R
All -Way Stop
(Grover Beach)
CID

43.6 E

12.9 B
Signal
49 Oak Park
Boulevard
El Camino
Real
NB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 2-T, 1-R
EB 1-L, 1 -LIT, 1-R
WB 1-L, 1-T/R
Signal
(Arroyo Grande)
C

29.7 C

33.9 C
Revise NS Oak Park Blvd.

Protected/Pemissive Left Turn
Phasing to Protected Only
50 US 101 SB
On -ramp
Atila Beach
Drive
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
None
(County)
C/D
Side Street

0.0 A

0.0 A
N/A
Consolidate with Intersection #1
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

6. Worst approach level of service standard is generally LOS E. Level of service "F" is the level of service at which improvements would be required.

7. * = Delay is over 300 seconds (5 minutes)

8. N/A = Not Applicable. Proposed improvement combines intersections #1 and #50 into a single intersection.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 170

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 31A — Intersection Operations General Plan Buildout Weekday PM Peak Hour LEGEND
LEGEND

LEMOORE AVE

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES

OVERALL OPERATIONS
cb,..,

SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" AND "E")
■ DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "F")

PRICE ST
4 to
z

DOLLIVER ST

CYPRESS ST
ach
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 171

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 31B — Intersection Operations General Plan Buildout Weekday PM Peak Hour (Continued) PISMO

MEDICAL
CENTER

T JAMES WAY
[]FF-RAMP
5 CITIES DR

PISMO BEACH

PREMIUM

OUTLETS
LEGEND

OVERALL OPERATIONS
la- SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS

DEFICIENT OPERATIONS
(LEVEL OF SERVICE
"D" AND "E")

DEFICIENT OPERATIONS
(LEVEL OF SERVICE
US 11O1

ON -RAMP

PISMO COAST

SHOPPING
PLAZA
Grt
ON.RANIP
Ym
0 PACIFIC WEST

SHOPPING
CENTER
ci

13. OXFORD
SUITES
(HOTEL)
0 0 0
Z
as
2 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 172

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 32 — Intersection Operations General Plan Buildout Summer Sunday Midday Peak Hour

LEMOORE AVE
F
4 9
e;
O ui
_
4 S
(M
III Ill
0 =
IF
0 d,
Z
0 CI
>. a If
12 U f
I'
4 o
to
la
4 W
IN.T IS.

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
0 r
_
00 >-
W
et
o
l-
Z
W
G
O.
0 PRICE ST
Q
W
Z
la
}
U
d
0 4 M
Q
O
---"----'--,0
1JJa
°oZ
I -
LEGEND
C YPRE Sg sr
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES

DOLLIVER ST

I-
W
0 0
Q
GIs
IA
a

OVERALL OPERATIONS
i
®,.., ,— SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE- AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" AND "E")
"F")

CYPRESS ST
CO
4 0l'in
I.
a
0 5

DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE
1 r
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 173

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 33 — Intersection Operations General Plan Buildout Memorial Day Sunday Midday Peak Hour ir
LEGEND

OVERALL OPERATIONS
( 1),,,_.

SIDE -STREET OPERATIONS
(ONE. AND TWO-WAY

STOP CONTROL ONLY)
CypESS Sp

LEMOORE AVE

BELLO ST
EL CAMINO REAL (US 101)
W
4 0
2 U)
PISMO
SHORES

ESTATES

ACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS (LEVEL OF SERVICE "D" AND "E")
DEFICIENT OPERATIONS(LEVEL OF SERVICE "F")
I -
U)
z
4 2
•

PRICE ST
w
4 U)
Z
•

DOLLIVER ST

CYPRESS ST
too
to 4
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 174

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY D. Improvements Recommended in Previous Studies
A roundabout was recommended at the intersection of the US 101 Southbound Off -ramp — Dolliver Street (SR 1) and Price Street intersection (Intersection No. 14) in the Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan. It is depicted on Exhibit 34 (Page 77). As indicated in the level of service summary table on Exhibit 30 (Pages 66-70), a one -lane roundabout can successfully accommodate Year 2035 traffic demand at Level of Service C.

Caltrans has proposed adding a new southbound on -ramp to US 101 at this intersection. Exhibit 35 (Page 78) illustrates how it would connect into the roundabout. It is anticipated that this ramp could be added to the proposed roundabout without requiring major modifications to the physical layout of the roundabout.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 175

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 176

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 34 — Dolliver St. (SRI) / Price St. Roundabout
smierwiaisionew
was:. lip
N ! r

GATES REIF
MT%
Source: "Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan", Gates + Associates, March 2013, p77 LEGEND
ta.ASS I MULTI -US E T RAJ L

LASS II HIKE LANES
Ei' SEPAfATED BIKE LANE
CLASS III SHARED {dI KE ROUTES
MEDIAN! TURN LANES (!I' -f6')

E PAWN ON DELI
LANDSCAPE AREA (4')
ci vi{Y Pi!1G 0.M21. uctripaiJA
+3onriE SETS PLAN
occur ER STREET/PRICE STREET ROUNDABOUT
5u •
18 5
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 177

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 35 — Dolliver St. (SRI) / Price St. Roundabout with Future US 101 SB Onramp •
J µ
6 �L
r
4 — _ BEL _ " - .w,� I r� ..
-- .-. -
! i / is E r 7., t •E I F f : 1 ^; i.+ ....-.,,�..k - — Y'. ,,...�,. 'l..'�.y�"" _ •. '{r S ]
t. 1e iv #� r;ti ,F
n. a r; i� a F^ ° E—
` -- : �.r„
- .-' �•: _
I F FI IL, Fri
.R Li
a
•
e-
' i S
!« �.,. m �,� ^.,_.- ,�,.rn,a.r„vu.w.ualau.wx,..u«, �nrr.m,+hnlx. ._-_.,.—•.,, .. � �� _:_. ... C _"-^.an_�h'LwannlRamnryiiR-: I. T9,.. q `++• ,w. _.,., ~�- Y_... .....T..s, . .. .�-- n�+y,w,-y •,-�,� ,aen,4rettne. etsaa^,WMxc.�:in+,w E. Y E • ��. - �,..—_..,. �.� �,...-v,. o.._ �..._,. ....r -., ss.�.. �,. ,��. ; R.
0 L11 D 4 BU T ,,,,.. _ �... __..,, , , fi- . .� r
r y
�'yeevl.y'--�. rt .^' _ti..... . ....,...... . . ......._ . '•_- ..-....n S �.f' -.,...�_`LM.71 ;�1: .-?f,!IYriQ ..es,,...��.s r• a Gl�z]f�-eN�.r.- .. _.-•, _'.i1 m. L14E...._ .�� - e..... . _,.....,. .....,"_ .�.�._ f,i^.� '�.�5... �vsyi•.a ::Y�5_I�dl - F 1 S.: u.° - - A �1 - r ..1..12x. - `__. .. �. .`--.�. ,t- �� ...._. _ ,., •...�'-'. R #G e.. �Ef •^ , ��-_ ® �. rte ,, ,�� -
4'w
•....,.�.+r.+.�• �.._... r.��,"-"�� ,.^-^�-.,.��.--. �..�� .�.-.�.—_ � - 'Y°�s `hs`ti4Yu4'FIYIC-.: _ Ylrie¢,:#Na:-see�...�m�.._ _-._ �_.r i _1 ' Mem
acid - a
Alob
7NI,kS#X3 HilVM aHR _C13MTSd ltr'f4+EL 'Pt1'k13.+ ]100
080'St,.02 j 'IS 3' d
Nib
1 dmr 0A3Tkf1sy Iilixr
it
•
POSSIBLE ,-FUTURE. Ll ° B
.-PART OF' PRICE 7 T IL' i x
' f
F
Sources:

1. Roundabout Layout- "Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan", Gates + Associates, March 2013, p77

2. Future Southbound On -Ramp — "Price Street Extension Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment", Caltrans, September 2004 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 178

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY E. Network Alternatives
In addition to the existing street network, which was considered the base condition, various major network alternatives (i.e., changes to the Pismo Beach street network such as new streets, conversions to one way streets or street realignments) were also evaluated for Year 2035 conditions. This study evaluates their effectiveness in improving operations at the study intersections or achieving other network enhancements. They are in addition to the intersection improvements described in Section 3.C — Traffic Operations and Recommendations — General Plan Buildout. They are listed below and separately described in the following pages. 1) Price Street Extension;
2) Frady Lane Improvements
3) Mattie Road Extension.

The citywide model was used to forecast traffic with these network alternatives. The forecast volumes are included in Appendix E.

A number of downtown -specific network alternatives were also evaluated. They include:
4) Stimson / Ocean View Couplet and Downtown Price Street Modifications; 5) Pier Area Improvements
a. Cypress Street/Pomeroy Avenue Pedestrian Scramble Traffic Signal and b. Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy Signal Modification to Pedestrian Scramble c. Dolliver Street Left Turn Pockets
d. Restrict Motorized Vehicles on the Cypress Street Bridge e. Cypress Street Bike Boulevard;
f. Addie / Park Avenue Couplet; and
g. Restrict Motorized Vehicles on Pomeroy Avenue South of Cypress 6) Other downtown network modifications were also considered. They include:
a. Reverse One -Way on Pomeroy and Hinds;
b. Dolliver / Price Couplet; and
c. Dolliver / Bello Couplet.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 179

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY 1) Price Street Extension
The Price Street Extension would extend Price Street eastward across Pismo Creek to connect to Five Cities Drive. In 2004, Caltrans prepared an environmental evaluation of the potential design options for this improvement (Price Street Extension Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/ Environmental Assessment), based on the James Way/Price Street Frontage Road Project Study Report, March 1998. The recommended option had the following four components:

1. Extend Price Street over Pismo Creek and over the Union Pacific Railroad to connect with Five Cities Drive. This would be a two-lane road with 6 -foot shoulders on each side (suitable for use by bicycle traffic) and a 5 -foot sidewalk along the ocean -side of the street.

2. Closure of the existing southbound US 101 on -ramp from southbound Price Street.

3. Closure of the existing southbound US 101 off -ramp at Hinds Avenue.

4. Addition of a new southbound US 101 on -ramp at the Price / Southbound US 101 Off -Ramp — Dolliver intersection.

A schematic layout of this improvement is included as Exhibit 36 (Page 81). This exhibit also illustrates four other alternative alignments analyzed in the 1998 Project Study Report (PSR) for either the Price Street Extension or James Way Extension. The following is a list of the five alternatives.

1. Alternative 1— James Way Extension to Bello Street

2. Alternative 2 — James Way Extension to Hinds Avenue

3. Alternative 3 — James Way Extension to Price Street

4. Alternative 4 — Northbound James Way to Price Street; Southbound Price Street to Five Cities Drive

5. Alternative 5 — Price Street Extension to Five Cities Drive (Caltrans Preferred Alternative and the recommended alignment described above and analyzed below).

