San Luis Obispo City Council
January 18, 2022

Council Agenda Report – GPI 8-11 & GPI 83- 0 7
November 15, 201 1

which the Commission reviewed in 2011, on June 22 °a , July 13 th , and August 24th .

Previous Planning Commission reports and minutes from all previous meetings will be availabl e for review in the Council Reading file .

Staff has included all of the Planning Commission recommended amendments from bot h applications ( GPI 83-07 & GPI 8-11) for discussion in this report and all recommende d amendments are included in the attached legislative draft (Attachment 1), draft ordinanc e Attachment 4), and draft resolution ( Attachment 5). The discussion below follows the order o f amendments in the legislative draft .

Main Areas of Discussio n
Chapter 17 .08 .110 ( Homeless Shelters )
This modification is recommended in response to Council direction from last year's review o f Zoning Code amendments which need to be modified for consistency with Housing Element Policy 8 .19 . Housing Element Policy 8 .19 calls for establishing Zoning Regulations that allo w for homeless shelters " by right" in at least one zoning district as required by state law (a projec t allowed by right is not subject to discretionary review). In last year's review of propose d amendments to allow for homeless shelters by right in the Public Facilities ( PF) zone, Counci l was not supportive of eliminating existing language that requires " adequate buffering" whe n homeless shelters are proposed near R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods . Staff recommends provisions for architectural review when homeless shelters are proposed adjacent to residentia l neighborhoods . The requirements of this section only apply to homeless shelters in the PF zon e which may be established by right without use permit approval . Homeless shelters proposed in other zones require Planning Commission use permit review .

Chapter 17 .16 .040 . (Table 5 .5 : Maximum Height by Zone ) Staff recommends adding the table to allow a more quick reference of height requirements fo r each zone . No changes to height requirements by zone are proposed .

Chapter 17 .16 .050 . Fences, Walls, and Hedge s
Arbors
Current regulations place arbors in the same category as fences which is not practical since th e maximum fence height allowed at the street yard property line is three feet . An arbor would hav e to be located 20 feet from the property line in most cases . Planning Commission recommende d amendments would allow light-weight pedestrian scale arbors ( 6-8 feet wide, max 8-9 feet tall ) along street yard property lines .

Fences on retaining walls
PH1-2

Council Agenda Report – GPI 8- 11 & GPI 83- 07
November 15, 201 1

Recommended amendments are intended to reduce the number of unnecessary fence heigh t exception applications . There are many properties in the City where there are existing retainin g walls between properties due to natural grade changes . In these cases, when a new o r replacement six foot fence is proposed to provide necessary privacy, fence height exceptio n applications are required since the overall height of the fence is measured from the low side o f the combined fence/wall and the maximum allowed height in "other yards" is six feet .

Recommended revisions would allow fences of a maximum six feet from the uphill side and an overall height of nine feet (from lower grade side) without the need for fence height exceptio n approval . The revised regulations do not apply if there is evidence that a modification to th e grade has occurred from the original subdivision/ design approvals . In cases where the grade has been modified, proposals to exceed six feet of overall height will require approval of a fenc e height exception consistent with existing regulations .

Downtown Residential Parking Amendment s
The City' s General Plan contains policies and programs to encourage housing development in th e downtown core, including several that address residential parking . Specifically, Land Use Element ( LUE) 4 .22 and Housing Element ( HE) program 6 .9 and 6 .10 (Attachment 2) direct the City to consider more flexible parking regulations for downtown housing development .

Over the past year, the Public Works Department and Planning Division have been workin g together to formulate options that would effectively implement these policies and programs .

Staff attended four separate meetings with the parking sub- committee of the Downtow n Association over the past year to review proposed amendments . The committee recommende d modifications to the Municipal Code and to the Access and Parking Management Plan t o implement the policy direction . The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Plannin g Commission at three hearings ( May 25, July 27 and August 24, 2011).

The Commission' s recommendation included two code amendments designed to increas e flexibility for residential units in the C-D zone . One amendment increases the distance allowed t o off-site parking up to 1,250 feet (current limit is 500 feet); and the other amendment allows fo r discretionary parking reductions to be granted by the Community Development Director ( up t o 10%) or the Planning Commission ( greater than 10%) for residential projects that provide a tri p reduction plan or other justification that the reduction is warranted . Additionally, the amendmen t includes relocating the code text that discusses parking for the C-D zone from MC 17 .42 into the general parking section, MC 17 .16 .060, to allow all of the parking requirements to be within on e chapter, increasing readability .

The Commission' s recommendation also included amendments to the Access and Parkin g Management Plan to implement the General Plan policies for more flexible parking regulation s by adding a section on parking for downtown residents . Specifically, the Commission' s recommendation includes the following changes to the City's Access and Parking Managemen t Plan :

Council Agenda Report — GPI 8- 11 & GPI 83- 07
November 15, 201 1

1. Revise the Table of Contents to include a section on Downtown Residential Parking .

2. Expand the Parking Management Goals to support downtown residential parking .

3. Revise the definition of "Parking Structures" to include residential users .

4. Expand the General Use of Parking policies to allow the long term parking for residentia l uses in City owned parking facilities .

5. Add a section on the Use of Parking for Downtown Residents that includes policies and actions .

The recommended changes are detailed in Exhibit A of Attachment 5 .

Chapter 17 .16 .060 . (Table 6 — Parking Requirements by Use) This modification corrects an error from previous Zoning Code updates where Multi-famil y parking requirements should have been modified to be consistent with changes to parkin g requirements for the Multi-family development and the R-1 zone . No changes to parkin g requirements for Multi-family parking are recommended .

Neighborhood Preservation ( Chapter 17 .17 .075 )
Planning Commission recommended amendments would modify screening requirements of trash , recycling, and green waste receptacles, which were added by the City Council in last year' s Zoning Code update on September 7, 2010 . At the September 7th, 2010, Council meeting, a provision was added which required trash, green waste, and recycling receptacles to be completely screened from public view . The provision was an addition to Planning Commissio n recommended amendments that the receptacles be completely removed from the "front yard " area unless placed out for pickup in accordance with Municipal Code requirements . The "fron t yard" is defined as : The area of a residential lot that lies between the street property line and the walls of any residences that face the street ( Ord . 1277, 1995). The Municipal Code states that th e containers shall not be placed adjacent to the street for pickup more than 24 hours before picku p time, and must be removed within the twelve- hour period following pickup .

Although the screening requirement is in the context of "front yards", it did not specify clearl y that screening applies to "front yards" only, and refers to screening the receptacles from publi c view . There are many properties in the city where receptacles have been stored in rear yard area s along alley ways, or are partially screened but open on one side . Also, on a corner lot with tw o street frontages, long-standing storage of trash receptacles in the side yard is a violation of th e ordinance if visible from public view . This has created public confusion and enforcement issue s for staff since the ordinance can be interpreted to mean that if receptacles are visible fro m anywhere on the public right-of-way that the property is in violation . The recommende d amendments are intended to clarify the screening requirements apply to the " front yard" area . The recommended amendments also clarify how the regulations apply to multi-family developments .

Front Yard Parking
On September 7, 2010, The City Council considered Zoning Regulations Amendment s forwarded from the Planning Commission . The Council adopted the Zoning Regulation

Council Agenda Report – GPI 8-11 & GPI 83- 07
November 15, 201 1

amendments and directed staff to return to Council with revised regulations on front yard parking which are clear and enforceable . Council' s direction on front yard parking regulation s was based on public comment on the negative impact of vehicle parking in front yard area s outside of driveways and approved parking spaces . In many areas of the City, makeshift parkin g has expanded in front yard areas beyond driveways leading to garages or other approved parkin g spaces . Landscaped areas of front yards have been eliminated and additional parking spaces hav e been forced into front yard areas that were not designed to be parking areas and do not align wit h the curb openings to the street . On April 19, 2011, Council directed staff to create a more robus t enforcement program utilizing additional resources in the form of Neighborhood Service s Specialists . The work program currently includes neighborhood parking and front yard parkin g violations as one of the work program issues as a focus of Neighborhood Services Specialists .

On April 27, 2011, the Planning Commission held a study session to discuss potentia l amendments to the Zoning Code including front yard parking and fence height regulations . Th e Commission raised numerous points including how to address previously approved parkin g which may be non-conforming under the new regulations and enforcement strategies including a strategy for roll out and how to achieve the most effective enforcement methods . The Commission discussed whether property owners could be held responsible for repeated violation s of tenants . The Commission also discussed the need for outreach to students and property owners on the issue prior to beginning stepped up enforcement efforts . Staff anticipates returning to th e Council in early 2012 with amendments to front yard parking regulations following outreach efforts, Planning Commission review, and full consideration of legal and enforcemen t constraints .

Business Park ( Chapter 17 .49) & Growth Management ( Chapter 17 .88 ) The Business Park Zoning ( BP) chapter reflects already adopted regulations in the Airport Are a and Margarita Area Specific Plans and no changes are proposed . The Business Park Regulation s are being added to the Zoning Code for reference only . Amendments for the Growth Management Regulations reflect recently adopted amendments approved by Council and n o changes are recommended .

Environmental Revie w
On September 7, 2010, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration of Environmenta l Impact for Zoning Code amendments ( ER 3-10). The recommended Zoning Code amendment s are a follow up to amendments previously reviewed by the Council, and there are no additiona l modifications which would have the potential for significant impacts to the environment . An Initial Study of Environmental Impact ( GPI/ER 83-07) was prepared for Downtown Residentia l Parking amendments and did not identify any impacts that were considered significant an d unavoidable ( Attachment 2). The Negative Declaration of environmental impact was recommended by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2011 . Final adoption of the Negativ e Declaration requires City Council approval .

PH1-5

Council Agenda Report — GPI 8- 11 & GPI 83- 0 7
November 15, 201 1

FISCAL IMPAC T
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, whic h found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced . Accordingly, since the propose d amendments are consistent with the General Plan, it has a neutral fiscal impact .

ALTERNATIVE S

1. The Council could approve the proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations an d Parking and Access Plan with additional modifications .

2. The Council could determine that the proposed modifications would be inconsistent with the General Plan and/or other policy documents, and therefore not approve th e amendments .

3. The Council could continue review of the proposed Zoning Regulations and Parking an d Access Plan amendments, and provide direction to staff for research and revisions .

ATTACHMENT S

1. Zoning Regulations Text Amendments ( legislative draft )

2. Land Use Element and Housing Element General Plan Policie s

3. Initial Study of Environmental Impact ( GPI 83-07 )

4. Draft ordinance introducing the text amendment s

5. Draft resolution amending the Access and Parking Management Pla n

COUNCIL READING FIL E
1 . Planning Commission Minutes ( May 25, June 22, July 13, July 27, and August 24 , 2011 )

2. Planning Commission Resolutions ( May 25, June 22, July 13, July 27, and Augus t 24, 2011 )

3. Planning Commission staff reports ( May 25, June 22, July 13, July 27, and Augus t 24, 2011 )
G :\CD- PLAN\ BLeveill\ Zoning code update 2011\ Council Docs\ 11, 15, 01 CC Meeting Docs\ 11- 15, 2011, Zoning Regs Update Council Agenda Report . doc

Chapter 2

CIRCULATION
Adopted: December 9, 2014
(Council Resolution No. 10586, 2014 Series)

Amended October 24, 2017

Chapter 2

The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic Growth Council.  The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the City of San Luis Obispo and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees.  The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in this report.

Circulation Element

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of San Luis Obispo would like to thank and recognize the efforts of those involved in the development of the Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Update and associated Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

City of San Luis Obispo
Citizens of San Luis Obispo The residents of the City who participated in the development of the LUCE update.

City Council  Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
 John Ashbaugh
 Dan Carpenter
 Andrew Carter (Former)
 Carlyn Christianson
 Dan Rivoire
 Kathy Smith (Former)
Planning Commission  John Larson, Chairperson
 Michael Multari,
Vice Chairperson
 Hemalata Dandekar
 Michael Draze
 John Fowler
 Ronald Malak
 Eric Meyer (Former)
 William Riggs
 Airlin Singewald (Former)
 Charles Stevenson (Former)
TF‐LUCE  Walter Bremer
 Russell Brown
 Carlyn Christianson (Former)
 Chuck Crotser
 Hemalata Dandekar
 Jon Goetz
 Dave Juhnke
 Stephan Lamb (Former)
 Eric Meyer, Chairperson
 Dean Miller (Former)
 Michael Multari
 Matt Quaglino
 Pierre Rademaker
 Chris Richardson
 Rob Rossi
 Sandra Rowley
 Carla Saunders
 Sharon Whitney
City Manager  Katie Lichtig City Manager

Chapter 2

Please see the next page.