Year 2035 citywide model volume projections for Alternative 5 is included in Appendix K. The projected traffic diversions are displayed in Exhibit 37 (Page 82). Total traffic volumes on the Price Street extension are anticipated to be almost 1,100 vehicles in the southbound direction and about 190 vehicles in the northbound direction. Most of this traffic is taken off of US 101 between the Price Street and Fourth Street interchanges. About 140 of the 190 vehicles in the northbound direction would be diverted from that section of freeway. About 1,150 vehicles would be diverted from US 101 in the southbound direction.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 180

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 36 — Price Street / James Way Extension Alternatives ?MCC ST
Source of Alternatives: "James Way/Price Street Frontage Road Project Study Report", March 1998 and "Price Street Extension Initial Study with Proposed Mitigation Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment", September 2004. �r-
LEGEND
ALTERNATE I 11 - :JAMES WAY EXTENSION TO BELLO STREET
ALTERNATE 2 - JAMES WAY EXTENSION TO MINDS AVENUE
ALTERNATE 3 ' - JAMES WAY EXTENSION TO PRICE STREET
ALTERNATE 4 - ND JAMIES WAY TO PRICE STREET; SD PRICE STREET TO 5 CITIES DIVE ALTERNATE 5 - PRICE STREET EXTENSION TO S CITIES DRIVE (CALTRANS PREFERRED) HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 181

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 37 — Projected Traffic Diversions with Price Street Extension (Year 2035 — PM Peak Hour) •
a
LEGEND
„, 50
-14
+1,100
+1,020
+X INCREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR)
-XX DECREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR)

JAMES WAY
+1,020
+0
+6
6 PISMO BEACH

PREMIUM

OUTLETS
0 +50
255 PISMO COAST

SHOPPING
PLAZA
+ass
O
OO
0+
OPp,
+0
+60
OXFORD
SUITES
{HOTEL)
+35
N.T.S.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 182

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 38 — US 101 SB Ramps — Outlets Main Entrance
Intersection Level of Service — General Plan Buildout
Weekday PM Peak Hour — With Price Street Extension
N -S
Street
E -W
Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed Improvement(s)
General Plan
(Year 2035)
General Plan
With Imprvmnts.

Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
(sec)
(sec)
41 US 101 SB
Ramps -
Outlets
Main Entrance
Five Cities
Drive
NB 1-L, 1-T/R
SB 1-L, 1 -UT, 1-T/R
EB 1-L, 1-T, 1-T/R
WB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
Signal
C/D
256.0
F

38.6 D
Add 2nd WB L, 2nd EB L,
Change E/W Left Turn Phasing to
Protected Phasing,
Lag WB L Phase behnd EB T Phase,
Accept LOS D as Standard
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C.

The Price Street Extension would improve southbound freeway operations with the substantial diversion of traffic from US 101. However, it will have an impact that was not addressed in either the 1998 or 2004 Caltrans reports — the diversion of commute traffic on Price Canyon Road that currently uses Hinds Avenue and Price Street to access southbound US 101. With the removal of the southbound US 101 on -ramp at Price Street, this traffic would proceed westward to the Five Cities Drive southbound US 101 on -ramp. In the weekday PM peak hour, almost 1,100 vehicles in the southbound direction and about 190 vehicles in the northbound direction will be added to Five Cities Drive west of the US 101 Ramps / Pismo Beach Premium Outlets intersection. The SLOCOG model projects that an additional 550 vehicles during the weekday PM peak hour will enter US 101 at the Five Cities Drive southbound on -ramp. As noted on Exhibit 38 (above), this increase in hourly traffic would overwhelm the existing westbound Five Cities Drive left turn lane onto southbound US 101, resulting in an F level of service. This left turn movement would need two lanes to accommodate this level of traffic, which in turn would require widening of the southbound US 101 on -ramp. A conceptual design of these improvements is shown in Exhibit 39 (Page 85).

Even with this improvement, it may not be possible to achieve acceptable operations at this intersection, with a mitigated level of service "D" during the weekday evening peak hour.

The Caltrans report also did not finalize the design of the merge between the Price Street extension and the existing northbound US 101 off -ramp to Price Street, nor did it finalize the necessary lane configuration along Price Street between Hinds and Ocean View Avenues. The merge between the northbound Price Street extension and the northbound US 101 off -ramp will need to continue along Price Street between Stimson and Ocean View Avenues, to for proper merge length between through lanes. A left turn lane at Ocean View Avenue is thus not recommended, as it would encourage off -ramp traffic to immediately weave directly across Price Street and into the left turn lane that would start only a few feet away from the merge point. This maneuver would not be expected by traffic on the Price Street extension and could result in undesirable safety consequences. The Stimson / Ocean View couplet would also be indispensable to mitigate the short weaving operational problems (see below for more on the Stimson / Ocean View couplet).

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 183

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY The Price Street Extension includes the addition of a southbound US 101 on -ramp at the Price Street/ Southbound US 101 Off -Ramp — Dolliver Street (SR 1) intersection. This ramp is expected to only attract a few of the commuters using Price Canyon Road, because accessing an on -ramp at that location would require Price Canyon Road traffic to travel too far out of their way. It would also have a limited attraction from within the downtown area. It is forecasted to attract a total about 110 vehicles during the PM peak hour.

The addition of the US 101 southbound on -ramp at Dolliver Street - Price Street intersection would require the closure of the southbound US 101 off -ramp to Hinds Avenue. This ramp only carries about 90 vehicles in the PM peak hour. However, its closure would also have unintended consequences. It is the primary route for trucks servicing the oil fields along Price Canyon Road north of Pismo Beach. With its closure, those trucks would be forced to travel through the downtown, presumably on Price Street. It is recommended that if the Hinds Avenue off -ramp is closed in the future, that the City of Pismo Beach prohibit through trucks on Price Street, forcing trucks to use Dolliver Street (SR 1) and Hinds Avenue to access Price Canyon Road, which is also through downtown Pismo Beach.

Two other design options for the Price Street extension would be an extension of James Way, the frontage road on the inland side of US 101. The James Way extension options evaluated in the 2004 Caltrans report were:
i. James Way Extension to Hinds Avenue — This improvement would extend James Way westward along the freeway to Hinds Avenue. It is designated Alternative 2 in the 1998 PSR and on Exhibit 33 (page 74). Five Cities Drive would be rerouted underneath the James Way extension and looped back to James Way near Highland Drive. This option was originally proposed prior to the development of the Pismo Beach Medical Center at the current western end of James Way. The Five Cities Drive loop would now require a larger loop that around the perimeter of that development. Also, the western end of the James Way extension and the northern end of the Five Cities Drive Loop would both be located very close to the Highland Drive intersection. Adequate left turn lane storage may not be able to be provided along this section of James Way.

The effect of the James Way extension on traffic patterns would primarily be regional in nature. Year 2035 citywide model volume projections for this alternative can be found in Appendix K, and the projected traffic diversions are displayed in Exhibit 40 (Page 86). The James Way extension would carry about 70 vehicles in the northbound direction and 350 vehicles in the southbound direction. This diversion would be from both commuters along Price Canyon Road and traffic from within the downtown area, some of which would be diverted from the US 101 southbound on- and northbound off -ramp at Price Street.

Diversions would also occur from the southbound Five Cities Drive off -ramp. ii. James Way Extension to Price Street — This improvement would extend James Way to Price Street on the alignment of the northbound US 101 off -ramp to Price Street. The existing northbound US 101 off -ramp to Price Street would be removed. It is designated Alternative 4 in the PSR and Exhibit 33 (page 74). The primary negative aspect of this improvement would be that it would remove the primary access into the downtown from northbound US 101. During the weekday PM peak hour, approximately 500 vehicles would be forced to divert to either the Wadsworth Avenue or Fourth Street off -ramps to access downtown Pismo Beach.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 184

Exhibit 39 — Five Cities Drive / US101 SB Ramps — Outlets Main Entrance Improvements with Price Street Extension

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 40 — Projected Traffic Diversions with James Way Extension (Year 2013- PM Peak Hour) LEGEND

PISMO BEACH

PREMIUM

OUTLETS

INCREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR)
-XX DECREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR)

PISMO COAST

SHOPPING
PLAZA
N.T.S.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 186

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY 2) Frady Lane Improvements
The Frady Lane Improvement would realign Frady Lane near the Pismo Beach Sports Complex. Exhibit 41 (Page 89) depicts a conceptual design of this improvement. Currently, it meanders between the existing baseball fields, bisecting the Sports Complex. The proposed alignment would be much straighter and be located between the baseball fields and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The proposed improvement would provide better pedestrian connectivity between the baseball fields and provide additional onsite parking spaces.

A vehicular bridge over Pismo Creek between Frady Lane and Bello Street is currently being designed that will connect the Sports Complex and Frady lane to Price Canyon Road and the northern area of Pismo Beach. This would provide a secondary access into the Pismo Beach Sports Complex. This improvement would replace the existing bridge that has been closed to vehicular traffic since 1983. It would also improve emergency response times to the sports complex and mobile home parks south of US 101 for police and fire services. It also would improve public works corporation yard access to northern parts of the City and PG&E access to the southern part of the City. Finally, it would serve as an alternate route during incidents involving closure of parallel routes including crossings of Pismo Creek.

Exhibit 42 (Page 90) depicts the projected traffic diversions in the Year 2035 due to the Frady Lane Realignment, including the proposed vehicle bridge, as projected by the citywide model. The projections show that there would be minimal diversion of through traffic onto the Frady Lane corridor. Rather, most of the diversion that would occur will be sports complex traffic from Frady Lane to the new Bello Street access, with a total of 15 trips in and 10 trips out during the PM peak hour. This level of traffic diversion is not anticipated to result in any noticeable effect on the operations of the study network. Midday traffic redistribution will also occur from the City corporation yard and PG&E, although not substantial enough to affect traffic operations elsewhere in the City.

Finally, as illustrated on Exhibit 41 (Page 89), a relatively straightforward method can be implemented to provide a pedestrian and bicycle connection between the downtown, the Pismo Beach Sports Complex, and the eastern portion of Pismo Beach. This improvement would include two connections to the existing pedestrian/bicycle path adjacent to US 101 between Price Street and Five Cities Drive. One connection would be a pedestrian/bicycle ramp connecting the path to Frady Lane, with a new sidewalk along Frady Lane between this ramp and the Pismo Beach Sports Complex. The second would be a stairwell connecting the path to Five Cities Drive.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 187

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 188

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 41— Frady Lane Improvements

RECOMMENDED RAMP FROM BIKE/

PEDESTRIAN PATH TO FRADY LANE
1,11Z 1"ieS
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 89

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 42 — Projected Traffic Diversions with Frady Lane Realignment and Mattie Road Extension (Year 2035 — PM Peak Hour) +XX INCREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR)
-XX DECREASE IN PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 190

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY 3) Mattie Road Extension
The Mattie Road Extension would connect Mattie Road eastward to Bello Street along the northern frontage of US 101. The potential alignment would route it through the southern end of the adjacent Pismo Preserve. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo has indicated it will permit this connection.

A conceptual plan and profile as well as typical cross sections of this extension as a two lane road are included on Exhibits 43A -C (Pages 93-95). The existing topography in this area will make establishing this connection rather expensive due to the need for extensive grading and retaining walls along the route.

Therefore, to minimize the expense of constructing this roadway, the improvement may require the complete removal of the existing northbound US 101 on -ramp at Bello Street and the existing northbound US 101 off -ramp at Shell Beach Road / Mattie Road. This will impact the ability to access northbound US 101 from the downtown and Mattie Road from northbound US 101, unless replacement ramps are included.

The projected traffic diversions associated with the Mattie Road extension are also depicted in Exhibit 42 (Page 90). About 100 PM peak hour vehicles are projected on Mattie Road. In the southbound direction on the Mattie Road extension, only 15 PM peak hour vehicles are projected, all attracted from the Price Street corridor. The closure of the northbound US 101 northbound on -ramp at Bello Street and off -ramp at Mattie Road would shift traffic onto Price and Dolliver (SR 1) Streets and away from Bello Street and the Mattie Road extension. South of the existing Mattie Road interchange, Price Street would experience an additional 390 vehicles in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour, more than doubling the current traffic at this location due to the ramp closure.