Circulation Element

CHAPTER 2 – CIRCULATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................................2‐3 CHAPTER 2 – CIRCULATION..........................................................................................................................................2‐5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................................................................2‐5 LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................................................................2‐7 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................2‐7

1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT........................................................................................................................................2‐9 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................. 2‐9

1.1. Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐9

1.2. History............................................................................................................................................................ 2‐9

1.3. Public Participation........................................................................................................................................ 2‐9

1.4. For More Information.................................................................................................................................... 2‐9

1.5. Definitions...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐9

1.6. Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 2‐10

1.7. Transportation Objectives........................................................................................................................... 2‐10

2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION ..........................................................................................................................................2‐13

2.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐13

2.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐13

3. TRANSIT SERVICE................................................................................................................................................2‐14

3.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐14

3.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐14

4. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................2‐16

4.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐16

4.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐17

5. WALKING ...........................................................................................................................................................2‐18

5.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐18

5.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐19

6. MULTI‐MODAL CIRCULATION ............................................................................................................................. 2‐20

6.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐20

6.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐21

7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT .....................................................................................................................................2‐22 Overall Purpose........................................................................................................................................................... 2‐22

7.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐22

7.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐22 Types of Streets........................................................................................................................................................... 2‐27

7.3. Design Standards......................................................................................................................................... 2‐27

8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................... 2‐29

8.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐29

8.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐30

9. STREET NETWORK CHANGES .............................................................................................................................. 2‐31

9.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐31

9.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐31

Chapter 2

10. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................................................2‐36

10.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐36

10.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐36

11. AIR TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................................................2‐38

11.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐38

11.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐38

12. RAIL TRANSPORTATION......................................................................................................................................2‐39 Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity ................................................... 2‐39

12.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐39

12.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐39

13. PARKING MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................2‐40 Commercial Parking .................................................................................................................................................... 2‐40

13.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐40

13.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐40

14. Neighborhood Parking Management.................................................................................................................. 2‐41

14.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐41

14.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐41

15. SCENIC ROADWAYS............................................................................................................................................2‐42

15.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐42

15.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐44

16. CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT .....................................2‐45

16.1. Policies......................................................................................................................................................... 2‐45

16.2. Programs...................................................................................................................................................... 2‐45 APPENDIX A.  RESOLUTION 10586 .............................................................................................................................. A‐1 APPENDIX B.  MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................B‐1 Multimodal LOS Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................................... B‐1 Urban Streets Methodology from the 2010 HCM......................................................................................................... B‐1 Pedestrian LOS Factors.................................................................................................................................................. B‐2 Bicyclist LOS Factors...................................................................................................................................................... B‐2 Transit Passenger LOS Factors ...................................................................................................................................... B‐3 Appendix C. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology ................................................................................................C‐1 Appendix D.  Summary of Circulation Element Projects and Programs........................................................................ D‐1 Appendix E.  Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures) ..........................................................................................E‐1 Appendix F.  Existing Intersection LOS ......................................................................................................................... F‐1

Circulation Element

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Street Classification Diagram ................................................................................................................... 2‐25 Figure 2 Designated STAA Truck Routes ................................................................................................................ 2‐37 Figure 3 Scenic Roadways ...................................................................................................................................... 2‐43

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Modal Split Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 2‐11 Table 2. MMLOS Objectives and Service Standards............................................................................................... 2‐20 Table 3. Modal Priorities for Level of Service ........................................................................................................ 2‐20 Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards..................................................................................... 2‐28 Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects................................................................................................................ 2‐32

Chapter 2

Please see the next page.

Circulation Element

1. CIRCULATION ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose
The City's general plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes.  The general plan is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics.  This Circulation Element describes how the city plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond.

While the Land Use Element describes the city's desired character and size, the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the community envisioned by the Land Use Element.  The vision of San Luis Obispo described by the Land Use Element is influenced by the layout and capacity of streets and the location of other transportation facilities described in the Circulation Element.  Transportation facilities and programs influence the character of neighborhoods, the location of specific land uses, and the overall form of the city.

1.2. History
The City adopted a master plan for streets and highways in 1953 and in 1962.  In 1973, it adopted its first Circulation Element which was completely revised in 1982 and again in 1994.  This Circulation Element is a revision of the 1994 Element.  This Element's preparation was coordinated with the preparation of a revised Land Use Element.

1.3. Public Participation
Before adopting or revising any general plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council hold public hearings.  The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten days before they are held.  Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before a general plan element is adopted. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed an administrative draft of this Circulation element at public meetings between 2012 and 2014.  A public hearing draft of the Element was published for public review in January 2014.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the effects of both this Circulation Element and a revised Land Use Element, was published for public review in June 2014.  In September and October 2014 the Planning Commission held public hearings to review the Circulation Element and EIR and forwarded recommendations to the City Council.  In September 2014, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the Circulation and Land Use Elements as accurate and complete.  In September through December 2014, the City Council held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element. The City Council adopted this Circulation Element on December 9, 2014.

1.4. For More Information
For more current or detailed information concerning this element, contact the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805) 781‐7210.

1.5. Definitions
Terms used in this chapter are included in the glossary section of this document.

Chapter 2

1.6. Goals and Objectives
Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions.  In this context, they are meant to express the community's preferences for current and future conditions and directions.   In the following statements, San Luis Obispo means the community as a whole, not just the city as a municipal corporation.

1.6.1. Transportation Goals

1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single‐occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality.

2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.

3. Provide a system of streets that are well‐maintained and safe for all forms of transportation.

4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will cause no significant, long‐term environmental problems.

5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.

6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.

7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San Luis Obispo County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly.

8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, telecommuting, creative transportation demand management, and compact work weeks.

9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes.

1.6.2. Overall Transportation Strategy
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned‐for population by:

1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element;

2. Funding alternative forms of transportation;

3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities;

4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes;

5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;

6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;

7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety.

1.7. Transportation Objectives

1.7.1. Encourage Better Transportation Habits
San Luis Obispo should:

1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Table 1) and depend less on the single‐occupant use of vehicles.

2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single‐occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation.

Circulation Element

Table 1. Modal Split Objectives
Type of Transportation
% of City (1)
Resident
Trips
Motor Vehicles 50%
Transit 12%
Bicycles 20%
Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 18%

1.7.2. Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:

1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the city by 2035, and extend the system to serve new growth areas.

2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by 2035, and provide service to new growth areas.

3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction programs.

4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than the single‐occupant vehicle.

1.7.3. Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should:

1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development to the rates and levels stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing regulations.  Limit increases in ADT and VMT to the increase in employment within the City's Urban Reserve.

2. Support county‐wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county‐wide travel demand.

3. Support county‐wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing road system and reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.

4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of transportation throughout the city and connect with Regional Routes and Highways.

5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists.

6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.

7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood‐serving business and provide parks and recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by pedestrians or bicyclists.

8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets.

9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of land uses around the airport to avoid noise and safety problems.

Chapter 2

1.7.4. Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement San Luis Obispo should:

1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel‐efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of air pollution. (a) The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas and biodiesel fueling stations, EV recharging stations, and other alternative fuel stations in the San Luis Obispo area. (b) When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City will consider purchasing alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution.
(c) The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis.

2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of information to substitute for travel to work or meetings.  Develop goals and policies for City employee participation in telecommuting systems.

3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of innovative transportation technologies in San Luis Obispo.

4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and other transportation corridors.

1.7.5. Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation.

San Luis Obispo will:

1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Table 1 and bi‐annually review and adjust transportation programs if necessary.

1.7.6. Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors.

The City will:

1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that create safe, attractive, and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining land uses and the traveling public.

Circulation Element

2. TRAFFIC REDUCTION
As part of the General Plan Update, integrating the concept of sustainability was an important aspect of the State grant.  In reviewing the General Plan, a number of sustainability practices were already included in the General Plan.  For existing and new policies and programs that support sustainability, this icon is shown at the end of the policy / programs title.  See Policy 2.1.3 below as an example.

The small city character of San Luis Obispo is an important quality to maintain. This section presents policies and programs for reducing the use of automobiles and emphasizing alternative forms of transportation.

2.1. Policies

2.1.1. Multi-level Programs
The City shall support county‐wide and community‐based efforts aimed at substantially reducing the number of vehicle trips and parking demand.

2.1.2. Flexible Work Schedules
The City shall support flex time programs and alternative work schedules to reduce peak hour traffic demand.

2.1.3. Work-based Trip Reduction
The City shall encourage employers within the city limits and work with the county to work with employers outside of the City limits to participate in trip reduction programs.

2.1.4. Downtown Congestion
Within the Downtown the City shall establish and promote programs aimed at reducing congestion in a way that supports the long‐term economic viability of the downtown.

2.1.5. Long-term Measure
The City shall support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades below legal standards or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent measures to achieve its transportation goals.

2.2. Programs

2.2.1. Agency Cooperation
In coordination with county agencies, the City shall support efforts in establishing county‐wide trip reduction programs.

2.2.2. City Trip Reduction
The City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City employees.

2.2.3. Large Employers
The City shall work with employers to establish a voluntary commuter benefit options program that provides commute options for employees.

2.2.4. Incentives for Educational Institutions
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to provide incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.

Chapter 2

3. TRANSIT SERVICE

3.1. Policies

3.1.1. Transit Development
The City shall encourage transit accessibility, development, expansion, coordination and marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broad range of local and regional transportation needs.

3.1.2. City Bus Service
The City shall improve and expand city bus service to make the system more convenient and accessible for everyone.  Transit services owned and operated by the City shall endeavor to maintain and improve all system‐side transit standards identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.

3.1.3. Paratransit Service
The City shall continue to support paratransit service for seniors and persons with disabilities by public, private, and volunteer transportation providers.

3.1.4. Campus Service
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand the "fare subsidy program" for campus affiliates.  The City shall work with Cuesta College and other schools to establish similar programs.

3.1.5. Unmet Transit Needs
The City shall work with SLOCOG to identify and address Unmet Transit Needs.

3.1.6. Service Standards
The City shall implement the following service standards for its transit system and for development that is proximate to the transit network:

A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems should be coordinated to encourage use of buses.

B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of existing businesses or dwellings.

C. In City expansion areas, employment‐intensive uses or medium, medium‐high or high density residential uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route.

D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation.

3.1.7. Transit Service Access
New development should be designed to facilitate access to transit service.

3.2. Programs

3.2.1. Transit Plans
The City shall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5‐year time frame) and coordinate with SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit Plan (20‐year time frame).  The Plans shall consider funding partnerships to continue the Downtown Trolley service as part of the overall transit system as funding permits.

3.2.2. Bulk Rate Transit Passes
The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to all groups.

Circulation Element

3.2.3. Commuter Bus Service
The City shall work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to maintain and expand commuter bus service to and from the City of San Luis Obispo during peak demand periods consistent with the Short Range Transit Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.

3.2.4. Transit Service Evaluation
The City shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of consolidated service.

3.2.5. Marketing and Promotion
The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive marketing and promotion program to reach individual target audiences.

3.2.6. Short Range Transit Plan
The City shall update its Short Range Transit Plan to evaluate adding mass transit stops at the high school and the middle school.

3.2.7. New Development
When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.

3.2.8. Regional Transit Center
The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional transit center downtown.

Chapter 2

4. BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION

4.1. Policies

4.1.1. Bicycle Use
The City shall expand the bicycle network and provide end‐of‐trip facilities to encourage bicycle use and to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.

4.1.2. Campus and School Site Trips
The City shall encourage the use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational facilities.

4.1.3. Continuous Network
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way in the City as they become available.

4.1.4. New Development
The City shall require that new development provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers consistent with City plans and development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.

4.1.5. Bikeway Design and Maintenance
The City shall design and maintain bikeways to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.

4.1.6. Bikeway Development with Road Improvements
The City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan when:

A. The street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to its cross‐sectional design; or B. The street section is being changed as part of a development project.

4.1.7. Education and Safety
The City shall support education and safety programs aimed at all cyclists and motorists.

4.1.8. Bicycle Transportation Coordinator
The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle transportation plan policies and programs.