Exhibit 44 (Page 97) tabulates the levels of service at key study intersections with the Mattie Road extension. Despite the potential diversion of traffic onto Price Street, no additional improvements would be required at the study intersections beyond those already required under either Existing or General Plan Buildout conditions.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 191

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 192

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 43A — Mattie Road Extension Conceptual Plan/Profile 196
188
180
172
164
156
148
140
132
124
116--
108
100
196
—

MATTIE ROAD EXTENSION ROAD SURFACE
188

1.2%
.57%
— __

2.8% 1.1
`.
180
172
—
— 5%
_
------ 3.>%
11=14
,f,'
— xr
158
— —
_
—EXISTING

EXISTING GRADE

MATTIE ROAD
e,1

BELLO STREET
148
_ 140
°--
e
12,75% 132
124
116
108
-
100
O a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O 0 O O O C] 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
0 N £- 4O CO O N CO 0D O N [Q CO O N -t I O
r r ( N (N NI ND NI ND N nt
O O
O ©
+ +
N
'r
O
O
+
CO

PROFILE
�._.

EXISTING MATTIE ROAD
LDS
REST ;.
--- ----__ �"
RAMP
=_=_ -�_:.�
101

-__

NORTHBOUND
-� N MATTIE OFF
- -----
- --
= -
�= - ---
-----

US HIGHWAY
_.

PRICE
STREET �� (
LANE FROM -� RELOCATE
ROAD HOOK � BELLCI STREET

EXISTING NB NEW HOOK
OFF RAMP r ,4

MATTIE ROAD
- .,

ADD AUXILIARY

NEW NB MATTIE

RAMP TO
�' MATTIE ROAD
—
a D

ON RAMP TO -

RAMP FROM

EXTENSION
-
, -.
_« -..1.
_ .
i

PLAN
NOTE: MATTIE ROAD EXTENSION

AND NORTHBOUND HOOK RAMP

ALIGNMENTS MUST

ACCOMMODATE FUTURE WIDENING
OF US 141 TO SIX LANES
HORIZONTAL 1"-150'
YH i
VERTICAL 1"=21O'
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 193

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 43B — Mattie Road Extension Conceptual Cross Sections STA 5+00 to STA 20+0 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 194

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 43C— Mattie Road Extension Conceptual Cross Sections STA 25+00 to STA 40+00 HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 195

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 196

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 44 — Mattie Road Area Intersection Levels of Service — General Plan Buildout Weekday PM Peak Hour — With Mattie Road Extension
N -S
Street
E -W
Street
Existing
Lane
Configuration
Existing
Intersection
Control
LOS
Standard
Proposed
Improvement(s)
General Plan Buildout
Without Mattie
No Imprvmnts.
(Year 2035)
Rd. Extension
With Imprvmnts
General Plan Bu
With Mattie Rd.

No Imprvmnts
Idout (Year 2035)
Extension
With Imprvmnts
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Weekday
PM Peak Hr
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
(sec)
12 Mattie
Road
Price
Street
SB 1-L, 1-R
EB 1 -UT
WB 1-T/R
Signal
C

6.9 A

9.3 A
14 US 101 SB
Off -ramp -
Dolliver
Street (SR 1)
Price
Street
NB 1-L, 1-R
SB 1-L, 1-T, 1-R
EB 1-T/R
WB 1 -UT
All -Way Stop
C/D

16.8 C

8.9 A

48.8 E

13.0 B
Roundabout
Notes:

1. L, T, R = Left, Through, Right.

2. NB, SB, EB, WB = Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound.

3. Analysis performed using 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies.

4. Overall level of service standard for Caltrans is the transition between LOS C and D.

5. Overall level of service standard for the City of Pismo Beach and County of San Luis Obispo is LOS C. 4) Stimson / Ocean View Couplet and Downtown Price Street Modifications The Stimson Avenue/Ocean View Avenue Couplet would convert Stimson and Ocean View Avenues into one-way streets between Dolliver (SR 1) and Price Streets. Ocean View Avenue would be one-way eastbound and Stimson Avenue would be one-way westbound. Currently, both streets are two-way streets. The project would also add a two-way bicycle facility along Ocean View Avenue between Dolliver (SR 1) and Price Streets. Exhibits 45A and 45B (Pages 99 and 100, respectively) depict this improvement.

Exhibit 45A (Page 99) includes associated channelization modifications along Price Street through lanes through the Ocean View Avenue intersection. Exhibit 45B (Page 100) provides a single southbound through lane from Hinds Avenue, requiring the elimination of westbound left turns from the outside lane (currently and optional left/right lane) on the Price Canyon Road approach.

Exhibit 45A (Page 99) shows the extension of two eastbound lanes on Price Street from Stimson Avenue, where they currently transition into a single lane, to Ocean View Avenue. This will provide additional capacity at the Price Street/Stimson Avenue intersection. It will also improve lane utilization on southbound Price Canyon Road at Price Street, which currently experiences long queues during the evening peak period. It will also include a northbound Price Street left turn lane at Stimson Avenue.

However, two parking spaces would be lost on the Price Street frontage of the Pismo Food Store as well as three spaces on the east side of Price Street, north of Stimson. A bike lane also would be provided from Hinds Avenue to Ocean View Avenue.

Exhibit 45B (Page 100) shows the provision of a single through lane on southbound Price Street. This has the advantage of preserving on -street parking with ample room for a protected bike lane (cycle track) and northbound Price Street left turn lane at Stimson Avenue. The disadvantage is that it will reduce the capacity of the Price Street/Price Canyon Road -Hinds Avenue intersections, especially for westbound Price Canyon Road. Queues already are long for the westbound to southbound left turn movement with two lanes available for left turns.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 197

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY The City will need to determine which alternative is the most beneficial. Additional detailed design alternatives also need to be explored, which would require a more detailed alternatives analysis.

The following are features common to both alternatives.

1. The left turn lane on Price Street at Ocean View Avenue is currently only about 40 feet long. This is not enough storage to accommodate current demand (including recreational vehicles), and the geometrics of the upstream northbound off -ramp preclude the lengthening of the left turn lane. By changing Stimson and Ocean View Avenues into a one-way couplet, left turns can be provided at Stimson Avenue (instead of Ocean View Avenue), which can better accommodate a longer left turn lane. This improvement also works well with the proposed Price Street extension (as noted previously). Exhibits 21 and 30 (Pages 43-47 and 66-70) depict operations under Existing and General Plan Buildout with the Stimson / Ocean View couplet in place.

2. The Stimson / Ocean View couplet also eliminates one other potential roadway hazard. At the Dolliver (SR 1) / Ocean View intersection, many RVs make the turn from northbound Dolliver Street (SR 1) onto eastbound Ocean View Avenue. These RVs require a large right turning radius, which can cause these vehicles to encroach into oncoming traffic on westbound Ocean View when making the northbound -to -eastbound right turn. With implementation of the Stimson / Ocean View couplet, there will no longer be an opposing traffic stream on westbound Ocean View east of Dolliver Street (SR 1), thus eliminating this issue.

3. Signalization of the Dolliver (SR 1) / Stimson intersection would be preferred to achieve acceptable operations at this location. While this improvement also may be required without implementation of the Stimson / Ocean View couplet, the couplet would eliminate the need to also signalize the adjacent Dolliver (SR 1) / Ocean View intersection.

Appendix L provides recommended design considerations (i.e., "best practices") for the proposed two- way bicycle facilities on Ocean View Avenue and Price Street.

A short term alternative that can be easily implemented is to provide wayfinding signs directing large vehicles to continue northbound on Dolliver Street to Hinds Avenue. Hinds Avenue is a two lane, one- way street that can accommodate large right turning vehicles without encroaching into on -coming traffic.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 198

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 45A — Stimson Ave. / Ocean View Ave. One way Couplet with Two Eastbound Price St. Through Lanes 4,, ADD BIKE/PED PATH
F. TWO-WAY CYCLE

TRACK ON EAST OR

NORTH SIDE
I OF OCEAN VIEW AVE.

SIGNALIZE DOLLIVER ST /

STIMSON AVE &

COORDINATE WITH HINDS

AVE AND POMEROY AVE
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 199

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 45B — Stimson Ave. / Ocean View Ave. One way Couplet with Two -Way Cycle Track HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1100

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY 5) Pier Area Improvements
The downtown area, especially in the vicinity of the Pismo Beach Pier, is the location of the most severe congestion in the City of Pismo Beach, occurring on nearly all summer weekends and holidays. Downtown is also the location of the highest pedestrian traffic, which is a major contributor to vehicle congestion, due to the requirement of vehicles to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks.

Bicycle traffic is also highest in the downtown area and between the pier area and the RV and camping facilities to the east along Dolliver (SR 1), with about 60 bicyclists (30 bicyclists in each direction) during both the Summer Sunday and Memorial Day Sunday afternoon peak hours. This is more than four times as much as occurs during the Weekday PM peak hour (about 13 bicyclists in each direction). A similar trend also occurs along Dolliver Street (SR 1) within the downtown, with about 40 bicyclists (20 in each direction) on Sundays, versus 10-20 bicyclists during the Weekday PM peak hour.

Recommended improvements in the Pier Area that improve traffic operations, pedestrian and bicycle facilities or provide signal operations that reduce pedestrian impacts on traffic operations are listed below. They are located in Exhibit 46 (Page 103), followed by individual discussions on the subsequent pages.
a. Cypress Street/Pomeroy Avenue Pedestrian Scramble Traffic Signal and d. Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy Signal Modification to Pedestrian Scramble e. Dolliver Street Left Turn Pockets
f. Restrict Motorized Vehicles on the Cypress Street Bridge g. Cypress Street Bike Boulevard;
h. Addie / Park Avenue Couplet; and
i. Restrict Motorized Vehicles on Pomeroy Avenue South of Cypress HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1101

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1 1 02

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 46 — Recommended Pier Area Improvements
r

ADD LEFT TURN LANES

ON DOLLIVER AT

SELECTED LOCATIONS

PEDESTRIAN

SCRAMBLE TRAFFIC
} SIGNAL

CONSIDER CONVERTING

EXISTING SIGNAL TO

PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE
�Te

CONVERT CYPRESS ST

TO BIKE BOULEVARD

JI CONVERT CYPRESS
r a BRIDGE TO PED/BIKES

ONLY EXCEPT FOR EVENTS
i, /4 a r.p .., Tr
-raj r

CONVERT PARK AVE

TO ONE WAY WESTBOUND

AND ADDIE ST TO

ONE WAY EASTBOUND
•
l.. fdFF - ...-rb_
ziI
PIA on.

I age
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1103

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1 1 04

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY a. Cypress Street/Pomeroy Avenue Pedestrian Scramble Traffic Signal and b. Dolliver Street (State Route 1)/Pomeroy Signal Modification to Pedestrian Scramble A total of 257 pedestrians crossed the four legs
of the Dolliver (SR 1)/Pomeroy intersection
during the weekday evening peak hour,
compared with 1,023 crossings on a Summer
Sunday afternoon and 1,305 on Memorial Day
Sunday afternoon (see Exhibits 8 through 10
(Pages 19-21)). The Pomeroy/Cypress
intersection experienced 665 pedestrian
crossings on the weekday evening, 2,765 on a
summer afternoon and 2,033 on the Memorial
Day Sunday afternoon. All of these are
extremely high volumes that severely affect
intersection operations. Installation of a
pedestrian -based signal, also called a "pedestrian
scramble", may be a viable option at both locations. An example of a pedestrian scramble is depicted in Exhibit 47 (right). This signal would provide a pedestrian -only phase at the intersection. During the pedestrian phase, pedestrians would be allowed to cross all of the intersection approaches at once, without vehicular conflicts. Pedestrians would also be allowed to cross diagonally across the intersection, again without any vehicular conflicts.