4.1.9. Traffic Law Compliance
The City shall continue to seek compliance with its traffic laws through enforcement and education.

4.1.10. Right-of-way Acquisition
The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right‐of‐ways needed to implement the projects identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.

4.1.11. Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation
The City shall support allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement bicycle transportation policies and programs.

4.1.12. Bike Parking
The City shall facilitate development of conveniently located bike parking so as not to impede pedestrian walkways.

Circulation Element

4.1.13. Campus Coordination
The City shall consider the Cal Poly and Cuesta Master Plans to better coordinate the planning and implementation of safe and convenient bicycle access and facilities to local college campuses.

4.2. Programs

4.2.1. Bike Share
The City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and other educational institutions.

4.2.2. Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Bicycle Transportation Plan as needed to reflect changes in state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan shall consider Safe Routes to School.

4.2.3. Campus Master Plans
The City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to de‐emphasize the use of automobiles and promote the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans.

4.2.4. Zoning Regulations
The City shall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for secured bicycle parking and ancillary facilities.

4.2.5. Railroad Bikeway and Trail
The City should obtain railroad right‐of‐way and easements to establish a separated bike path and pedestrian trail through San Luis Obispo.

4.2.6. Bicycle Friendly Community
The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a gold level designation.

4.2.7. Regional Coordination
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bicycle network.

4.2.8. Bicycle Licensing
The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to address bicycle loss, theft, and safety problems.

Chapter 2

5. WALKING

5.1. Policies

5.1.1. Promote Walking
The City shall encourage and promote walking as a regular means of transportation.

5.1.2. Sidewalks and Paths
The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network connecting residential areas with major activity centers as well as trails leading into city and county open spaces.

5.1.3. New Development
New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.

5.1.4. Pedestrian Access
New or renovated commercial and government public buildings shall provide convenient pedestrian access from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from driveways and vehicle entrances.

5.1.5. Pedestrian Crossings
To improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections, the City shall institute the following:

A. Install crossing controls where warranted by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street.

B. In the downtown, install traffic‐calming features such as textured cross walks and bulb‐outs, where appropriate.

C. On Arterial Streets, Parkways or Regional Routes with four or more travel lanes, install medians at pedestrian crossings where roadway width allows.

5.1.6. Downtown Commercial Core
The City shall require that pedestrian facilities in the downtown be designed in accordance with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines to allow a clear path of travel and include conveniently located rest areas with shade and seating.

5.1.7. Sidewalks
As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider neighborhood character including topography, street design, existing density and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation of sidewalks.

Circulation Element

5.2. Programs

5.2.1. Downtown Pedestrian Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage walking and to expand facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The plan shall include pedestrian safety assessments in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.

5.2.2. Pedestrian Network
For areas outside of the Downtown, the City shall implement its program for the installation of a continuous and connected pedestrian network giving areas with the heaviest existing or potential pedestrian traffic priority in funding.

5.2.3. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
The City shall continue to implement its annual program of enhancing existing curbs with ADA compliant ramps.

5.2.4. Safe Routes to School
The City shall continue to coordinate with SLOCOG and local schools to pursue Safe Routes to School programs and grant opportunities.

5.2.5. Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan.

Chapter 2

6. MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION
Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes.

6.1. Policies

6.1.1. Complete Streets
The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and travel for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.

6.1.2. Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per Table 2 and the Highway Capacity manual.

Table 2. MMLOS Objectives and Service Standards
Travel Mode LOS Objective Minimum LOS Standard
Bicycle 1 B D
Pedestrian 2 B C
Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower
Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes)
Notes:
(1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. (2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density. (3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.

6.1.3. Multimodal Priorities
In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, multimodal service levels should be prioritized in accordance with the established modal priorities designated in Table 3, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. 1 Table 3. Modal Priorities for Level of Service
Complete Streets Areas   Priority Mode Ranking
Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians     3. Transit

2. Bicycles     4. Vehicle
Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians     3. Vehicle

2. Bicycles     4. Transit
Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles     3. Transit

2. Bicycles     4. Pedestrians
Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles     3. Bicycles

2. Transit     4. Pedestrians
Notes:
(1) Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density.

Circulation Element

6.1.4. Defining Significant Circulation Impact
Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2.  If the level of service degrades below thresholds established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, it shall be determined a significant impact for purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  For roadways already operating below the established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant impact under CEQA.

Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately served through other means e.g., another parallel facility or like service.   Based on this determination, a finding of no significant impact may be determined by the City.

6.1.5. Mitigation
For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required.

Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to:

A. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing distance.

B. Bicycle:  Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance.

C. Transit:  For transit‐related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any infrastructural improvements required.  This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes.

6.1.6. City Review
When new projects impact the existing circulation system, the City shall review the effectiveness and desirability of “direct fix” mitigation improvements to address MMLOS impacts. Where a significant impact is found, alternative system‐wide project mitigations may be submitted for consideration to the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.1.2 and Table 2.  Exceptions shall be based on the physical conditions of the right‐of‐way to support additional improvements.  If the right‐of‐way in question cannot address on‐site mitigation, appropriate off‐site improvements that have direct nexus to and effectively address the specific impacts created by the project may be considered.

6.2. Programs

6.2.1. Traffic Count Program
As funding permits the City shall biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians, bikes, vehicles and transit to maintain and update its database of transportation conditions and to evaluate the state of the transportation system in accordance with the established modal priorities and standards.

Chapter 2

7. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
City, County and State governments maintain a network of public streets that provide access throughout the community.

How these streets are designed, constructed and managed can affect levels of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, the economic viability of commercial areas, and the quality of living throughout the city.  The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage the community's street system.

Overall Purpose
The primary purpose of street corridors is to enable the movement of people and goods across all modes of transportation. The design and use of streets should relate to and respect the character and type of surrounding land uses. If residential areas are to maintain their character, they cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or industrial areas.

7.1. Policies

7.1.1. Peak Hour and Daily Traffic
The City shall cooperate with County and State government to institute programs that reduce the levels of peak‐hour and daily vehicle traffic.

7.1.2. Street Network
The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table 2 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by strengthening alternative modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. Where feasible, roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection control alternative due to the vehicle speed reduction, safety, and operational benefits of roundabouts.

7.1.3. Growth Management & Roadway Expansion
The City shall manage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular traffic associated with development planned for in the Land Use Element and under the City’s growth management policies and regional transportation plans.

7.1.4. Transportation Funding
In order to increase support for non‐automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown in Table 1.

7.1.5. Vehicle Speeds
To the extent permitted under the CVC, the City shall endeavor to maintain and reduce speeds where possible in residential neighborhoods.

7.2. Programs

7.2.1. Traffic Reduction Priority
Those traffic programs identified in the Circulation Element that have the greatest potential to reduce traffic increases shall have priority for implementation.

Circulation Element

7.2.2. Transportation Monitoring
As funding permits the City shall implement an ongoing and comprehensive transportation monitoring program that, at a minimum, will keep track of (on a bi‐annual basis):

A. Changes in traffic volumes throughout the city.

B. Changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial streets, regional routes and highways.

C. Traffic speeds.

D. Changes in the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

E. Changes in streetscape features.

F. The location, type and frequency of accidents.

7.2.3. Transportation Survey
The City shall regularly, as funding permits, conduct a travel behavior survey of residents to estimate their use of different types of transportation.

7.2.4. Transportation Model
The City will maintain a travel demand model of the City's circulation system and coordinate with SLOCOG in support of the county‐wide travel demand model for San Luis Obispo County.

7.2.5. Cooperative Street Design
The City shall work with the County to jointly develop and adopt design and construction standards for streets within the City's Urban Reserve.

7.2.6. Subdivision Regulations
The City shall revise its Subdivision Regulations to include right‐of‐way and design standards for each type of street shown in Figure 1 and Table 4.

7.2.7. Traffic Access Management
The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway including navigation routes to direct traffic in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. Navigation routing and other smart access technologies should be considered as part of the update to the Access and Parking Management plan.

7.2.8. State Highway HOV Lanes
The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use.

7.2.9. Transportation Funding
The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.1.4 concurrent with the 2015‐17 Financial Plan.  In meeting the “approximately proportional” goal of the policy, the guidelines may take into consideration such factors as the need for multi‐year planning and budgeting, the recognition that projects may benefit multiple modes, that non‐city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major interchange improvements) may be identified as special cases, that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes.

Chapter 2

Please see the next page.

Circulation Element

o
Santa Rosa North Santa Rosa
Higuera
West Foothill
California
Foothill
South Higuera
Tank Farm
Los Osos Valley
Broad
Grand
Monterey
North Chorro
Orcutt
Orcutt
Madonna
Johnson
Johnson
Marsh
Highland
Capitolio
Prado
Industrial
South
Orcutt
Laurel
Pismo
Chorro
High
Palm
Osos
Buckley
Jeffrey
Del Rio
£¤101
L a g u n a L a k e
¯ Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Figure 1
Streets Classification Diagram
LUCE SOI Planning Subarea
!
! !
! City Limits
Urban Reserve
Proposed Existing
Arterial
Commercial Collector
Freeway/Ramp/Highway Residential Arterial
Residential Local
Regional Route/
Parkway Arterial
Residential Collector (Major)
Residential Collector (Minor)

Chapter 2

Back of Figure 1

Circulation Element

Types of Streets

7.3. Design Standards
The City’s roadway system is shown in Figure 1. The City shall require that improvements to the City’s roadway system are made consistent with the following descriptions and standards:

7.3.1. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
The total number of vehicles that use a particular street throughout the day (24 hours).

7.3.2. Vehicle Level of Service (LOS)
Level of service is a letter grade representation of the quality of traffic flow based on congestion.

A. Level of Service (LOS) "A" is free‐flowing traffic while LOS "F" is extreme congestion.

B. At LOS "D," the recommended standard, drivers can expect delays of 35 to 55 seconds and sometimes have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Vehicle may stack up at intersections but dissipate rapidly.

C. At LOS "E," delays increase to 55 to 80 seconds and drivers frequently have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal.  Stacked lines of cars at intersections become longer.

Chapter 2

Table 4. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards Descriptions1 of Street Types
Maximum

ADT/LOS
Desired maximum
Speeds2
Local Commercial Streets directly serve non‐residential development that front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets. 5,000 25 mph Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front them and channel traffic to minor and major residential collector streets. 1,500 25 mph Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and channel it to arterials. 10,000 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets (Minor) collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets (Major) collect traffic from neighborhood commercial, high density residential and residential areas and channel it to arterials.
5,000 25 mph
Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled.

LOS D CVC*
Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas
LOS E
(Downtown)
LOS D
(other routes)
CVC*
CVC*
Parkway Arterials /Regional Routes are arterial routes with landscaped medians where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged. These routes connect the city with other parts of the county and are used by people traveling throughout the county and state and are designated as primary traffic carriers.

LOS D CVC*
Highway/Freeway/Ramps is a regional route of significance where access is controlled. Segments of these routes leading into San Luis Obispo should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define them as community entryways.

LOS D CVC*
*Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC).

Notes:
(1) To determine the classification of a particular street segment, refer to Figure 1: Streets Classification Map and Appendix E.  Appendix E includes the most recent traffic counts and estimates of level of service (LOS). Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a particular street.  In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this table.  Note that all ADT should reflect volumes typically experienced when all schools are in session.  To account for seasonal shifts ADT shall be calculated using an annual average daily traffic (AADT) for individual volumes and the threshold shall be adjusted up to 15%. (2) Desired maximum speed means that 85% of motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted up by 2.7 mph.

Circulation Element

8. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT

8.1. Policies

8.1.1. Through Traffic
The City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways, Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of Collectors and Local streets.

8.1.2. Residential Streets
The City should not approve commercial development that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to use Residential Local or Residential Collector (Minor and Major) streets.

8.1.3. Neighborhood Traffic Speeds
To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code, the City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods.

8.1.4. Neighborhood Traffic Management
The City shall ensure that neighborhood traffic management projects:

A. Provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all residential neighborhoods.

B. Provide for adequate response conditions for emergency vehicles.

C. Provide for convenient and safe through bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

8.1.5. Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines
The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and implementation procedures and develop an outreach program on the availability of the program.

8.1.6. Non-Infill Development
In new, non‐infill developments, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met without the use of noise walls.

8.1.7. New Project Evaluation
The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that significantly exceed the thresholds established in Table 4 except as provided under CEQA. The City shall also not approve development which significantly worsens already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Table 4 except as provided under CEQA. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut‐ through traffic.

Chapter 2

8.2. Programs

8.2.1. Traffic Management Plans
As funding permits the City shall provide neighborhood traffic management services for residential areas that have traffic volumes or speeds which exceed the thresholds established in Table 4.

8.2.2. Traffic Control Measures
The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes exceed standards set by Table 4, Street Classification Descriptions and Standards.

8.2.3. Quality of Life
The City shall analyze residential streets for their livability with regards to multi‐modal traffic noise, volumes, speed, and safety as well as the amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and potential excess right‐of‐way pavement. Traffic calming or other intervening measures may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. The City should give priority to existing streets that exceed thresholds.

8.2.4. Regional Cut-Through Traffic
The City shall identify and address regional cut‐through traffic issues in the City.

Circulation Element

9. STREET NETWORK CHANGES

9.1. Policies

9.1.1. New Development
The City shall require that new development assumes its fair share of responsibility for constructing new streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bus turn‐outs or reconstructing existing facilities.

9.1.2. Public Participation
The City shall provide for broad public participation in the planning and design of major changes to the street network.

9.1.3. Arterial Street Corridors
The City shall seek to improve the livability of existing arterial streets through redesign of street corridors.

9.1.4. Project Implementation
Street projects should be implemented in the appropriate sequence to ensure that development does not precede needed infrastructure improvements.

9.1.5. Right-of-Way Reservation
The City shall require rights‐of‐way to be reserved through the building setback line process or through other mechanisms so that options for making transportation improvements are preserved.

9.2. Programs

9.2.1. Building Setback Lines
The City will establish building setback lines for routes listed on Table 5.

9.2.2. Prado Road Improvements
The City shall ensure that changes to Prado Road (Projects 1, 2, and 19 on Table 5) and other related system improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area development.

The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange or overpass (Project 19 on Table 5) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report for the interchange project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California Department of Transportation.

9.2.3. Street Amenities Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a plan and standards for the installation and maintenance of landscaped medians, parkways, signs, utilities, street furniture, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Within the Downtown the street amenities shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines.

9.2.4. Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center
The City will evaluate complete street designs that maximize the shared right of way for all users as a method for achieving the overall objective of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center to improve the pedestrian environment in the downtown.

9.2.5. San Luis Ranch/Dalidio Development
As part of any proposal to further develop the Dalidio‐Madonna Area, the alignment and design of extensions of Froom Ranch Way connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) shall be evaluated and established if consistent with the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle Joaquin Reserve.

Chapter 2

Table 5. Transportation Capital Projects
Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Extensions
1 Prado Road
Extension West
Extend and widen Prado Rd. as an Arterial street
with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible)
from US 101 to Madonna.

City
Caltrans
County
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
2 Prado Road
Extension East
Widen and extend Prado Rd. as an
Highway/Regional Route Arterial with 2 lanes in
each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped
median, Class II bike lanes, sidewalks and Class I
bike lanes (where feasible) from US 101 to Broad
Street. ROW Limitations east of Higuera outside of
the MASP area may limit the City’s ability to install
Class I facilities. (See MASP)
City
Caltrans
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
3 Buckley Road
Extension
Extend Buckley Road as an Arterial street from
Vachell Lane to Higuera Street. (See AASP)
City
County
 Developer Const.
4 Bullock Lane
Extension
Widen and extend a residential collector to connect
Orcutt Road with Tank Farm Road. (See OASP)
City  Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
5 Santa Fe Road
Extension
Realign and Extend Santa Fe Road as a Commercial
Collector from Hoover Avenue to Prado Road
including construction of a new bridge at Acacia
Creek and round‐a‐bout at Tank Farm Road. (See
AASP)
City
County
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
6 Bishop Street
Extension
Extend Bishop Street west over R.R. tracks.   The
City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic analysis
to determine if secondary measures can be made to
allow for elimination of the Bishop Street Extension
and protection of neighborhood traffic levels; and
recommend improvements, if any.

City  Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
7 Mission Plaza
Expansion
Expand Mission Plaza to East to Monterey and
Nipomo and Broad Street from Higuera to Palm St.

Some areas of the expansion will have vehicle
permitted pedestrian zones to maintain access to
adjacent properties.

City  Grant Funding
 General Fund
8 Victoria Ave.

Extension
Extend Victoria Ave. from Woodbridge to High
Street.

City  Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund

Circulation Element

Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Widenings
9 Mid Higuera
(Marsh to High
Street)
Acquire property and widen to allow four travel
lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc. & implement
Downtown Plan concepts (See Mid‐Higuera Plan)
City  Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
10 Orcutt Road Widen Orcutt Road as an Arterial Street with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn lane/landscaped
median, Class II bike lanes and sidewalks from UPRR
to Johnson (See OASP)
City  Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
11 Tank Farm Road Widen Tank Farm Road as a Parkway Arterial with 2 lanes in each direction, a center turn
lane/landscaped median, Class II bike lanes,
sidewalks and Class I bike lanes (where feasible)
from Higuera to Broad. (See AASP)
City
County
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
12 South Higuera Widen Higuera to 4 lanes, with a center turn lane, Class II bikeways from Madonna to southern City
Limits
City
CalTrans
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
New Connections
13 Hwy 1 (Santa
Rosa)
Construct a non‐vehicle grade separated crossing at
Boysen and Hwy 1 (Santa Rosa).

City
CalTrans
CalPoly
 Regional Funds
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
14 Tank Farm to
Buckley
Collector
Construct a new North / South collector between
Tank Farm Road & Buckley Road in the vicinity of
Horizon Lane.

City
County
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
15 LOVR Bypass As part of LOVR Creekside Special Planning Area, the project shall analyze impacts of a new roadway
connection in some form from Los Osos Valley Road
to Higuera;  and/or
The City shall conduct a detailed subarea traffic
analysis to determine final feasibility of connecting
a roadway from US 101 to Higuera Street. Issues to
be studied should include, but are not limited to
impacts to: sensitive noise receptors, agriculture
operations, open space, creek, traffic and biological
resources.

City  Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
16 Froom Ranch
Road
Construct a new collector between Prado/Dalido
Rd. and Los Osos Valley Road.

City
County
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding

Chapter 2

Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
Interchange Upgrades
17 Highway 1
(Santa Rosa) &
US 101
Interchange
Upgrade
Construct some form of interchange upgrade
consolidating ramps. (See Hwy 1 MIS report)
City
CalTrans
 Regional Funds
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
18 Broad St. & US
101 Interchange
Closure
Close NB & SB Broad street ramps at Highway 101.

Highway 1 & 101 project is a prerequisite until
otherwise addressed.

City
Caltrans
 Regional Funds
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
19 Prado Road &
US 101
Interchange
Build full interchange at 101. Development of San
Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Area shall include a circulation
analysis of alternatives to a full access interchange,
an analysis of compact interchange designs that
minimize open space / ag. land impacts, and an
analysis of potential incremental phasing of the
interchange elements.

City
Caltrans
County
 Regional Funds
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
Reconfigurations
20 Monterey
Street Right of
Way
Preserve right‐of‐way on Monterey Street from
Santa Rosa to Grand for the purposes of expanding
to four travel lanes and/or bicycle & pedestrian
facilities
City  Developer Cooperation
 General Fund
21 Prefumo
Canyon Rd.

Median
Install landscaped median on Prefumo Canyon Road
between Los Osos Valley Road and Hedley Dr.

City  Grant Funding
 General Fund
22 Garden Street
Makeover
Reconfigure Garden Street to a one‐way street with
pedestrian enhancements.

City  Developer Const.
23 Marsh &
Higuera 2‐Way
Conversion
Convert Marsh & Higuera Streets between Santa
Rosa & Johnson to 2‐way flow.

City  Grant Funding
 General Fund
24 Chorro, Broad,
& Boysen
Realignments
Redevelopment of University Square shall
incorporate a detailed circulation, safety & access
management analysis for the intersections of
Boysen & Santa Rosa (Potential Grade Separated
Crossing / Restriction) Foothill & Chorro, and
Foothill & Broad as well as driveway access points
along adjacent roadways; and recommend
improvements, if any.

City  Developer Const.
 General Fund
25 Madonna/
Higuera
Realignment
As part of redevelopment of the properties north or
south of Madonna Road west of Higuera, or as part
of update to the Mid Higuera Plan, analyze
potential relocation of Madonna Road at Higuera
Street.

City  Developer Const.
 General Fund
26 Pismo/Higuera/
High Street
Redevelopment of properties at the intersection of
High & Pismo at Higuera shall incorporate a detailed
traffic analysis and evaluation of intersection
realignment; and recommend improvements, if any.

City  Developer Const.
 General Fund

Circulation Element

Project Description Agencies Potential Funding
27 Various
Intersection
Upgrades
Grand & Slack, California & Taft, Grand & US 101 SB,
San Luis & California, Higuera & Tank Farm, Broad &
High, Broad & Rockview, Broad & Capitolio, Johnson
& Orcutt, Broad & TankFarm, Broad & Airport.

City
CalTrans
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Developer Const.
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
Ancillary Plans
28 Various Specific
Plans
Margarita Area, Airport Area, Orcutt Area, Broad
Street Corridor, R.R. Dist., Mid‐Higuera, Downtown
Concept, and Future Plans as Adopted.

City
County
CalTrans
CalPoly
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund
29 Various Trans.

Plans
Bicycle Plan, Downtown Pedestrian Plan, Short
Range Transit Plan, Access & Parking Mgmt. Plan,
and Future Plans as Adopted.

City
County
CalTrans
CalPoly
 Developer Const.
 Dev. Impact Fees
 Grant Funding
 General Fund

9.2.6. Streetscapes and major roadways
In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways / regional routes and arterial streets), the City shall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the city’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts.  To accomplish this, the City shall:

A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways; B. Establish that where feasible roundabouts shall be the City’s preferred intersection alternative due to improved aesthetics, reduction in impervious surface areas, and additional landscaping area; C. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings; D. Retain mature trees in the public right‐of‐way;
E. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission.

F. Encourage the use of water‐conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian‐oriented features to enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety.

G. Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians, wayfinding and welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features, sidewalks, and different crosswalk paving types.

H. Encourage and where possible, require undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures.

I. When possible, signs in the public right‐of‐way should be consolidated on a single, low‐profile standard.

J. In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan.

Chapter 2

10. TRUCK TRANSPORTATION
The delivery of most goods and materials to businesses in San Luis Obispo is done by trucks.  Delivery services are essential to the functioning of the City.  However, commercial trucks can cause traffic congestion in the downtown, and create noise and safety problems in residential areas.

The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage delivery services so that problems associated with truck transportation are minimized.

10.1. Policies

10.1.1. Truck Routes
The City shall require STA‐sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 2.

10.2. Programs

10.2.1. Idling Trucks
Trucks should turn off motors when parked. The City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for guidance in establishing standards that address air and noise pollution from idling trucks.

10.2.2. Home Occupations
The City's Home Occupation Permit Regulations should be amended to ensure that commercial trucks are not used to make regular deliveries to home occupations in residential areas.

10.2.3. Commercial Loading Zones
The City shall continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in appropriate downtown areas.

10.2.4. Truck Circulation
The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles.

Circulation Element

£¤1
£¤101
£¤101
UV227
Laguna
Lake BROAD ST

BUCKLEY

LOS OSOS VALLEY RD

ORCUTT RD

JOHNSON AVE

HIGUERA ST

MILL ST

PISMO ST

MARSH ST

HIGUERA S ST

CHORRO ST

MADONNA RD

SANTA ROSA N ST

FOOTHILL W BLVD FOOTHILL BLVD

PRADO RD

HIGH ST

SOUTH ST

MONTEREY ST

HIGHLAND DR
HOOVER

CALIFORNIA BLVD

RAMONA DR

AUGUSTA ST

LAUREL LN

GRAND AVE

OSOS ST BISHOP ST

DALIDIO

MARGARITA AVE

EL MERCADO

HIDDEN SPRINGS

ORCUTT RD

BROAD ST
SLOGPU_Basemap_Regional_2012_07_26_JKC
Figure 2
Legend
Existing Truck Route
Future Truck Route
City Limits
Streams
Water Body Major Road
Street
Railroad
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2012
01 0.5
Miles
Designated STAA Truck Routes

Chapter 2

11. AIR TRANSPORTATION
The City and County of San Luis Obispo are served by the county‐owned airport located off Broad Street near Buckley Road.  The airport allows people to fly private aircraft and to use commercial carriers to connect with national and global commercial carriers.