Exhibit 47 — Example of a
Pedestrian Scramble
At the Cypress / Pomeroy intersection, the pedestrian scramble will improve existing congestion levels by organizing the current randomness of pedestrian crossings. This signal would operate as a two-phase signal, alternating between traffic flow and pedestrian crossings. Organizing the pedestrian crossings into a set timeframe (versus the current random timing of the pedestrian crossings) would reduce vehicle queuing on Pomeroy Avenue and reduce the potential for pedestrian collisions. The pedestrian scramble signal could also be turned off during the off season, reverting the intersection back to the stop control that is present today.

The addition of a pedestrian scramble should be investigated at the Dolliver Street (SR 1)/ Pomeroy Avenue signal. As noted in Section 2.J - Traffic Operations and Recommendations — Existing Conditions, pedestrians are occasionally restricted from crossing Dolliver by vehicular congestion on Sundays during the peak season, which will be more difficult as vehicular and pedestrian traffic increase in the future. The addition of a pedestrian scramble could be a method to improve the capacity of pedestrian crossings at this intersection. This intersection is owned by Caltrans, which has investigated the use of pedestrian scramble phases on state highways in the past. However, it has not pursued or implemented them on any state highways to date.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1105

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY c. Dolliver Street Left Turn Pockets
The addition of short exclusive left turn pockets (40 foot long by 10 feet wide) on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at key intersections between Wadsworth Avenue and Ocean View Avenue, such as at Pomeroy Avenue and Hinds Avenue, should be considered. Most left -turning vehicles on Dolliver Street (SR 1) would be able to leave the through lane while waiting for gaps in opposing traffic, thus allowing through traffic to flow freely in an adjacent lane. This would help mitigate the current situation, where left -turning vehicles wait in through lanes and block through traffic on Dolliver Street (SR 1). Blocked vehicles can often attempt to bypass these left -turning vehicles via the bicycle lane, potentially endangering passing bicyclists.

However, due to the narrow width of Dolliver Street (SR 1) — 50 feet of pavement —some on - street parking will be lost— up to three spaces on each side of Dolliver where a left turn pocket is provided. Alternatively, the existing bike lane would need to be terminated in the proximity of the left turn lane. However, the beneficial improvement in traffic congestion justifies this improvement. Two alternative left turn pockets are conceptually illustrated on Exhibit 48 on the following page. Alternative A illustrates a left turn pocket centered on Dolliver Street.

Alternative B illustrated a left turn pocket offset to the northbound side of Dolliver Street.

Alternative B probably would result in the loss of fewer on -street parking spaces. Dolliver Street is a state highway and any modifications will require Caltrans approval. Also, consideration needs to be given to maintaining continuous northbound and southbound Class II bike lanes as recommended in the Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan. d. Restrict Motorized Vehicles on the Cypress Street Bridge The Downtown Strategic plan recommended considering the prohibition of vehicle traffic along the Cypress Street bridge over Pismo Creek. The bridge would instead be exclusively used by pedestrians and bicyclists, with the exception of small electric vehicles, emergency vehicles and special event traffic. This closure could be done on a trial basis to better assess the benefits and consequences of this modification.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 06

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 48 — Left Turn Pocket Alternatives on Dolliver St. (SRI)

ALTERNATIVE A - LEFT TURN POCKET CENTERED ON DOLLIVER (SRI) 9 PKG. A -'s _+f
<E -- f
12'
12'

ALTERNATIVE B - LEFT TURN ON NORTHBOUND SIDE OF DOLLIVER (SRI) 94' APPROACH
D0LLIVER, <:, ET
•
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1107

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1 1 08

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY e. Cypress Street Bike Boulevard
This improvement was suggested in
the Downtown Strategic Plan. It
would convert Cypress Street into a
bicycle boulevard (i.e., a street where
bicycles have the right-of-way over
vehicles). The conversion would be
similar to that of Morro Street in San
Luis Obispo, with pavement striping
indicating that Cypress Street is a
bicycle boulevard, although unlike
Morro Street, no forced vehicle traffic
diversions would be implemented on
Cypress Street. Exhibit 49 (right)
depicts a sample roadway pavement
striping (similar to striping on Morro
Street in San Luis Obispo) that could
be added to Cypress Street to indicate
that the roadway is a bike boulevard.

Cypress Street carries about 200 to
250 vehicles in the peak hour at
relatively low speeds. A bike
boulevard should be easily
implemented. Consideration could also be given to reducing the speed limit to 20 miles per hour, which would reduce the speed differential between motorized vehicles and bicycles.

Exhibit 49 — Example of Bike Boulevard
Pavement Striping
f. Addie Street / Park Avenue Couplet
Convert Addie Street and Park Avenue into one-way streets between Dolliver Street and the public parking lot along the beachfront. Addie would be one-way westbound (toward the beach) and Park one-way eastbound (toward Dolliver). Both Addie Street and Park Avenue are very narrow for roadways that allow two-way traffic (30 feet wide or less). With parking on both sides of the street, only about 14 feet remains for two-way travel. Most local streets have at least 20 feet for vehicle travel. By converting both roadways into a one-way couplet, only one lane of traffic will be needed on each street and parking can be preserved on both sides of each street.

Converting Addie Street and Park Avenue to one-way streets will require traffic generated from land uses along these streets to travel through the city parking area at the beach end of Addie Street. This parking lot layout should be reconfigured to both improve vehicle throughput and also improve the efficiency of the parking layout.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1109

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Neither street experiences a large volume of traffic. The Addie Street / Park Avenue one-way couplet conversion will have little effect on traffic operations in the area during normal traffic conditions, although it may have an effect during special events held in the vicinity of the Addie Street parking lot.
g•
Restrict Motorized Vehicles on Pomeroy Avenue South of Cypress Convert Pomeroy Avenue to pedestrian traffic only between Cypress Street and the pier area.

As previously shown on Exhibits 9 and 10 (Pages 20-21), the extreme pedestrian activity crossing both Pomeroy Avenue and Cypress Street on Sundays during the peak season affects the operation of both streets at their intersection. For this reason, Pomeroy Avenue could be converted into a pedestrian walkway between Cypress Street and the pier. This would force all traffic currently using Pomeroy to turn left onto Cypress, eliminating one of the largest pedestrian/vehicle conflicts in the city. In addition, converting Pomeroy Avenue into a pedestrian walkway would be consistent with the long-term vision of the pier plaza as described in the Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan. The entrance to the pier would be converted to a pedestrian -only plaza with minimal or no adjacent parking.

One of the major disadvantages of this improvement would be the loss of on -street parking on Pomeroy between Cypress and the pier parking area, although these spaces could be replaced elsewhere in the downtown area.

If the pier parking area were to remain in place (or moved underneath the plaza in front of the pier, as shown in the Strategic Plan concepts of the pier area), the entrance to the pier parking area would need to be relocated to Hinds Avenue. This, in turn, would require the conversion of Hinds Avenue to two-way travel between the pier parking lot and Cypress Street. Inbound traffic would be diverted onto Cypress Street and Hinds Avenue. Both Hinds Avenue and Cypress Street could accommodate the additional traffic.

Consideration should be given to maintaining emergency and evacuation access via the Pomeroy pedestrian facility. If the City of Pismo Beach desires to underground the pier parking area, it could still place the entrance off of Pomeroy Avenue west of Cypress Street, via an access ramp into the parking lot. Pedestrian access to the pier area could be preserved via a widened sidewalk at ground level alongside the existing businesses along the north frontage of Pomeroy Avenue near the pier.

There are many different access and configuration decisions that would need to be made prior to a restriction of motorized vehicles on Pomeroy Avenue south of Cypress Street. It is therefore recommended that this improvement not be implemented until a plan for the pier parking area is completed.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1 0

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY 6) Downtown One -Way Couplet Alternatives
Several downtown one-way couplet alternatives were evaluated as a part of this study. They include reversing the existing Pomeroy -Hinds couplet, creating a Dolliver (SR 1)/Price couplet, and creating a Dolliver (SR 1)/Bello couplet. Each is discussed below. a. Reverse One -Way on Pomeroy and Hinds
Currently, Pomeroy Avenue is one-way westbound (i.e., towards the beach) and Hinds Avenue is one-way eastbound (i.e., away from the beach) between the pier and Price Street. This alternative would reverse the one-way directions of Pomeroy and Hinds Avenues, so that Pomeroy is one-way eastbound and Hinds Avenue is one-way westbound.

The current one-way couplet was created in the 1990s to address the collision history at the Price Street / Hinds Avenue intersection, specifically collisions created by traffic turning from Price Street onto Hinds Avenue. Reversing the one-way directions on Pomeroy and Hinds would re -introduce these movements at the Price / Hinds intersection, and thus may lead to an increase in collisions. For this reason, it is recommended that this improvement not be implemented.
b. Dolliver (SR 1)/ Price Couplet
This alternative would convert Dolliver (SR 1) and Price Streets into one-way streets between the Price/Dolliver intersection and their mutual intersections with Hinds Avenue. Dolliver Street (SR 1) would be one-way southbound and Price one-way northbound. Based upon the volumes on both corridors, Dolliver Street (SR 1) would likely need to have two through lanes.

Price Street would operate acceptably with one lane.

This alternative would change the character of the Price Street corridor between Pomeroy and San Luis Avenues, as the roadway would function as a major through street rather than its current function of primarily providing access to adjoining businesses. The existing median on -street parking on Price Street in this area would likely need to be eliminated due to the potential conflicts between pedestrians and the increased through traffic. The resulting parking supply may not be adequate to serve the demand from Price Street businesses.

It is also likely that Caltrans may require that Price Street also be designated as SR 1, in order to provide a state facility in the opposing direction to Dolliver Street. Caltrans encroachment permits would then be required for any work within the Price Street right of way, which could constrain the City's ability to manage traffic operations in the downtown. The through traffic function of a state highway designation for Price Street would likely also conflict with the pedestrian -orientation of Price Street that the City has created in the area, such as the stop sign locations and the 15 miles per hour speed limit, and would likely need to be removed.

The designation as a state highway would not be necessary if Caltrans were to relinquish the portion of SR 1 within the downtown, in which case the jurisdiction of the streets would revert to the City of Pismo Beach. However, the typical relinquishment process with Caltrans can take many years to accomplish. For these reasons, this couplet alternative is not recommended for implementation.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1 1

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY c. Dolliver/Bello Couplet
One variant to the Dolliver/Price Couplet is the Dolliver / Bello Couplet. This improvement would be similar to the Dolliver / Price couplet, except that Price Street would be replaced by Bello Street as the westbound one-way street. This variant would not have the same configuration effects upon Price Street as the Dolliver / Price couplet, but would introduce considerable through traffic on Bello Street, which is mostly residential and would still be subject to the probable need to designate Bello Street at SR 1. For these reasons, the Dolliver / Bello couplet is not recommended for implementation.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1 2

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY F. Regional Highway Improvements
SLOCOG is proposing a number of improvements to the US 101 corridor, which connects the Five Cities region to the rest of San Luis Obispo County and beyond. The segment of US 101 within Pismo Beach experiences the largest traffic volume along US 101 in the South County region with approximately 68,000 vehicles per day. The widening of US 101 to six lanes has been proposed through the Five Cities region for many decades (including in the 1992 Pismo Beach General Plan). However, the high expense and limited funding sources for this widening have led SLOCOG to attempt to maximize the capacity of the existing corridor with multi -modal, relatively low cost strategies. This effort began in the early 2000s with the addition of auxiliary lanes (i.e., ramp -to -ramp lanes) between Price Street and Oak Park Boulevard. SLOCOG and RTA (San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority) are currently planning Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along the US 101 corridor.