The following policies and programs address the continued use of the county airport. Additional policies and programs can be found in the City’s Land Use Element.

11.1. Policies

11.1.1. Interstate Air Service
The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services. as forecasted in the Airport Master Plan and approved by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration).

11.1.2. County Aircraft Operations
The City shall work with the County to continue to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use Element.

11.1.3. Public Transit Service
The City shall encourage improved public transit service to the County airport soon as practical.

11.2. Programs

11.2.1. Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft
The City shall work with the County Airport to encourage the use of quieter and more environmentally sensitive aircraft.

11.2.2. Airport Facilities Development
The City shall work with the County Airport to support the further development of airport facilities and attract additional passenger airline services. Possible improvements include, but are not limited to:
instrumented landing systems, radar, and improved passenger waiting facilities.

11.2.3. Airport Funding
The City shall work with the County Airport to pursue funding opportunities, such as Airport Improvement Program grants.

11.2.4. Update of the Airport Land Use Plan
The City shall work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to complete updates of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Airport in regard to significant changes in noise, adjacent land impacts, and safety zones.

Circulation Element

12. RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Coordination with Organizations Regarding Safety and Environmental Sensitivity The Union Pacific Railroad owns and maintains railroad tracks that extend through the county.  AMTRAK uses the Union Pacific line to provide passenger service to San Luis Obispo with connections to the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, and other coastal cities.

Rail transportation is energy efficient and can provide convenient connections to destinations throughout the state.  The following policies identify how the city supports rail service.

12.1. Policies

12.1.1. Passenger Rail Service
The City shall support the increased availability of rail service for travel within the county, state and among states.

12.1.2. State and Federal Programs
The City shall support Regional, State and Federal programs for the expansion of passenger rail service to San Luis Obispo.

12.1.3. Transit Service Connections
The City shall provide transit service to and from the train station in accordance with its Short Range Transit Plan and work with the train station management to upgrade the facility and visitor services.

12.1.4. Intra and Inter-city Transportation Needs
The City supports using the railroad right‐of‐way to help meet multimodal intra and inter‐city transportation needs.

12.2. Programs

12.2.1. Daily Train Connections
The City supports maintaining and increasing daily train service connecting San Luis Obispo with points north and south, with departures and arrivals in the morning, mid‐afternoon and evening.

12.2.2. Intra-county Rail Service
The City shall support San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in evaluating the feasibility of passenger rail service to connect points within the county.

12.2.3. Interagency Cooperation
The City shall coordinate railroad facility infrastructure maintenance with the Union Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District and others to discourage idling train engines in San Luis Obispo.

12.2.4. Railroad Hazards Reduction.

The City shall monitor and respond to changes, or proposed changes in passenger and freight rail traffic that may impact the safety and well‐being of residents of the community including the transport of combustible materials.

12.2.5. Transport of Combustible Materials
The City shall discourage the transportation of oil and other combustible hydrocarbons through the City.

Chapter 2

13. PARKING MANAGEMENT
San Luis Obispo's central business district includes the highest concentration of commercial, office and governmental uses in the city.  Parking is needed for patrons of downtown businesses, tourists and employees.

Use of curb‐side parking in residential areas can affect the character of these areas.  The following policies identify the City's role in providing and managing downtown parking and addressing neighborhood parking needs.

Commercial Parking

13.1. Policies

13.1.1. Curb Parking
The City shall manage curb parking in the downtown to encourage short‐term use to those visiting businesses and public facilities.

13.1.2. City Parking Programs
City parking programs shall be financially self‐supporting.

13.2. Programs

13.2.1. Parking Management Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan (every 5 years) including parking demand reduction strategies and consider emerging best practices such as unbundled parking, smart parking technologies and cash out programs.

13.2.2. Monitor Public Parking
The City shall regularly monitor the use of public parking in the downtown.

13.2.3. Park and Ride Lots
The City shall coordinate with SLOCOG during periodic updates to SLOCOG’s Park and Ride Lot Development report to evaluate the need for and location of park‐and‐ride lots to serve commuters.

13.2.4. Public Parking Structures
The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study.

13.2.5. Curb Parking Evaluation
The City shall continue to work with the Downtown Association to evaluate the use of curb space in the downtown and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces.

13.2.6. Downtown Trolley
The City shall continue to operate the downtown trolley as a parking management tool to reduce congestion.

Circulation Element

14. Neighborhood Parking Management

14.1. Policies

14.1.1. Residential Parking Spaces
Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City's standards that specify the number, design and location of off‐street residential parking spaces.

14.1.2. Neighborhood Protection
The City shall facilitate strategies to protect neighborhoods from spill‐over parking from adjacent high intensity uses.

14.1.3. Neighborhood Parking District
The City’s Residential Parking District Program shall be updated to review the criteria and clarify the process for establishing a district. (Note:  This is not a financing district.)

14.2. Programs

14.2.1. Neighborhood Parking Permits
Upon request from residents or other agencies, the City will evaluate the need for neighborhood parking permit programs or other parking management strategies in particular residential areas.

14.2.2. Financing Districts
The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing districts.

Chapter 2

15. SCENIC ROADWAYS
The following provisions address the scenic importance of local roads and highways in the San Luis Obispo area.

15.1. Policies

15.1.1. Scenic Routes
The route segments shown on Figure 3 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element – Scenic Roadways Map ‐‐are designated as scenic roadways.

15.1.2. Development Along Scenic Routes
The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads.  Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views.

A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and require architectural review.

B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views.

C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact.

D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views.

E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed.  Tall light standards should be avoided.  Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed.  However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns.

F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance.

15.1.3. Public Equipment and Facilities
The City and other agencies should be encouraged to avoid cluttering scenic roadways with utility and circulation‐related equipment and facilities.

A. Whenever possible, signs in the public right‐of‐way should be consolidated on a single low‐profile standard.

B. Public utilities along scenic highways should be installed underground.

C. The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic Routes.  Clustering of street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an alternative to uniform spacing.

D. Traffic signals with long mast arms should be discouraged along scenic roadways.

15.1.4. County Role
The City shall work with the County to protect and enhance scenic roadways that connect San Luis Obispo with other communities and recreation areas.

Circulation Element

! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! !
! ! !!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! ! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
! ! ! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! !
!
! !
!
! !
! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
o
V
V
V
V
V
V
£¤101
BROAD
ORCUTT

BUCKLEY

TANK FARM
MILL

HIGUERA
CHORRO
PISMO

LOS OSOS VALLEY

MADONNA

FOOTHILL
HIGH
MARSH
LEFF

FOOTHILL W

JOHNSON
TORO
PRADO
OSOS
SOUTH

CALIFORNIA
BUCHON

HIGUERA S

SANTA ROSA
ELKS

SAN LUIS
ELLA

H IGHLAND

B ISHOP
LAUREL
SLACK
EVANS

POINSE TTIA
HILL
HOOVER

SOUTHWOOD

BULLOCK
LUNETA

DEL RIO

MOUN T BISHOP
PALM

VA LLE VISTA

VILLAGE
GRAND

LAWRENCE

POLY CANYON
SYDNEY
LIZZIE

MEISSNER

SUBURBAN
MIOSSI
GATHE

WOOD BRIDGE

ROCKVIEW

LON G BEEBEE
DANA
HOPE

DALIDIO

SANTA FE
ELM

MARGARITA
BOND

ISABE LLA
BR
O
AD
FLORA
SLOGPU_Fig3_ScenicRoads_20150410_CJM.pdf
Figure 3
Legend
V Scenic Vista
High Scenic Value
Medium Scenic Value
High or Medium Scenic Value
- Outside City Limit
!
! !
! City Limits
Highway
Roads
Railroad
o Airport
Water Body
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2015
01 0.5
Mile
Scenic Roadways Page 663 of 714
Chapter 2

15.1.5. Scenic Highways
The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining county areas.

This support should be strongly advocated when:

A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them.

B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the San Luis Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency.

C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes shown in the Conservation and Open Space Element.

D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the Caltrans US 101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo County.

15.1.6. Designation of Scenic Highways
The City will advocate that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the County designate qualifying segments of Highways 1, 101 and 227 as Scenic Highways.

15.2. Programs

15.2.1. Visual Character
The City will participate with Caltrans, the County and other cities to establish a program for enhancing the visual character of the Highway 101 corridor consistent with the US 101 Aesthetic Study for San Luis Obispo County.

15.2.2. Architectural Review Guidelines
The City shall revise its Community Design Guidelines to incorporate concern for the protection of views and vistas from scenic roadways.

15.2.3. Street Corridor Landscaping
The City shall adopt a street corridor landscaping plan for scenic roadways.  Indigenous species will be used unless shown to be inappropriate.

15.2.4. Billboards
Both the City and the County should enforce an amortization program for the removal of billboards along scenic roadways.

Circulation Element

16. CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND

MANAGEMENT
The following policies should guide city departments in budgeting for and implementing this Circulation Element.

16.1. Policies

16.1.1. City and Regional Growth
The City shall continue to be an active member of SLOCOG’s regional board to address regional transportation issues in San Luis Obispo County.

16.1.2. Encourage Alternative Transportation
Programs or projects that reduce dependence on single‐occupant vehicles and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation shall be considered prior to roadway capacity increasing projects.

16.1.3. City Funding
The City's Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shall support the programs, plans and projects identified in this Circulation Element.

16.1.4. Alternative Mode Program Objectives
Funding for parking structures shall not compromise the City’s ability to fund its alternative mode programs or projects.

16.1.5. Circulation Element Update
The City shall update its Circulation Element regularly to address significant changes in transportation planning, programming, legislation, and/or city priorities.

16.1.6. Distribution of Transportation Funding
The City shall encourage SLOCOG to consider initiating a county wide revenue measure devoted to local transportation funding, so that San Luis Obispo County becomes a “self help” county.

16.2. Programs

16.2.1. Transportation Work Program
Transportation Work Program shall be regularly updated as part of the City Financial Plan.  The work program must be consistent with the Circulation Element, will cover a five‐year period, shall be updated to include modified projects and costs if warranted, and will establish:

A. Implementation schedules for all City transportation programs and projects including those described in the Circulation Element.

B. A comprehensive funding strategy which identifies funding for each program type by source and amount.

16.2.2. Multi-Modal Impact Fee
The City shall update its multimodal transportation impact fee ordinance in accordance with State Law (AB1600) that requires developers to fund their fair share of projects and programs that mitigate city‐wide transportation impacts caused by new development.

Chapter 2

16.2.3. Evaluation of Alternatives
Prior to implementation of a project identified in this element, the City shall reevaluate its need and include an analysis of alternatives that can achieve the desired results at lower costs and with less environmental impacts.  Alternatives include:

A. Other projects listed in the Circulation Element; or B. Projects made feasible by new or improved technology not existing when this Element was adopted.

16.2.4. Evaluate Transportation Effects
Major development proposals to the City will include displays of the proposal's interfaces with nearby neighborhoods, and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation effects on the entire community.

Circulation Element

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Resolution 10586
Appendix B:. Multimodal Level of Service Definitions
Appendix C:. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology
Appendix D. Summary of Circulation Element Projects & Programs Appendix E. Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures
Appendix F. Existing Intersection LOS
Appendix G. List of Preparers
Appendix H. Resolution 10843

Chapter 2
Please see the next page.

Circulation Element
Page A-1
APPENDIX A. RESOLUTION 10586
A resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving updates to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan including associated amendments to the South Broad Street Area Plan, Noise Element, Safety Element, and Conservation and Open Space Elements; and, approving amendments to the General Plan Land Use designations for special focus areas associated with the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Update project (GPI/ER 15-12)

Chapter 2
Page A-2
Please see the next page.

Circulation Element
Page A-3 Page 671 of 714
Chapter 2
Page A-4 Page 672 of 714
Circulation Element
Page A-5 Page 673 of 714
Chapter 2
Page A-6 Page 674 of 714
Circulation Element
Page A-7 Page 675 of 714
Chapter 2
Page A-8 Page 676 of 714
Circulation Element
Page A-9 Page 677 of 714
Chapter 2
Page A-10
Please see the next page.

Circulation Element
Page B-1
APPENDIX B. MULTIMODAL LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Multimodal LOS Evaluation Methodology
The phrase, “Complete Streets” in present-day planning and policy lexicons introduces confusion about the meaning of the phrase. Streets considered complete are those which meet the transportation needs for all users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, children, older adults, differently abled people, freight vehicle drivers, and taxis. However, many roadways do not serve all of these user types, nor are all roadways intended for use by everyone. For example, most freeways prohibit access by pedestrians and bicyclists. Most trails prohibit access by motorized vehicles. However, if a roadway provides access to some type of land use, such as a retail store, civic building, school, residence, or employment, it can be expected that a variety of people will use that roadway. The degree to which a street is considered complete depends on several factors, including who are the likely and the desired users.

Urban Streets Methodology from the 2010 HCM
The HCM 2010 Urban Streets is an integrated methodology that evaluates multimodal levels of service (LOS). LOS is analyzed for each of the four primary roadway users: pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit passengers. The multimodal LOS methodology utilizes a number of factors, most of which are infrastructure-related, to assess a qualitative LOS score based on user perception. Roadways are analyzed for each mode in one-hour increments for each direction of travel.

There is no single LOS score in the Urban Streets methodology that combines results for all travel modes. Combining the scores into an overall roadway score has the potential to mask important deficiencies for a certain mode because of weighting. To illustrate, a roadway with large volumes of vehicles and a favorable LOS for motorists may subsume LOS deficiencies for other roadway users if a singular multimodal LOS score were analyzed for the corridor.

The LOS for each mode is analyzed individually, although input factors can affect the analysis for more than one travel mode. For example, the percent of occupied on-street parking is a factor for both the bicyclist and pedestrian LOS.

Generating LOS scores for each roadway user type allows the comparison of the quality of service amongst the different modes. Furthermore, the individual scores facilitate quantification and examination of tradeoffs between modes for a given streetscape design feature or strategy, which assist with the analysis of project alternatives and prioritization of pedestrian, bicyclist, motorist, and transit passenger facility improvements.

This methodology can also enable local jurisdictions to adopt a street classification system that is multimodal and identifies priority users for which LOS thresholds can be established. Traditional street classification systems (Freeway, Arterial, Collector, Local) tend to be derived from a motorist’s perspective. As such, thresholds are established for motorist LOS, but have not been established for other modes. A multimodal classification system may expand or redefine the streets to include transit, pedestrian, or bicyclist priority. Thus, LOS thresholds could be established for the priority mode by the street classification. As an example, central business district roadways could have LOS thresholds for pedestrian and transit access but no thresholds for motorist or bicyclist access.

As illustrated in Figure B-1, the methodology analyzes and provides the directional LOS results for a facility, which is a combination of two or more segments (roadway link with a downstream intersection that is typically signalized).

Additionally, pedestrian and bicyclist LOS analysis and results further divide each segment into the links and downstream intersections. When reviewing LOS results, it’s suggested that attention is paid to the component results, as the facility scores have the potential to mask deficiencies.

Chapter 2
Page B-2
Figure B-1 Multimodal LOS Analysis Components
Factors included in the evaluation of LOS for each mode are based on the roadway user’s perspective, as described below, for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers.

Pedestrian LOS Factors
The following factors lead to a superior level of service for pedestrians on an urban street:
 Providing a walkway on both sides of the roadway with ample width that allows side-by-side walking  Distancing the walkway away from vehicular traffic using bike lanes, shoulders, on-street parking, buffers, trees, and landscaping
 Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the walkway  Limiting delay for pedestrians at signalized intersections  Providing raised medians that can serve as pedestrian refuges at both signalized and unsignalized locations  Removing permitted left turn movements by vehicles at signalized intersections  Prohibiting right turn movements on red by vehicles
 Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections
A pedestrian density LOS can override the pedestrian quality of service calculations if sidewalk crowding is an issue. This may be the case in dense urban areas or near stadiums or concert halls before or after major events.

Bicyclist LOS Factors
The following factors lead to a superior level of service for bicyclists on an urban street:
 Providing bikes lanes on both sides of the roadway with ample width  Excellent pavement condition that is free of potholes, damage, and debris  Distancing the bike lane away from vehicular traffic as much as possible  Reducing vehicle volumes and speeds, particularly those closest to the bike lane  Reducing the number of trucks, particularly those closest to the bike lane  Removing or reducing on-street parking
 Narrowing the crossing distances at intersections
 Providing bike lanes through intersections
 Limiting the number of commercial driveways or driveways serving high-density residential buildings along the street
 Limiting or reducing the number of unsignalized intersections along the street

Circulation Element
Page B-3
Transit Passenger LOS Factors
Transit passenger level of service can be derived for buses, streetcars, and light rail operating on surface streets. The following factors lead to a superior level of service for transit passengers on an urban street:
 Reliable transit service with frequencies of 15 minutes or less  Higher transit travel speeds
 High quality walkways leading to the transit stops (derived from the pedestrian LOS score)  Numerous transit stop locations with benches and shelters  On-board crowding less than 80%, meaning passengers can have a choice of seats Safety Factors
The methodology does not include collisions as a factor. However, perceived safety is incorporated into the methodology by way of vehicle volumes and speeds along the corridor links as well as the number of conflicting vehicle movements at intersections.

Study Facilities
As part of the General Plan Update, staff from the City of San Luis Obispo and the consultant team identified thirteen roadways for multimodal level of service evaluation. Those roadways are:
 Broad Street between Higuera Street and Orcutt Road
 Higuera Street between Johnson Avenue and High Street  Marsh Street between Johnson Avenue and Higuera Street  Monterey Street between Grand Avenue and Chorro Street  Chorro Street between Foothill Boulevard and Marsh Street  Santa Rosa Street between Highland Drive and Pismo Street  High Street between Higuera Street and Broad Street
 South Higuera Street between High Street and Los Osos Valley Road  Madonna Road between Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road  Foothill Boulevard between California Boulevard and Patricia Drive  Johnson Avenue between Monterey Street and Laurel Lane  California Boulevard between Foothill Boulevard and San Luis Drive  Osos Street between Palm Street and Upham Street
These roadways were analyzed for both the AM and PM peak hours for each direction of travel. Multimodal analysis of these roadways establishes baseline conditions and sets the stage for future examination and evaluation of these and other roadways. The purpose for selecting these roadways was to establish a cross-section of facility and area types, providing opportunities to compare and contrast performance on various facilities and in assorted areas. Future analysis of these and additional roadways will contribute to development of a multimodal network within the city.

Note: Multimodal Level of Service is based on the user’s perspective of a given mode’s quality of service. Quality of Service is based on multiple factors including the physical features within the shared right-of-way environment as well as traffic operations and service provisions.

Chapter 2
Page B-4
Table B-1. Bicyclist Link Level of Service (LOS) Summary LOS Sample Description Photo
A
Superior
Level of
Service
 Bike lane with ample width (buffered bike lane is
shown here)
 Excellent pavement condition that is free of potholes, damage, and debris
 Bike lane positioned away from vehicular traffic
 Vehicle volumes and speeds are minimized, particularly those closest to the bike lane
 The percentage of heavy trucks is minimal, particularly in the travel lane closest to the bike lane
 On-street parking is prohibited
Image source: City of Bloomington buffered
bike lane
Location: East 3rd Street between Jordan
and Bryan, Bloomington, IN
B
Very Good
Level of
Service
Compared to LOS A results:
 Narrower bike lane width
 On-street parking allowed
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between
Monterey and Marsh
C
Good Level
of Service
Compared to LOS B results:
 Higher vehicle volumes and speeds in lane closest to bike lane Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Foothill Boulevard between Broad
and Tassajara

Circulation Element
Page B-5
LOS Sample Description Photo
D
Fair Level of
Service
Compared to LOS C results:
 Higher vehicle volumes and speeds in lane closest to
bike lane
 Higher percent of heavy vehicles
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between Laurel
and Bishop
E
Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS D results:
 No bike lane
 Shoulder width narrow
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Pismo and
Marsh
F
Very Poor
Level of
Service
Compared to LOS E results:
 No bike lane
 Poor pavement condition
 High vehicle volumes and speeds
 High percent of on-street parking
 Higher percent of heavy vehicles
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Pismo and
Marsh

Chapter 2
Page B-6
Table B-2. Pedestrian Link Level of Service (LOS) Summary LOS Sample Description Photo
A
Superior Level of
Service
 Walkway with ample width that allows side-byside walking  Walkway is buffered from vehicular traffic using
bike lanes, shoulders, on-street parking,
buffers, trees, and landscaping
 Vehicle volumes and speeds are minimized,
particularly those closest to the walkway
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Monterey Street between Morro
and Chorro
B
Very Good Level of
Service
Compared to LOS A results:
 Higher vehicle volumes and speeds due to oneway street system  Less of a buffer between the sidewalk and due
lower percentage of parked vehicles
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Marsh Street between Broad and
Garden
C
Good Level of
Service
Compared to LOS B results:
 Less distance between traffic and sidewalk
 Higher volumes of traffic in the lane closest to
sidewalk
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between Marsh
and San Luis

Circulation Element
Page B-7
LOS Sample Description Photo
D
Fair Level of Service
Compared to LOS C results:
 Higher vehicle volumes and speeds
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Foothill Boulevard Santa Rosa
and Chorro
E
Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS D results:
 No sidewalk
 Bike lane serves as a shoulder
 Higher vehicle volumes
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Madonna Road between
Oceanaire and Los Osos Valley
F
Very Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS E results:
 No walkway or shoulder
 No buffered area between where pedestrians
walk and traveling vehicles
 Vehicle volumes and speeds are high
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: West Lane between West Lane
Frontage and Pyrenees in Stockton, CA

Chapter 2
Page B-8
Table B-3. Transit Passenger Segment Level of Service (LOS) Summary LOS Sample Description Photo
A
Superior Level
of Service
 Reliable transit service with frequencies of 15
minutes or less
 Higher transit travel speeds
 High quality walkways leading to the transit stops
 Numerous transit stop locations with benches and
shelters
 Passengers can easily find seats on-board
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Foothill Boulevard between
Chorro and Santa Rosa
B
Very Good Level
of Service
Compared to LOS A results:
 Fewer transit stop amenities
 Narrower sidewalk that is closer to the vehicle
travel lanes
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Marsh Street between Broad and
Garden
C
Good Level of
Service
Compared to LOS B results:
 Transit service not as frequent or reliable
 Bus speeds lower
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Palm and
Monterey

Circulation Element
Page B-9
LOS Sample Description Photo
D
Fair Level of
Service
Compared to LOS C results:
 Transit service not as frequent or reliable
 Bus speeds lower
 Fewer transit stop amenities
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Broad Street between High and
Buchon
E
Poor Level of
Service
Compared to LOS D results:
 Transit service not as frequent or reliable
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Johnson Avenue between Lizzie
and Ella
F
Very Poor Level
of Service
Compared to LOS E results:
 No transit service
Image source: Google Maps Street View
Location: Osos Street between Pismo and
Marsh

Chapter 2
Page B-10
LOS Thresholds – Based on AADT
SH Urban (>5,000 Population) Uninterrupted Flow Highways Lanes Divided
Level of Service

A B C D E
2 Undivided 1,680 5,520 10,320 14,560 19,920
2 Undivided 2,100 6,900 12,900 18,200 24,900
2 Divided 2,205 7,245 13,545 19,110 26,145
4 Undivided 13,950 22,650 32,700 42,375 48,150
4 Undivided 17,670 28,690 41,420 53,675 60,990
4 Divided 18,600 30,200 43,600 56,500 64,200
6 Undivided 20,925 33,900 49,125 63,525 72,150
6 Undivided 26,505 42,940 62,225 80,465 91,390
6 Divided 27,900 45,200 65,500 84,700 96,200
Urban (> 5,000 Population) Interrupted Flow Arterial (Signalized) Lanes Divided
Level of Service

A B C D E
2 Undivided 0 3,200 10,480 12,400 13,040
2 Undivided 0 4,000 13,100 15,500 16,300
2 Divided 0 4,200 13,755 16,275 17,115
4 Undivided 3,450 20,925 24,600 25,650 25,650
4 Undivided 4,370 26,505 31,160 32,490 32,490
4 Divided 4,600 27,900 32,800 34,200 34,200
6 Undivided 5,175 32,100 36,975 38,550 38,550
6 Undivided 6,555 40,660 46,835 48,830 48,830
6 Divided 6,900 42,800 49,300 51,400 51,400
Urban (> 5,000 Population) Interrupted Flow Arterial (Signalized > 2 per mile) Lanes Divided
Level of Service

A B C D E
2 Undivided 0 0 8,400 11,600 12,240
2 Undivided 0 0 10,500 14,500 15,300
2 Divided 0 0 11,025 15,225 16,065
4 Undivided 0 2,775 18,300 22,950 24,150
4 Undivided 0 3,515 23,180 29,070 30,590
4 Divided 0 3,700 24,400 30,600 32,200
6 Undivided 0 4,500 28,500 34,575 36,300
6 Undivided 0 5,700 36,100 43,795 45,980
6 Divided 0 6,000 38,000 46,100 48,400

Circulation Element
Page B-11
Rural Uninterrupted Flow Arterials in Undeveloped Areas Lanes Divided
Level of Service

A B C D E
2 Climb Lane 2600 5300 8600 13800 22300
2 Climb Lane 3250 6625 10750 17250 27875
2 Undivided 2,080 4,240 6,880 11,040 17,840
2 Undivided 2,600 5,300 8,600 13,800 22,300
2 Divided 2,730 5,565 9,030 14,490 23,415
4 Undivided 13,125 21,450 30,600 39,300 43,725
4 Undivided 16,625 27,170 38,760 49,780 55,385
4 Divided 17,500 28,600 40,800 52,400 58,300
6 Undivided 19,650 32,100 45,900 58,950 65,550
6 Undivided 24,890 40,660 58,140 74,670 83,030
6 Divided 26,200 42,800 61,200 78,600 87,400
LOS Criteria – Signalized Intersections
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle) Description
A < 10 LOS A represents free-flow travel with an excellent level of comfort and convenience and the freedom to maneuver.