The latest plans proposed by SLOCOG are described in the US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan. They include improvements to the ramps and segments along southbound US 101 between Avila Beach Drive and Hinds Avenue and are listed in Exhibit 50 (Page 114). They include the addition of auxiliary lanes, ramp meters, extensions of the acceleration and deceleration distances on various ramps, extending the climbing lane on southbound US 101 to the Spyglass Drive off -ramp, and other ramp improvements. Many of these improvements are currently being evaluated in more detail by Caltrans staff.

In December 2014, SLOCOG released its draft 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, which identifies its transportation goals for San Luis Obispo County, its preferred regional transportation improvements within the County and how it will fund them. This continues the theme of maximizing the capacity of the existing corridor, as well as increasing the number of transportation mode choices that are available to San Luis Obispo County residents. Proposed improvements in the Pismo Beach region include regional Transportation System Management strategies (such as the establishment of three new park and ride lots within Pismo Beach), the addition of regional transit service at the US 101 / Spyglass Drive interchange, the Price Street/James Way extension, reconstruction of the Hinds Avenue bridge over US 101, and the previously mentioned improvements along US 101 in Pismo Beach. Many of these proposed improvements do not have available funding at this time.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 113

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 50 — Regional Improvement Concept List in Five Cities Area ID Description
Project Location
US 101 Freeway Improvements

1.1.a
Add General Purpose Lanes
NB/SB 101- Traffic Way to Avila Beach Drive

1.1.b
Add HOV Lanes
NB/SB 101 -Traffic Way to Avila Beach Drive

1.1.c
Add Auxiliary Lanes *
Various

1.1.d
Add Ramp Meters
N B/SB 101- On -Ramps Traffic Way to Avila Beach Drive

1.1.e
N/A (see Project 1.5.a)

1.1.f
N/A (see Project 1.5.b)

1.1.g
Increase Regional Transit Service
Traffic Way to Avila Beach Drive

1.1.h
Travel Demand Management
Traffic Way to Avila Beach Drive
* US 101 Freeway Auxiliary Lane Improvements

1.1.c01
1300' Deceleration Lane
NB 101- Grand Avenue Off -Ramp

1.1.c02
Ramp to Ramp Auxiliary Lane
NB 101- Brisco Road to Camino Mercado

1.1.c03
Acceleration Lane to N. Oak Park Blvd Overcrossing
NB 101- Camino Mercado On -Ramp

1.1.c04
Close James Hook On -Ramp. Extend Auxiliary Lane
to 4th Street
NB 101- 4th Street to James Way On -Ramp

1.1.c05
600' Deceleration Lane
NB 101- Wadsworth Avenue Off -Ramp to Hinds
Avenue Overcrossing

1.1.c06
2000' Acceleration Lane
NB 101- Mattie Road On -Ramp

1.1.c07
1300' Deceleration Lane
NB 101- Spyglass Drive On -Ramp

1.1.c08
Ramp to Ramp Auxiliary Lane
NB 101- Spyglass Drive to Avila Beach Drive

1.1.c09
2000' Acceleration Lane
NB 101- Avila Beach Drive On -Ramp

1.1.c10
1300' Deceleration Lane
SB 101 - Avila Beach Drive Off -Ramp

1.1.c11
Extend Truck Climb Lane
SB 101- Spyglass Drive Off -Ramp

1.1.c12
Add 3rd Lane (Project 1.1.c11 + 1.1.a or 1.1.b)
SB 101 - Spyglass Drive Off -Ramp

1.1.c13
Extend Auxiliary Lane to Avila Beach On -Ramp
SB 101- Avila Beach Drive On -Ramp to Project 1.1.c12

1.1.c14
2000' Acceleration Lane
SB 101- Spyglass Drive On -Ramp

1.1.c15
Ramp to Ramp Auxiliary Lane
SB 101- Price Street (Dinosaur Cave Park) to Price
Street (Mattie Road)

1.1.c16
1300' Deceleration Lane
SB 101- SB 1 Off -Ramp

1.1.c17
1300' Deceleration Lane
SB 101- Hinds Avenue Off -Ramp

1.1.c18
2000' Acceleration Lane
SB 101- El Camino Real (12th Street) On -Ramp

1.1.c19
1300' Deceleration Lane
SB 101- Halcyon Road Off -Ramp
Fair Oaks Avenue Intersection Improvements

1.2.a
Add Traffic Signal (Offset Intersection)

Fair Oaks Avenue at Orchard Avenue and SB 101 Off -
Ramp

1.2.b
Add Roundabout (Offset Intersection)
Fair Oaks Avenue at Orchard Avenue and SB 101 Off -
Ramp

1.2.c
Convert Orchard Avenue to Right In/Out
Fair Oaks Avenue at Orchard Avenue

1.2.d
Close Orchard Avenue Access to Fair Oaks Avenue
Fair Oaks Avenue at Orchard Avenue

1.2.e
Realign SB 101 Ramp Terminal to Orchard Avenue
(Signal)
Fair Oaks Avenue at Orchard Avenue and SB 101 Off -
Ramp

1.2.e
Realign SB 101 Ramp Terminal to Orchard Avenue
(Roundabout)
Fair Oaks Avenue at Orchard Avenue and SB 101 Off -
Ramp
Carpool / Vanpool / Transit Access

1.3.c Small Park & Ride Lot (Spyglass Drive)
Spyglass Drive at Mattie Road or Shell Beach Road
Price Street Gap Closure

1.5.a
Extend Price Street to Five Cities Drive
Price Street between Ocean View Avenue & Five Cities
Drive

1.5.b
US 101 Collector Distributor Lanes
US 101- NB/SB between Price Street and 4th Street
Pismo Creek / Anza Trail Improvements

1.6.a
New Bicycle / Pedestrian Bridge at UP Railroad
_
James Way to Pismo Beach Sports Complex

1.6.b
Class I Trail along Pismo Creek
Pismo Creek between UP Railroad and Price Street

1.6.c
Class I Trail along the UP Railroad
I
UP Railroad between Pismo Creek and James Way
Projects shown in italics were not carried thorugh full analysis due to other factors that rendered them infeasible or if they have already been programmed for funding through other efforts.

Abridged from: US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan, Kittleson & Associates, December 2014.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1 4

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

4. Recommendations
Study recommendations are summarized in Exhibit 51 (Page 116) and repeated below. The recommendations are organized into the following categories:

A. Pedestrian and Bicycle
B. Transit
C. Rail
D. Parking
E. Traffic Operations
F. Transportation Demand Management
A. Pedestrian and Bicycle

CROSSWALK ENHANCEMENTS
The Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Complete Street Plan, and Downtown Strategic Plan, encourage pedestrian activity throughout the City in order to minimize automobile congestion and increase walking, bicycling, and other healthy living practices. In particular, high traffic areas within and adjacent to downtown, local schools, sports facilities, and parking/transit facilities should be areas of focus where enhancement of existing crosswalks or the incorporation of new crosswalks would encourage increased pedestrian activity and/or would improve pedestrian safety. Additional recommendations for crosswalk enhancements in the Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan and Downtown Strategic Plan include:

Complete Street Plan
• At the Terrace Avenue intersection with Shell Beach Road and the Shell Beach Road/Price Street/Cliff Avenue intersection, crosswalks should be highlighted through the incorporation of decorative paving treatments with separate markings for bicycles and pedestrians. • Within the downtown area, enhancements of existing crosswalks should include decorative pavers and/or markings to enhance the walkability and beautification of the street scene. • Where appropriate, raised sidewalks, decorative pavers, and ADA crosswalk upgrades should be incorporated to improve and enhance the existing or proposed pedestrian infrastructure and safety throughout the City.

Downtown Strategic Plan
• The City should enhance crosswalks at Main Street, Pomeroy Avenue, Hinds Avenue, and Stimson Avenue with special paving and/or markings.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 15

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 51— Summary of Recommendations
Item No.

Recommendations
A. Pedestrian and Bicycle

1. Identify locations within Pismo Beach where crosswalks should be added or enhanced

2. Pursue implementation of recreational trails, as funding becomes available

3. Convert Cypress Street, between Hinds Avenue and Addie Street, into a bicycle boulevard

4. Convert the existing Cypress Street bridge over Pismo Creek into primarily bicycle and pedestrian use, but open to one-way vehicle traffic during special events.

5. Provide additional support facilites for pedestrian and bicycle use throughout the city

6. Consider establishing a bicycle sharing program

7. Extend the existing promenade north of Main Street

8. Increase eduction, encouragement, and enforcement of bicycle facilities

9. Implement other recommendations within the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan

10. Implement other recommendations within Pismo Beach Complete Streets Plan

11. Implement other recommendations within the Downtown Strategic Plan B. Transit

1. Work with San Luis Obispo Council of Goverments (SLOCOG) and San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) to improve transit availability and accessibility within Pismo Beach C. Rail

1. Work with RTA, SLOCOG, and the City of Grover Beach to add a shuttle service between the Grover Beach train station and Downtown Pismo Beach
D. Parking
1•
Develop a Parking Strategy Plan for Downtown Pismo Beach

2. "Right Size" (i.e. utilize during off-season) the narking inventory within Downtown Pismo Beach

3. Add both static and dynamic barking wayfinding systems

4. Study further feasibility of Dotential parking structure site, including:
a. Parking structure site analysis
b. Analyze cost benefit anaysis for each site
c. Prepare financial feasibility for each site
d. Prioritize development of site ranking; select site and move forward with development plan

5. Need for downtown parking standards review

6. Site -Specific parking improvements:
a. Parking inventory control system (i.e. dynamic system) at pier parking area b. Back -in parking in on -street spaces on Pomeroy Avenue between Price Street and pier parking area c. Back -in parking in on -street spaces on Hinds Avenue between pier parking area and Price Street d. Convert existing parking into back -in parking on Price Street, Pomeroy Avenue, and Hinds Avenue (see Appendix N)
e. Re-evaluate parking lot layout for Addie Street lot to increase parking inventory and improve flow (Table continued on next page)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1 6

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 51— Summary of Recommendations (Continued)
Item No.

Recommendations
E. Traffic Operations

1. Implement intersection improvements identified within Exhibits 21 and 30

2. Implement Stimson/Ocean View one-way couplet, including signal at Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue and striping improvements along Price Street

3. Adopt policy that establishes a lower or no level of service standard within the Downtown area

4. If implement Price Street extension, also implement associated striping improvements along Price Street, Stimson/Ocean View one-way couplet, and improvements at the US 101 Southbound Ramps - Outlets Main Entrance / Five Cities Drive intersection

5. If the Southbound US 101 Off -Ramp to Hinds Avenue is closed, prohibit through trucks on Price Street [Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Hinds Avenue]

6. Implement the Addie Street / Park Avenue one-way couplet

7. Only convert Pomeroy Avenue to pedestrian -only traffic if way(s) to replace lost parking spaces are identified.

8. Add left turn lanes on Dolliver Street once have identified way(s) to replace any lost parking spaces

9. Work with San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) in its efforts to implement the improvements identified within the US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan and the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan
F. Transportation Demand Management
s

1. Consider establishing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan for the Downtown area

PROPOSED TRAILS
The City of Pismo Beach should pursue recreational trails as funding becomes available. One example is the Pismo Creek Recreational Path, whose alignment is included in Appendix M. Both the City of Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo County have identified the establishment of this trail as a long-term goal.

PROPOSED BIKEWAYS
Bikeway improvements and enhancements recommended in the Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Complete Street Plan, and Downtown Strategic Plan include the following, listed individually for each of the three documents.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Planning and development activities that construct, reconstruct, or reconfigure existing roadways shall, to the extent feasible as determined by the City, provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities as shown on Exhibits 7 and 8 (Pages 15 and 19).
• Future Planning projects and right-of-way dedications will take the existing layout and circulation of bicycle facilities into consideration and make appropriate adjustments for facilities identified in the plan. • Whenever new development is adjacent to an existing commercial center, school or other community facilities, development should include non -motorized pathways to the center/school/facility. • The Bike Plan shall be consulted when assembling and updating the Capital Improvement Program.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 11 7

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Complete Street Plan
• Class II bicycle lanes should be extended along both sides of Shell Beach Road from the northern City limits to Spyglass Drive.
• A separate multi -use trail along the west side of Shell Beach Road from the northern City limits to Spyglass Drive should be incorporated to encourage non -motorized transportation and recreational activities within and outside the City limits.
• At the Shell Beach Road and Spyglass Drive intersection, Class II bicycle lane striping should be incorporated east of the intersection with appropriate signage directing cyclists to the Class II bicycle lane on Mattie Road.
• The multi -use trail should continue along the east side of Shell Beach Road from Spyglass Drive to Cliff Avenue.
• Existing Class III travel lanes along Shell Beach Road between Spyglass Drive and Vista Del Mar Avenue should be marked with shared lane markings or other appropriate Class III indicators. • The City should coordinate with Caltrans to determine the appropriate pavement markings to improve cyclist visibility along Price Street from Cliff Avenue to the Price Street/Dolliver Street/US 101 intersection. • The City should work with Caltrans to evaluate the configuration and determine the most appropriate alternative for the incorporation of either a Class I multi -use trail or Class II bicycle lanes from Cliff Avenue to the Price Street/Dolliver Street/US 101 intersection. • The City should consider incorporating a Class I multi -use trail behind the Best Western Hotel that connects with Price Street to the north and south.
• A two-way, separate bicycle lane should be incorporated along the west side of Dolliver Street from Price Street to Main Street.
• Due to high automobile traffic volumes along Dolliver Street south of Main Street, Class III bicycle lanes should be incorporated along Main Street, Pomeroy Avenue, Hinds Avenue, and Addie Avenue to connect with the Class III bicycle routes along Cypress Street and the Promenade. • The City should consider incorporating a multi -use pathway that would allow casual cyclists to traverse from the Cypress Street Bridge to the intersection of Dolliver Street and Village Drive. • Where appropriate, bicycle activity enhancements should be considered and incorporated to encourage bicycle use and safety throughout the City.

Downtown Strategic Plan
• The City should designate Cypress Street a bicycle boulevard from Main Street to Dolliver Street (State Route 1), orienting and prioritizing bicycle use along the boulevard but still remaining open to use by automobiles. This closure could be done on a trial basis to better assess the benefits and consequences of this modification.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 1 8

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

SUPPORT FACILITIES
Support facilities recommended in the Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Complete Street Plan, and Downtown Strategic Plan, listed individually for each of the three documents.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Future updates to the Municipal Code Section 17.108.020 should consider a ratio of one bike rack for every 10 car spaces for commercial uses and one bike rack for every two car spaces for multi -family residential uses.
• All new City parking lots should provide bicycle parking of not less than 10% of the number of planned parking spaces.
• Long and short-term bicycle parking shall be provided at all park and ride lots and transit centers within the City and the City shall work with SLOCOG and RTA to identify funds for the provision of bicycle parking. • City staff shall identify locations where additional long and short-term bike parking may be necessary and:
o May develop a "racks -with -plaques" program to provide for additional bike parking at those locations.
o Recommend long-term parking facilities including lockers and showers for new developments.

The City should consider placing short-term bicycle parking adjacent to shops, areas lacking automobile parking spaces, and/or in areas of observed needs where appropriate as it has already done in the downtown.

Complete Street Plan
• Consider opportunities to incorporate bicycle parking and seating amenities near view corridors along Shell Beach Road south of El Portal Drive, at Palisades Park, and at coastal access trail connections. • The City should consider including locations for parking and/or pedestrian bicycle amenities on the east side of Price Street, especially where the available space widens at ramp locations. • Within the downtown pedestrian core, consider incorporating pedestrian amenities such as benches to enhance walkability.
• Integrate long-term bicycle parking locations to serve people who leave their bicycles at the same location for the day or overnight near transit locations, schools, and places of work. • Integrate short-term bicycle parking to serve people who leave their bicycles for short periods of time while shopping, recreating, eating, and/or running errands.

Downtown Strategic Plan
• Bicycle racks should be placed in prominent locations or gathering spaces that are easily accessible and, where appropriate, be in the form of public art that is reflective of the character of the downtown.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 119

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

BIKE SHARING
As noted earlier, the City of Pismo Beach has completed but not adopted a feasibility study to consider establishing a bicycle sharing program within the City. This program would provide bicycle rental stations at key locations around the City. The traffic study encourages the development of this program and is envisioned to provide a range of benefits to the public and local business throughout the City by expanding healthy/active living choices, reducing automobile usage, improving circulation within the City particularly in the summer months, and increasing exposure to local businesses among others. Recommendations for a bike sharing program within the Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan include:

The City should continue the process to incorporate a bike share program within the downtown area to encourage bicycle use, reduce automobile usage, and free additional parking spots.

LOCATION —SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for location -specific enhancements focus on expansion of the existing promenade that currently runs from Addie Street north to Main Street. The promenade expansion would extend north from Main Street to connect neighborhoods and hotels to the downtown. It is envisioned that this would reduce automobile related trips downtown, increase pedestrian mobility, and improve access to the beach. Recommendations for expanding the existing promenade in the Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and the Downtown Strategic Plan include (see next page):

Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
• Consistent with the 2005 San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan (Vision 2025), the City should encourage the development of boardwalks, recreation and multi -use trails, which travel through or connect scenic areas or other destinations to promote walking and equestrian travel where appropriate.

Downtown Strategic Plan
• A new promenade extension should be incorporated north of Main Street to connect the neighborhoods and hotels to the downtown.
• Stairs providing access to and from the beach located at hotels and streets between Dolliver Street and Mattie Road should connect to the extended promenade.

EDUCATION, ENCOURAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
Recommendations for increasing education, encouragement, and enforcement described in the Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan include:
• The City shall work with SLO Regional Rideshare to provide Transportation Choices Programs to City employees.
• The City should consider adding the following text to the Municipal Code 12.16.160 Content of Special Event form:
o As a condition of the issuance of a Special Event permit, the applicant may be required to provide bicycle parking. Bicycle parking provision may include "Bike Valet" services provided by SLOCBC or by event volunteers.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1120

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY • The City may work with the bike coalition to advertise Bicycle Confidence Workshops in Pismo Beach. • The City should encourage Lucia Mar School District to provide bike and pedestrian safety programs at schools within City limits. The City may participate in bike rodeos or assemblies and organized walk/bike to school day events.

The City may participate in Bicycle Confidence Workshops or another equivalent program, to individuals ticketed for bicycling illegally.
• The City may participate in education programs for motorists on rights/rules of pedestrian and bicyclists. • The City should promote proper cycling to tourists by providing safe cycling information on the Conference and Visitors Bureau website and at the Chamber of Commerce Building downtown. • The City will continue its advertisement of the many walking and beach access options within the City by print, on-line advertisement and public access television. • The City may assist and provide support for organizations and individuals who wish to use pedestrian facilities for social activity and improvement.
• The City encourages school participation with the SLOCOG Safe Routes to School program. • The City encourages Rideshare Employee Incentive Programs. Helps employers promote bicycling, walking, carpooling, and riding the bus to work. This would reduce the employers' parking demand. This program may provide financial incentives or only promotional materials. • The City may engage Cal Poly, the San Luis Distance Club, SLO Soles Volkssport and/or other walking/running clubs, SLO County Bicycle Coalition, biking clubs or Regional Rideshare assistance to implement elements of this bicycle/pedestrian plan by doing the following:
o Organizing an outreach campaign for International Walk to School Day each October or other similar walking programs.
o Coordination of walking programs for varying segments of the population, including, but not limited to children and seniors.
o Seeking and writing grants for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. o Monitoring success of the implementation procedures identified in this document. o Developing a safety campaign to reduce car/bike conflicts. o Liaising between local schools and Rideshare to provide bike education o Creating or working with the SLOCBC to provide bike valet at events o Starting a "racks with plaques" and other promotion programs. • The City may participate with others to address countywide bicycle and pedestrian access issues. • The City may provide advertising opportunities through its quarterly recreation guide for walking clubs along City pedestrian trails.
• The City may work collaboratively with others to support events and programs promoting pedestrian/biking/beach access opportunities.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1121

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY B. Transit
SLOCOG and the San Luis Obispo RTA are both working to improve transit availability and accessibility within San Luis Obispo County. This includes the establishment of a future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County, the goal of which is also to reduce congestion along US 101. It is recommended that the City of Pismo Beach support these efforts.

C. Rail
There is currently no shuttle service between the Grover Beach train station and Downtown Pismo Beach. It is recommended that the City of Pismo Beach work with RTA, SLOCOG and the City of Grover Beach to establish such a service. This would enhance the alternative to travel by train rather than driving to Pismo Beach for visitors from locations along the California coast.

D. Parking
The following are recommendations for the parking program:

1. There is a need for development of a Parking Strategic Plan for Downtown Pismo Beach. The last formal parking study was completed in 2006 which primarily addressed the parking management of existing spaces. A Parking Strategic plan will follow the City's Vision, Mission and Objectives statement. It will define the strategic goals for the parking system and develop the guiding principles which will serve the community to make policy and operational decisions for a 20 -30 year time period. It also will provide the implementation strategy to guide the City through the long time period of development of the program.

It is important to note that a parking strategic plan is a long-term guidance document. It will take both time and money to implement all of the plan's recommendations.

2. It is important to "right size" the downtown parking inventory to meet the needs of all seasons. This includes balancing the parking demands by creating year-round destination events which will assist with development and use of the parking inventories. It also creates the opportunity for public parking development in partnership with private developers to provide shared parking resources.

3. There is a need for a parking wayfinding system to assist the public with finding available parking, which allows them to park once and walk through -out the downtown, and reduces the repeated circulating of traffic and queuing of vehicles waiting for parking spaces to become available. The wayfinding system can include both dynamic and static signage and dynamic signage may be activated or de -activated based on seasonal demands. A static wayfinding signage program was implemented in 2015.

4. The Parking Strategic Plan also needs to analyze the potential sites for future parking structures once the "right size" parking system is determined. A parking structure feasibility plan a step-by-step process for development of parking facilities, prioritizes the sites and plan and provides a guiding plan to take advantage of partnering opportunities with private sector developers as they arise during a 20-30 year time frame. The plan includes site analysis for each site, cost benefit analysis, financial feasibility, as well as development of a ranking system for moving forward. Without such a plan, most cities function in a reactionary mode and miss opportunities for timing and forecasting parking needs and often miss opportunities for public- private partnerships in the development of shared facilities.