B > 10 and < 20
LOS B has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other road users causes a noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort, convenience, and maneuvering freedom.

C > 20 and < 35 LOS C has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream.

D > 35 and < 55 LOS D represents high-density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver, with poor levels of comfort and convenience.

E > 55 and < 80
LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver is difficult with users experiencing frustration and poor comfort and convenience. Unstable operation is frequent, and minor disturbances in traffic flow can cause breakdown conditions.

F > 80
LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown conditions. This condition exists wherever the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stop-andgo fashion.

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2000. (For signalized intersections)

Chapter 2
Page B-12
Level of Service Criteria – Unsignalized Intersections
Level of
Service
(LOS)
Average Delay
(seconds / vehicle) Description
A < 10 Little or no delay
B > 10 and < 15 Short traffic delay
C > 15 and < 25 Average traffic delays
D > 25 and < 35 Long traffic delays
E > 35 and < 50 Very long traffic delays
F > 50 Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection Suorce: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Multimodal LOS Objectives, Service Standards, and Significance Criteria The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per the table below and the Highway Capacity manual.

Travel Mode LOS OBJECTIVE MINIMUM LOS STANDARD
Bicycle 1 B D
Pedestrian 2 BC
Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower
Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes)
Notes:
(1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. (2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density. (3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan.

Circulation Element
Page B-13
Multimodal Priorities
In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, Multimodal service levels should be prioritized in accordance with the established modal priorities designated in the table below, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode.

Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking
Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit

2. Bicycles 4. Vehicle
Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicle

2. Bicycles 4. Transit
Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit

2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians
Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles

2. Transit 4. Pedestrians
Notes:

Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density.

Chapter 2
Page B-14
Please see the next page.

Circulation Element
Page C-1
Appendix C. Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology

1. Identify the visual resources.

2. Conduct field investigations:
(a) Identify the Freeway, Highway-Regional Routes and arterial streets (reference Figure 1). (b) Designate points of view along each street.
(c) Record observations.

1. Transfer field observations onto a worksheet and assign valences to each visual unit.

2. Multiply good or fair or poor (3, 2, 1) views by major or minor (2, 1) assessments. (a) Good (3) Major visual unit (2)
(b) Fair (2) X or = 1 - 6
(c) Poor (1) Minor visual unity (1)

1. Sum the products for each point to determine a visual index value at each point.

2. Calculate the statistical mean, median, and mode.

3. Categorize the visual quality index numbers into High, Moderate, and Low classifications.

4. Map the Scenic Roadways with a High or Moderate classification.

Chapter 2
Page C-2
Please see the next page.

Circulation Element
Page D-1
Appendix D. Summary of Circulation Element Projects and Programs Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program
Traffic Reduction

2.2.1 Agency Cooperation X

2.2.2 City Trip Reduction X

2.2.3 Large Employers X

2.2.4 Incentives for Educational Institutions X
Transit Service

3.2.1 Transit Plans X

3.2.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes X

3.2.3 Commuter Bus Service X

3.2.4 Transit Service Evaluation X

3.2.5 Marketing and Promotion X

3.2.6 Short Range Transit Plan X

3.2.7 New Development X

3.2.8 Regional Transit Center X
Bicycle Transportation

4.2.1 Bike Share X

4.2.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan X

4.2.3 Campus Master Plans X

4.2.4 Zoning Regulations X

4.2.5 Railroad Bikeway and Trail X

4.2.6 Bicycle Friendly Community X

4.2.7 Regional Coordination X

4.2.8 Bicycle Licensing X
Walking

5.2.1 Downtown Pedestrian Plan X

5.2.2 Pedestrian Network X

5.2.3 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance X

5.2.4 Safe Routes to School X

5.2.5 Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan X
Multi-Modal Circulation

6.2.1 Traffic Count Program X
Traffic Management

7.2.1 Traffic Reduction Priority X

7.2.2 Transportation Monitoring X

7.2.3 Transportation Survey X

Chapter 2
Page D-2
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program

7.2.4 Transportation Model X

7.2.5 Cooperative Street Design X

7.2.6 Subdivision Regulations

7.2.7 Traffic Access Management X

7.2.8 State Highway HOV Lanes X

7.2.9 Transportation Funding X
Neighborhood Traffic Management

8.2.1 Traffic Management Plans X

8.2.2 Traffic Control Measures X

8.2.3 Quality of Life X

8.2.4 Regional Cut-trough Traffic X
Street Network Changes (1)

9.2.1 Building Setback Lines X

9.2.2 Prado Road Improvements X

9.2.3 Street Amenities Plan X

9.2.4 Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center X

9.2.5 San Luis Ranch/Dalidio Development X
1 Prado Road Extension West X
2 Prado Road Extension East X
3 Buckley Road Extension X
4 Bullock Lane Extension X
5 Santa Fe Road Extension X
6 Bishop Street Extension X
7 Mission Plaza Expansion X
8 Victoria Ave. Extension X
9 Mid Higuera (Marsh to High Street) X
10 Orcutt Road (Johnson to UPRR) X
11 Tank Farm Road (Higuera to Broad) X
12 South Higuera (Madonna to City Limits) X
13 Hwy 1 (Santa Rosa) X
14 Tank Farm to Buckley Collector X
15 LOVR Bypass X
16 Froom Ranch Road X
17 Highway 1 (Santa Rosa) & US 101 Interchange
Upgrade X
18 Broad St. & US 101 Interchange Closure X
19 Prado Road & US 101 Interchange X
20 Monterey Street Right of Way (Santa Rosa to
Grand) X
21 Prefumo Canyon Rd. Median X

Circulation Element
Page D-3
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program
22 Garden Street Makeover X
23 Marsh & Higuera 2-Way Conversion X
24 Chorro, Broad, & Boysen Realignments X
25 Madonna / Higuera Realignment X
26 Pismo / Higuera / High Street X
27 Various Intersection Upgrades X
28 Various Specific Plans X
29 Various Trans. Plans X

9.2.6 Streetscapes and Major Roadways X
Truck Transportation

10.2.1 Truck Idling Regulations X

10.2.2 Home Occupation Permit Regulations X

10.2.3 Commercial Loading Zones X

10.2.4 Truck Circulation X
Air Transportation

11.2.1 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft X

11.2.2 Airport Facilities Development X

11.2.3 Airport Funding X

11.2.4 Update of the Airport Land Use Plan X
Rail Transportation

12.2.1 Daily Train Connections X

12.2.2 Intra-county Rail Service X

12.2.3 Interagency Cooperation X

12.2.4 Railroad Hazards Reduction X

12.2.5 Transport of Combustible Materials X
Parking Management

13.2.1 Parking Management Plan X

13.2.2 Monitor Public Parking X

13.2.3 Park and Ride Lots X

13.2.4 Public Parking Structures X

13.2.5 Curb Parking Evaluation X

13.2.6 Downtown Trolley X
Neighborhood Parking Management

14.2.1 Neighborhood Parking Permits X

14.2.2 Financing Districts X
Scenic Roadways

15.2.1 Visual Character X

Chapter 2
Page D-4
Reference Summary Description
New
Program
Expanded
Program
Existing
Program

15.2.2 Architectural Review Guidelines X

15.2.3 Street Corridor Landscaping X

15.2.4 Billboards X
Circulation Element Implementation, Funding & Management

16.2.1 Transportation Work Program X

16.2.2 Multi-modal Impact Fee X

16.2.3 Evaluation of Alternatives X

16.2.4 Evaluate Transportation Effects X
Number of Programs 37 17 48
(1) City sponsored street projects are those listed on Table 5 where:

The City is identified as the “lead agency,” and
The City has primary funding responsibility or the street project is not associated with new development.

Circulation Element
Page E-1
Appendix E. Local Roadway LOS (Using FDOT Procedures)
ID
# Location Road Type Lanes
Divided
Roadway
Left Turn
Lanes
Baseline

AADT LOS
1 Augusta (Bishop – Laurel) W / Laurel Collector 2 NO YES 2,688 B 3 Broad ( S / South) Regional Route 4 YES YES 29,980 C
4 Broad (Foothill – Lincoln) Collector 2 NO NO 4,799 C
5 Broad (Monterey ‐ Marsh) Collector 2 NO NO 5,867 C
6 Broad (Marsh – Upham) Arterial 2 NO NO 9,479 C
7 Broad (Upham – South) Arterial 4 YES YES 13,526 B
8 Broad (South – Orcutt) Arterial 4 YES YES 29,980 C
9 Broad (Orcutt – Tank Farm Road) Regional Route 4 YES YES 26,308 B 10 Broad (Tank Farm Road – Buckley) Regional Route 4 YES YES 18,771 B 11 Broad (Buckley South) Regional Route - County 2 NO YES 15,573 E 12 Buchon (High – Santa Rosa) Collector 2 NO NO 1,340 B 13 Buchon (Santa Rosa – Johnson) Collector 2 NO NO 3,543 C 17 California ( Cal Poly – Foothill) Arterial 4 NO YES 8,675 B 18 California (Foothill – Taft) Arterial 4 YES YES 17,302 B 19 California (Taft – Monterey) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,469 C 20 California (Taft – San Luis) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,676 C 21 Capitolio (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad Collector 2 NO YES 3,427 B 22 Chorro (Highland – Foothill) Collector 2 NO NO 4,878 C 23 Chorro (Foothill – Lincoln) Collector 2 NO NO 8,570 C 24 Chorro (Lincoln – Palm) Arterial 2 YES YES 5,662 C
25 Chorro (Palm – Pismo) Arterial 2 NO NO 5,555 C
26 Foothill ( Los Osos Valley ‐ Patricia) Residential Arterial 2 NO NO 9,500 C 27 Foothill (Patricia – Broad) Residential Arterial 2 YES YES 13,621 C 28 Foothill (Broad – Santa Rosa) Arterial 4 YES YES 17,650 B 29 Foothill (Santa Rosa – California) Arterial 4 YES YES 16,638 B 32 Grand ( Cal Poly ‐ Mill) Arterial 4 YES YES 9,612 B
33 High (Higuera ‐ Broad) Collector 2 NO NO 2,460 B
34 Highland (Patricia ‐ Ferrini) Arterial 2 NO NO 4,401 C 35 Highland (Ferrini ‐ Cal Poly) Collector 2 NO YES 7,032 C 36 Higuera (Johnson – Santa Rosa) Arterial 2 NO NO 3,058 B 37 Higuera (Santa Rosa – Nipomo) Arterial 2 YES YES 7,750 C 38 Higuera (Nipomo – Marsh) Arterial 2 YES YES 9,029 C
39 Higuera (Marsh – South) Arterial 2 YES YES 11,976 C
40 Higuera (South – Madonna) Arterial 4 YES YES 26,342 B 41 Higuera (Madonna – Prado) Arterial 4 YES YES 14,773 B 42 Higuera (Prado – Tank Farm Road) Arterial 4 YES YES 16,487 B 43 Higuera (Tank Farm Road – LOVR) Arterial 4 YES YES 21,789 B 44 Higuera (LOVR – South of City Limits) Arterial 2 NO YES 7,024 C 45 Industrial (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad Collector 2 NO YES 5,696 C 46 Johnson (Monterey ‐ San Luis Drive) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,774 C