5. The City should undertake a review of its parking standards and requirements and adjust standards to allow public -private projects and shared parking opportunities. Such plans result in reduced parking requirements for a compact downtown such as that in Downtown Pismo Beach.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1122

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

6. There are a number of site -specific parking improvements which will not only improve the parking inventory and functional use of parking inventories, they will also improve traffic flow and circulation of the downtown. These options include:
a. Implement a parking inventory control system (i.e., dynamic parking guidance system) at the pier parking area which will assist with parking utilization and reduce traffic in a very congested location of downtown.
b. Provide two rows of interlocking diagonal parking in the median on Price Street between Wadsworth Avenue and Hinds Avenue. These could be back -in spaces as illustrated on Exhibit 53A (Page 125)). Either conventional or back -in spaces will eliminate curb side parking spaces and relocate all parking to the center of the street. Thus, the conflicts of backing out of parking spaces into both moving traffic and curb -side parked vehicles are eliminated. (Note: This improvement could also allow the City to lengthen the left turn lanes on Price Street at Wadsworth Avenue. Although the example in Exhibit 51A matches the length of the existing 50 foot left turn lane, it could be lengthened through the elimination of one or more spaces.) c. Consider development of on -street back -in parking spaces on Pomeroy Avenue between Price Street and Cypress Street. A sample of this type of parking is provided in Exhibit 53B (Page 126). d. Consider development of on -street back -in parking spaces on Hinds Avenue between Price Street and Cypress Street. A sample of this type of parking is provided in Exhibit 53C (Page 127). e. Re-evaluate the parking lot layout for the Addie Street lot to increase the number of parking spaces and improve flow. This coupled with street improvements recommended for Addie and Park Street will increase the parking inventories within the lot.

Although back -in parking would be a relatively new concept to Pismo Beach, it is a concept that has been used successfully in other areas of the state and country for decades. Examples include the cities of Oceanside, California (on Mission Avenue in its main downtown core) and San Francisco (near AT&T Park). One of the major safety benefits of back -in angled parking is that exiting vehicles who have back -in parked into angled spaces have improved visibility of through traffic and bicyclists, compared to standard angled parking.

The "Downtown Parking Enhancements and Opportunities Study" previously cited on page 30 represents the Parking Strategic Plan described in Item 1 above. It makes the following additional recommendations.

1. Implement variable parking rates based on demand. This will encourage more efficient parking utilization.

2. Implement enhanced parking meters, fee collection and enforcement systems.

3. Postpone development of parking structures until parking management strategies have been fully implemented and evaluated. A parking structure is the most expensive means of addressing the peak season parking deficiency. Current and future revenue streams are not adequate to finance this option.

4. The Pier Plaza with underground parking appears to be able to be implemented without negatively impacting local businesses. The concept should be tested with a pilot project to simulate the reduced parking supply before implementing a permanent project.

E. Traffic Operations
The following transportation -related improvements are recommended for implementation:

1. Implement the intersection improvements identified in Exhibits 21 and 30 (Pages 43-47 and 66-70).

2. Implement the Stimson / Ocean View one-way couplet, including a new signal at the Dolliver Street (SR 1) / Stimson Avenue intersection and striping improvements along Price Street at Stimson and Ocean View Avenues as depicted on Exhibit 45 (Pages 99-100).

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1123

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

3. The Pismo Beach City Council should adopt a policy that establishes either a lower level of service standard or no level of service standard in Downtown Pismo Beach. The 1992 General Plan Circulation Element Principle P-1 stated that "A lower standard (than Level of Service C) may be used for the downtown area," but did not define the level of service, the specific locations it would apply to and how this policy would relate to the applicable Caltrans level of service policy of C/D. This should be clarified.

4. If the Price Street extension to Five Cities Drive is implemented, the improvements described in Improvement 2 above as well as the recommended improvements at the US 101 Southbound Ramps — Outlets Main Entrance / Five Cities Drive intersection (Exhibit 39 (Page 85)) will be required.

5. If the southbound US 101 Off -Ramp to Hinds Avenue is closed, adjust approved through truck routes to prohibit through trucks on Price Street [Dolliver Street (SR 1) to Hinds Avenue].

6. Implement the Addie Street / Park Avenue one-way couplet.

7. Consider converting Pomeroy Avenue (Cypress Street to pier) to pedestrian -only traffic only when a method has been determined to replace the lost parking spaces.

8. Add left turn pockets on Dolliver Street (SR 1) at selected intersections in consultation with Caltrans.

9. Work with SLOCOG to maximize throughput along the US 101 corridor in the Five Cities region.

F. Transportation Demand Management
The City of Pismo Beach should also consider a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. This plan would identify measures and policies that can manage or reduce traffic demand within the city, especially during the summer peak season. A preliminary plan is included in Appendix N and summarized on Exhibit 52 (Below). Some of the bicycle -related recommendations are also identified in other documents, such as the Complete Streets Plan.

Exhibit 52 — Transportation Demand Management Options
Item No.

Potential Transportation Demand Management Measure

1. Create TDM steering group

2. Create Pismo Beach TDM program

3. Review options for a formal park and ride and assess feasibility

4. Implement a formal park and ride

5. Increase localized bus stops on existing routes

6. Add public showers / enhance beach facilities for use by cyclists

7. Install cycling / walking lockers

8. Continue the Pismo Beach Rideshare program — www.pismobikeshare.com

9. Ensure cycle parking provided at key bus stops and other key locations

10. Ensure that walking and cycling routes are fully linked and fill in any gaps

11. Develop a dedicated area on city web site with transportation information

12. Develop a Pismo Beach TDM logo

13. Develop a TDM marketing campaign to encourage use of non -motorized transportation

14. Develop walking and cycling maps to promote active travel

15. Hold specific events that can be a focus for TDM promotion

16. Free "Dr. Bike sessions" to help residents and visitors maintain their bicycles

17. "Beat the Streets" challenge

18. "Drive Less" challenge

19. Free cycle training to local residents / employees
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 24

Exhibit 53A — Price Street from San Luis Ave. to Pomeroy Ave. Possible Double Loaded Median Back -In Angled Parking

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 53B — Pomeroy Ave. from Cypress St. to Price St. Possible Back -In Angled Parking HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1 1 26

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY Exhibit 53C — Hinds Ave. from Cypress St. to Price St. Possible Back -In Angled Parking HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1 1 27

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY This page was intentionally left blank
(For Duplex Printing)
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1128

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

5. Public Comments on Recommendations
Many of the recommendations identified in Chapter 4 were presented at a public workshop on January 7, 2015 at Pismo Beach City Hall. Below are the primary topics of discussion during that workshop. A summary of the discussion at the second public workshop, including all public comments, is provided in Appendix D.

Primary Topics of Discussion:

1. Scope of Work

2. Future Forecasting Methods

3. Recommendations:
a. Network Alternatives
b. Intersection Alternatives
c. Why are improvements necessary?
d. Alternatives to identified recommendations
e. Public -initiated recommendations
f. Cooperation from other jurisdictions (e.g. Caltrans District 5)

4. Parking:
a. Parking Structure
b. Back -in Parking
c. Advantages and Disadvantages of Parklets
d. Park and Ride Lots

5. Dissemination of Documents via City Web Page
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD I 1 29

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

6. References

1. 2010 US Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census , accessed August 26, 2014.

2. AECOM Technical Services, San Luis Obispo County 2040 Population, Housing & Employment Forecast, August 11, 2011.

3. Avila Beach Pier, http://avilabeach Dier.com, accessed January 21, 2015.

4. California Department of Transportation, Price Street Extension Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment, September 2004.

5. California Department of Transportation, Traffic Data Branch, www.dot.ca.Rov/hc/traffoas/safevesr/trafdata , accessed September 25, 2014.

6. California Department of Transportation, Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, December 2002.

7. California Department of Transportation, Transportation Concept Report for State Route 1 in District 5, April 2006.

8. City of Grover Beach website, htta://grover.org, accessed January 19 and 21, 2015.

9. City of Pismo Beach, Pismo Beach Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan, June 15, 2010.

10. City of Pismo Beach, City of Pismo Beach General Plan & Local Coastal Plan, adopted November 24, 1992.

11. City of San Luis Obispo website, http://www.slocity.org , accessed January 21, 2015.

12. County of San Luis Obispo, The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan —San Luis Bay Coastal Area Plan, Adopted March 1998, Revised August 2009.

13. DKS Associates, A Traffic Improvement Strategy for the Oak Park Heights and Five Cities Planning Areas, April 25, 1988.

14. DKS Associates, A Traffic Improvement Strategy for the U.S. 101 Study Corridor Oak Park to Grand Avenue, August 30, 1988.

15. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/PED BIKE/univcourse/adf/swlessl9.adf, accessed January 22, 2015.

16. Fehr & Peers, San Luis Obispo County Highway 101 Bus Rapid Transit Applications Study, June 2013.

17. Gates + Associates, Pismo Beach Complete Street Plan, March 2013.

18. Joseph Boud & Associates and Firma, Pismo Creek Recreational Path Project Study Report, adopted May 16, 2006.

19. Kittelson & Associates, US 101 Corridor Mobility Master Plan, December 2014.

20. Korve Engineering, Inc. Route 101 Major Investment Study, September 8, 1997.

21. LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., South County Transit Plan, January 2011.

22. Merriam -Fraser Associates, Environment Impact Report for the Development of Pismo Beach Pier Commercial Project, July 1986.

23. National Association of City Transportation Officials, Two -Way Cycle Track, http://nacto.org/wp- content/gallery/twoway cvcletrack 3d/two-way-cycle-track-alan.lag, accessed January 22, 2015.

24. Omni -Means, Grover Beach Lodge Transportation Impact Analysis Report, October 2010.

25. Omni -Means, James Way/Price Street Frontage Road Extension Project Study Report, March 1998.

26. Omni -Means, San Luis Obispo County in Pismo Beach on and adjacent to Route 101 between KP 25.7 and

26.8 Ramp Work and Frontage Rd Improvements, March 12, 1998.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1130

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

27. The Regional and Urban Design Committee of the American Institute of Architects, Pismo Beach R/UDAT, no date.

28. RRM Design Group, Beach Cities Multi -Purpose Trail Feasibility Study, March 2010.

29. RRM Design Group, Pismo Beach Downtown Strategic Plan, 2014.

30. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, 2013 Park & Ride Lot Study, August 2013.

31. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, December 2014.

32. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, San Luis Obispo County Highway 101 Bus Rapid Transit Applications Study, June 2013.

33. San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, SLOCOG 2010RTP-PSCS: Chapter 4: Highways, Streets and Roads, 2010.

34. San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority web page, www.slorta.org , accessed December 14, 2015.

35. The (San Luis Obispo) Tribune, "New Stretch of Bob Jones Trail Nearly Finished", published March 18, 2014, http://www.sanluisobispo.com , accessed January 21, 2015.

36. Walker Parking Consultants, Downtown Parking Enhancements and Opportunities Study, April 2016.

37. Wilbur Smith Associates, Downtown Parking Study, October 10, 2006.

HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 113 1

CITY OF PISMO BEACH // CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION MODEL AND CIRCULATION STUDY

7. Report Preparation
Hatch Mott MacDonald (Transportation)
Chris Metzger, PE, LEED AP
Keith Higgins, PE, TE
Allen Nie, PhD, PE
Jeff Waller, TE
Travis Low, EIT
Ankit Sharma
RRM Design Group (Land Use Public Outreach)
Debbie Rudd, AICP, LEED AP
Paul Kronser
JR Parking Consultants (Parking)
Janis Rhodes
HATCH MOTT MACDONALD 1132

Appendix
Comment Letters Received

State of California • Natural Resources Agency
Gavin Newsom, Governor
Oceano Dunes District • Oceano Dunes SVRA • Pismo State Beach 340 James Way, Suite 270, Pismo Beach CA 93449 805.773.7170 February 14, 2022
Kevin Pearce, Chief Ranger/District Superintendent
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Oceano Dunes District
340 James Way, Suite 270
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
City of Pismo Beach
Planning Department c/o Jeff Winklepleck
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Armando M. Quintero, Director
RE: Comments on City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report
To whom it may concern,
The Department of Parks and Recreation, Oceano Dunes District (Parks) appreciates the opportunities to provide comments on the Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update and Associated Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) City of Pismo Beach General Plan/Local Coastal Program and Zoning Code Update State Clearinghouse No. 2021010158.

Parks is a state agency with the mission, To provide for the health, inspiration, and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high - quality outdoor recreation.

Parks is a landowner of Pismo State Beach, which includes a parking lot at the western terminus of Addie Street, North Beach campground, Pismo Lake, the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, and approximately 8 miles of state beach, of which the City of Pismo Beach manages approximately 1.25 miles through a Lease Agreement with the state.

1. Draft EIR Section 2.4.4 General Plan Land Use Designations and Density The state operates Pismo Lake, North Beach campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, units which are identified as Open Space. The state may in the future wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures and would like to ensure such improvements would not potentially be inconsistent with the requirements of this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach review this land use designation to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation.

Pismo Coast Village RV Resort (PCV) and North Beach campground (NB) both operate campgrounds to support a recreational vehicle (RV) camping experience. PCV is designated as resort commercial, and NB is designated as open space. The state recommends reviewing this disparate designation for consistent application. Given the developed, recreational use of NB campground, the state recommends the City consider a Resort Commercial land use and Commercial Recreation zoning designation.

2. Draft EIR Section 3.2.4 Natural Setting and
Setting (page 3-2)
The state recommends removing Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area (ODSVRA) from their environmentally sensitive habitat area designations as this area is not within city of Pismo Beach GP/LCP responsibility areas. Correspondingly, the state recommends removing reference to the ODSVRA from the Draft Conservation Open Space Element, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area description and page 12, and in proposed Action COS -3.2a.

Section 4.3.1.c. Biological Resources

3. Draft EIR Section 4.2.3 Air Quality Impact Analysis, Table 4.2-6, Policy CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40 (page 4.2-13)
The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach to consult with the state on any planned improvements to state property within the GP/LCP Project area (i.e., Addie Street).

Correspondingly, the state recommends this change to the Draft Circulation Element Policies CIR-4.1.20 and CIR-4.1.40.

4. Draft EIR Section 4.2.3 Air Quality Impact Analysis, Action COS -1.1c (page 4.2-21) The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach to consult with the state on any planned improvements to state property within the GP/LCP Project area (i.e., Addie Street).

Correspondingly, the state recommends this change to the Draft Conservation Open Space Element Action COS -1.1c.

5. Draft EIR Section 4.3.1.d Biological Resources Setting, Special Status Species (page

4.3-12)
The City of Pismo Beach recognizes special status species that are known or have potential to occur and list Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) as one such species. The state would request the city to include Western snowy plover within their Special Status Wildlife Species, Appendix G, Table G-2 as one such species.

6. Draft EIR Section 4.3.3 Biological Resources Impact Analysis, Policy COS -3.2 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (page 4.3-22)
The state recognizes the importance of protecting significant natural and cultural resources and will manage and/or design any state projects on state lands consistent with state rules, regulations and policies. Please see additional comments regarding Environmentally Sensitive Habitat, wetland and stream resources and buffers under Comment #11, below.

7. Draft EIR Section 4.3.3 Biological Resources Impact Analysis (page 4.3-33) The state continues to pursue a final Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Oceano Dunes District (Parks), including those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement. Upon an approved Parks HCP, all portions of Pismo State Beach, including those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, shall comply with HCP conditions as approved.

8. Draft EIR Section 4.4 Cultural and Tribal Resources
The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in advance with state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations concerning sensitive tribal and cultural resources.

The state would also request notification of any proposed Projects on city property which have potential to impact known cultural resources with boundaries that abut and/or overlap onto state property.

9. Draft EIR Section 4.4.1.d Cultural and Tribal Resources Setting, Previously Identified Cultural Resources (page 4.4-4)
The state recommends environmental, or planning documents should not contain information about the location of Native American archaeological resources, sacred sites, or other tribal and cultural resources.

The state recommends all archaeological or other cultural resources be considered important or significant until formal evaluation for California Register of Historical Resources and/or National Register of Historic Places occurs and indicates otherwise.

10. Draft EIR Section 4.9.1.e, Hydrology/Water Quality Setting, Sea Level Rise (page 4.9- 12)
The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of Pismo State Beach operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in advance with state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations concerning sea level rise.

In addition, the state requests the City to consider the development limitations proposed pursuant to Draft Safety Element Action 2.5b -Restrictions on Development Within the 100 - Year Floodplain, Action 2.5c -Shoreline Setbacks, and Action 2.5d-Floodplain Zoning Standards to ensure these proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain and improve existing State Parks recreational and operational facilities within the City as provided for in proposed Action LU-4.21: Maintenance of Campgrounds and RV Parks.

11. Draft EIR Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning
The state operates Pismo Lake, North Beach campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, units which are identified as Open Space. The state may in the futurc wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures which may conflict with this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach review this land use designation to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation.

In addition, the state requests the City to consider the development limitations proposed pursuant to Draft Land Use Elements Action LU-8.2e: Permitted Development (in the areas zoned for public beach access or open space recreation) and associated zoning designations, and Draft Conservation Open Space Element Action COS-3.2c-ESHA Buffers, Action COS -

3.2d -Existing Development Within ESHA Buffers, Action COS -3.2h -Monarch Butterfly Habitat Protection, Action COS-3.7a-Streamside Protection Zone, Action COS -3.5d -Wetland Buffers, and Action COS -3.5e -Existing Development Within Wetlands Buffers to ensure these proposed actions do not prevent the ability of the state to maintain, improve and propose new State Parks recreational facilities within the City, where located and designed to avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible.

12. Draft EIR Section 4.13.1.e, Public Services and Recreation Setting, Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (page 4.13-4), and Policy COS -3.9 Pismo Creek Marsh (page 4.13-14) The Draft EIR describes "resource -based open space" as lands "primarily managed to protect and preserve natural resources while providing scenic and passive uses for residents and visitors" and as "generally unimproved areas that preserve open space, such as environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Figure 4.13.1 indicates that Pismo Lake, NB campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove are mapped resource -based open space. However, as noted herein, given the developed recreational use of NB campground and potential future plans to improve public access amenities for Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove (including visitor parking and restrooms as provided for in proposed Action COS-3.2h.e, Monarch Butterfly Habitat Protection), the state recommends the City consider if the proposed resource -based open space designated for NB campground and Pismo State Monarch Beach Butterfly Grove is appropriate.

In addition, Pismo Lake (i.e. Pismo Creek Marsh) is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. The state may in the future wish to reclassify this unit consistent with Department of Parks and Recreation unit designation and/or improve public access to this area consistent with such designation. Correspondingly, the state recommends proposed Policy COS -3.9:

Pismo Marsh Protection and its associated Actions be revised to reflect the correct ownership of the land and to ensure the Department of Parks and Recreation is consulted with regards to any proposed project design, mitigation measures and/or habitat resource protection program potentially affect the property.

13. Draft EIR Appendix C- Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet Pismo Creek Marsh is identified in Figure CO -1 and pg. 23/520 and is listed as owned and managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. This property is owned and managed by the Department of Parks and Recreation and is known by the retained name of the Pismo Lake Ecological Preserve. The state requests the City to correct the identified ownership for this property throughout the Draft EIR and updated LCP Elements.

14. Draft EIR Appendix C- Conservation and Open Space Fact Sheet- Figure CO -2 pg. 25/520. The state operates Pismo Lake, North Beach campground and the Pismo State Beach Monarch Butterfly Grove, units which are identified as Open Space. The state may in the future wish to improve and develop these areas to improve and enhance visitor services, to improve public access, and to improve natural resource protection measures which may conflict with this designation. The state recommends the City of Pismo Beach review this land use designation to ensure compatibility of the state's existing and future recreational improvements with the City's designation.

15. Draft EIR Appendix D- Land Use Fact Sheet- Figure LU-5 pg. 47/520. The state identified that the City of Pismo Beach incorrectly identified a state- owned parking lot as being a city -owned parking lot (Addie Street).

16. Draft EIR Appendix D- Public Access and Recreation Facilities pg. 48/520. The state identified that the City of Pismo Beach incorrectly identified, "The City owns four parking lots within walking distance to the coast, two of which are directly adjacent to the beach." A state-owned parking lot is incorrectly identified as being city -owned (Addie Street).

17. Draft EIR Appendix K- Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study pg. 416/520. The state recognizes the importance the state property identified as Addie Street parking lot, provides to the City of Pismo Beach, its citizenry and visitors by providing parking 1-17 and public access.

18. Draft EIR Appendix K- Citywide Transportation Model and Circulation Study pg. 511/520. Bullet 6.e.- The state requests any proposed Projects, for those portions of state property operated by the City of Pismo Beach under a Lease Agreement, be discussed in 1-18 advance with state, in order to meet state policies, rules and regulations.

SANTA YNEZ CHUMASH

TRIBAL ELDER'S COUNCIL

TO WONT MO PROEM MOM MOUTON,
TMOTIONEONO CUWM:

Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Tribal Elders' Council
P.O. Box 517 ♦ Santa Ynez ♦ CA ♦ 93460
Phone: (805)688-7997 ♦ Fax: (805)688-9578 ♦ Email: [email protected] February 17, 2022
City Of Pismo Beach Planning Division
Atten: Brian Schwartz, Contract Planner — City of Pismo Beach GP/LCP DEIR 760 Mattie Road,
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Att.: Brian Schwartz, Contract Planner — City o Pismo Beach GP/LCP DEIR Re: City of Pismo Beach General Plan Local Coastal Plan Dear Mr. Schwartz:

Thank you for contacting the Tribal Elders' Council for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

At this time, the Elders' Council requests no further consultation on this project; however, we understand that as part of NHPA Section 106, we must be notified of the project.

Thank you for remembering that at one time our ancestors walked this sacred land.

Sincerely Yours,
Kelsie Shroll
Administrative Assistant I Elders' Council and Culture Department Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians I Tribal Hall
(805) 688-7997 ext. 7516
[email protected]
2-1

Letter 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA —CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CALTRANS DISTRICT 5
50 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-5415
PHONE (805) 549-3101
FAX (805) 549-3329
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/
March 18, 2022
Brian Schwartz, Contract Planner
City of Pismo Beach, Planning Division
760 Mattie Road
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

S C H # 2021010158

COMMENTS FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE PISMO

BEACH GENERAL PLAN / LOCAL COASTAL PLAN (GP/LCP) UPDATE Dear Mr. Schwartz:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review the DEIR for the Pismo Beach General Plan / Local Coastal Plan (GP/LCP) Update.

At this time, we offer the following comments in response to the DEIR:

Caltrans supports development that is consistent with State and Federal planning priorities intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety. We accomplish this by working with local agencies to achieve a shared vision of how the transportation system can and should accommodate interregional and local travel and development. Projects that support smart growth principles which include improvements to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure (or other key Transportation Demand Management strategies (TDM)) are supported by Caltrans and are consistent with our mission, vision, and goals. Caltrans believes that continued coordination with your agency is imperative to achieve overall network connectivity.

Employing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the metric of transportation impact Statewide will help to promote Green House Gas (GHG) emission reductions consistent with SB 375 and can be achieved through influencing on -the -ground development. Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project -level, and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS) developed under SB 375.

It is noted that the DEIR found cumulative growth under the GP/ LCP Update will result in a potentially significant increase in VMT. Future individual development projects will conduct focused, project -level environmental review and undertake project -specific 3-1
3-2
`Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability"

Mr. Brian Schwartz
March 18, 2022

Page 2 ends

Pismo Beach City CouncilMay 19, 2026

Pismo Beach City Council
May 19, 2026