Chapter 2
Page E-2
ID
# Location Road Type Lanes
Divided
Roadway
Left Turn
Lanes
Baseline

AADT LOS
47 Johnson (San Luis Drive ‐ Laurel) Arterial 4 YES YES 15,695 B 48 Johnson (Laurel – Orcutt) Arterial 2 YES YES 6,851 C 50 Laurel (Johnson – Orcutt) Arterial 4 NO YES 8,811 B
52 Los Osos Valley (W / City Limits) Arterial 2 NO NO 10,107 C 53 Los Osos Valley (North City Limits ‐
Prefumo Canyon) Arterial 4 YES YES 20,542 B
54 Los Osos Valley ( Prefumo Canyon ‐
Madonna) Arterial 4 YES YES 24,893 B
55 Los Osos Valley (Madonna – Route 101) Arterial 4 YES YES 29,560 C 56 Los Osos Valley (Route 101 – Higuera) Arterial 4 YES YES 26,028 B 57 Los Osos Valley (Route 101 – Higuera)
Southern Bypass Buckley Arterial 4 YES YES 27,028 B
58 Madonna (LOVR ‐ Oceanaire) Arterial 4 YES YES 20,105 B 59 Madonna (Oceanaire ‐ US-101) Arterial 4 YES YES 23,606 B 60 Madonna (US-101 ‐ Higuera) Arterial 4 YES YES 24,175 B 61 Margarita (E / Higuera) E / Higuera Collector 2 YES YES 3,735 B 62 Marsh (Higuera – Santa Rosa) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,156 C 63 Marsh (Santa Rosa ‐ California) Arterial 2 YES YES 4,498 C 64 Mill (Grand – Chorro) W / Pepper Collector 2 NO NO 2,042 B 65 Monterey (Chorro – Santa Rosa) Arterial 2 YES YES 4,220 C 66 Monterey (Santa Rosa ‐ California) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,425 C 67 Monterey (California ‐ US-101) Arterial 2 YES YES 10,167 C 69 Oceanaire (LOVR – Madonna) S /
Lakeview Collector 2 NO NO 2,403 B
70 Oceanaire (LOVR – Madonna) South Side Local 2 NO NO 702 B 71 Orcutt (Broad – Laurel) Arterial 4 YES YES 14,640 B
72 Orcutt (Laurel – Johnson) Arterial 2 NO NO 2,416 B
73 Orcutt (Johnson – Tank Farm) Arterial 2 NO NO 6,819 C 74 Orcutt (S / City Limits) Arterial 2 NO YES 2,151 B
75 Palm (Chorro – Santa Rosa) W / Osos Collector 2 NO NO 4,194 C 77 Pismo (Higuera ‐ Santa Rosa) Collector 2 NO NO 3,218 C 78 Pismo (Santa Rosa ‐ Johnson) Collector 2 NO NO 3,013 B 79 Prado (Madonna ‐ US-101) Arterial 2 NO YES 6,818 C
80 Prado (US-101 ‐ Higuera) Arterial 2 NO YES 6,818 C
81 Prado (Higuera ‐ Broad Street) Regional Route 2 NO YES 3,302 B 82 Prefumo (LOVR – CL) W / LOVR Collector 2 NO YES 4,825 C 83 Ramona (Patricia – Broad) W / Broad Collector 2 NO NO 4,873 C 84 Sacramento (Orcutt – Industrial) Collector 2 NO NO 3,558 C 85 San Luis (California – Johnson) Arterial 2 NO YES 9,761 C 86 SR-1-Santa Rosa St (US-101-Foothill) Arterial - Caltrans 4 PARTIAL YES 27,800 C 87 SR-1-Cabrillo Hwy (Foothill to northern city
limit) Arterial - Caltrans 4 YES YES 25,000 B
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Circulation Element
Page F-1
Appendix F. Existing Intersection LOS
AM and PM Peak Hours
Int.
#
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
North-South East-West
Traffic
Control 1
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
1 Chorro St Highland Dr SSSC NB B 11.1 0.21 NB A 9.8 0.11 2 Patricia Dr Foothill Blvd Signal B 11.0 0.65 A 6.3 0.5 3 Tassajara Dr Foothill Blvd Signal A 4.2 0.36 A 4.3 0.46 4 Broad St Foothill Blvd Signal C 31.4 0.39 C 27.3 0.41 5 Chorro St Foothill Blvd Signal C 30.6 0.69 D 42.9 0.75 6 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Foothill Blvd Signal C 25.8 0.79 D 41.7 0.91 7 California Blvd Foothill Blvd Signal B 14.7 0.44 B 18.6 0.6 8 Grand Ave Slack St AWSC SB D 26.1 0.7 SB D 28.6 0.35
9 Broad St Murray St SSSC WB A 9.6 0.07 WB B 10.2 0.11
10 Chorro St Murray St AWSC NB A 9.4 0.24 NB A 10.0 0.22 11 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Murray St Signal B 13.0 0.58 C 21.6 0.75 12 California Blvd Taft St SSSC WB D 26.8 0.59 WB F 405.9 1.65 13 Grand Ave Hwy 101 SB SSSC WB C 21.9 0.49 WB C 23.8 0.26 14 Grand Ave Hwy 101 NB Signal B 12.6 0.57 A 9.3 0.4
15 Broad St Lincoln St AWSC WBL A 8.8 -- EB A 9.6 --
16 Chorro St Lincoln St AWSC WB B 10.9 -- EBR B 11.1 -- 17 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Olive St Signal A 6.0 0.55 A 4.5 0.52 18 Hwy 1 / Santa Rosa St Walnut St Signal B 15.1 0.72 B 14.8 0.7 19 Broad St Palm St AWSC WBL A 9.6 -- WBL A 9.3 --
20 Chorro St Palm St Signal A 9.7 0.2 B 10.2 0.22
21 Chorro St Monterey St Signal A 6.6 0.16 A 8.4 0.22

Chapter 2
Page F-2
Int.
#
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
North-South East-West
Traffic
Control 1
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
22 Morro St Monterey St Signal A 9.4 0.16 A 7.5 0.15 23 Osos St Monterey St Signal B 15.1 0.14 A 10.6 0.23 24 Nipomo St Higuera St Signal B 10.6 0.21 B 10.4 0.31
25 Broad St Higuera St Signal B 13.5 0.24 B 14.7 0.35
26 Chorro St Higuera St Signal C 25.6 0.16 C 22.6 0.27
27 Morro St Higuera St Signal C 22.6 0.21 C 21.5 0.22
28 Osos St Higuera St Signal B 12.7 0.28 B 12.0 0.35
29 Higuera St Hwy 101 Signal B 14.0 0.46 B 17.1 0.55
30 Nipomo St Marsh St Signal A 9.5 0.25 B 10.1 0.28
31 Broad St Marsh St Signal A 7.2 0.26 A 7.8 0.33
32 Chorro St Marsh St Signal A 6.1 0.21 A 8.6 0.34
33 Morro St Marsh St Signal A 4.6 0.21 A 7.4 0.25
34 Osos St Marsh St Signal B 11.7 0.22 A 8.8 0.33
35 Broad St Pacific St Signal A 5.0 0.29 A 9.1 0.41
36 Pismo St High St Signal B 10.1 0.44 B 15.9 0.53
37 Broad St Pismo St Signal A 6.6 0.35 A 9.3 0.42
38 Chorro St Pismo St AWSC EBR A 7.7 -- NB A 8.3 --
39 Osos St Pismo St Signal B 10.7 0.39 B 11.0 0.42
40 Broad St Buchon St Signal A 5.0 0.28 A 5.2 0.3
41 Osos St Buchon St Signal A 9.0 0.5 A 9.0 0.52
42 Hwy 101 NB California Blvd SSSC SB D 26.1 0.7 SB D 28.6 0.35 43 Santa Rosa St Mill St Signal A 6.2 0.33 A 5.8 0.33
44 Johnson Ave Mill St AWSC NB A 8.2 0.38 NB A 8.7 0.24 45 California Blvd Mill St Signal A 6.4 0.44 A 5.1 0.37 46 Santa Rosa St Palm St Signal B 11.9 0.39 B 10.6 0.49 47 Santa Rosa St Monterey St Signal A 9.3 0.38 B 17.7 0.44 48 Johnson Ave Monterey St Signal B 13.0 0.5 B 12.1 0.5

Circulation Element
Page F-3
Int.
#
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
North-South East-West
Traffic
Control 1
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
49 California Blvd Monterey St Signal C 29.3 0.72 C 32.8 0.71 50 Grand Ave Monterey St Signal B 11.3 0.5 A 8.9 0.5
51 Santa Rosa St Higuera St Signal A 6.0 0.31 A 7.4 0.32 52 Johnson Ave Higuera St SSSC WB C 15.5 0.04 WB C 15.6 0.08 53 Santa Rosa St Marsh St Signal A 9.6 0.4 A 8.9 0.46
54 Johnson Ave Marsh St Signal C 26.9 0.53 D 41.2 0.68
55 San Luis Dr California Blvd AWSC NBL E 46.5 -- NBL E 45.3 -- 56 Santa Rosa St Pismo St AWSC NB B 11.2 0.38 WB B 11.8 0.03 57 Johnson Ave Pismo St SSSC WB C 24.7 0.11 WB B 12.4 0.03 58 Johnson Ave Buchon St SSSC EB D 33.9 0.68 WB C 18.4 0 59 San Luis Dr Johnson Ave Signal B 18.4 0.77 B 14.5 0.49 60 Johnson Ave Lizzie St Signal B 11.4 0.51 B 11.7 0.42 61 Fixlini St (Exit) Lizzie St SSSC NB A 9.7 0.09 NB B 9.6 0.03 62 Fixlini St (Entrance) Lizzie St None EB A 7.2 0.13 EB A 5.4 0.05 63 Johnson Ave Ella St Signal B 11.2 0.51 A 9.3 0.41
64 Fixlini St Johnson Ave SSSC WB B 13.1 0.02 WB B 11.9 0.01 65 Los Osos Valley Descanso St Signal A 5.3 0.39 A 2.8 0.39 66 Los Osos Valley Rd Laguna Lane Signal B 12.2 0.59 B 14.0 0.57 67 Los Osos Valley Rd Royal Way Signal B 13.6 0.62 B 12.7 0.43 68 Los Osos Valley Rd Madonna Rd Signal D 38.5 0.57 E 58.1 0.6 69 Pereira Dr Madonna Rd SSSC SB C 22.3 -- SB B 10.8 -- 70 Oceanaire Dr Madonna Rd Signal B 13.5 0.8 A 9.0 0.78 71 Dalidio Dr Madonna Rd Signal B 12.1 0.51 B 18.3 0.61 72 El Mercado Madonna Rd Signal B 11.4 0.41 B 16.6 0.51 73 Madonna Inn Dwy Madonna Rd Signal C 24.7 0.62 C 28.5 0.72 74 Hwy 101 NB Madonna Rd Signal B 13.7 0.47 B 17.9 0.68 75 Higuera St Madonna Rd Signal B 14.8 0.49 C 20.4 0.69

Chapter 2
Page F-4
Int.
#
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
North-South East-West
Traffic
Control 1
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
76 Higuera St South St Signal A 8.3 0.42 A 8.3 0.42 77 Los Osos Valley Rd Garcia Dr Signal NB A 9.5 0.01 SB B 10.6 0.03 78 Los Osos Valley Rd Froom Ranch Way Signal B 17.0 0.41 D 36.3 0.58 79 Los Osos Valley Rd Calle Joaquin Signal A 7.1 0.36 B 11.1 0.54 80 Los Osos Valley Rd Hwy 101 NB Signal C 20.8 0.73 C 27.0 0.72 81 Hwy 101 NB Los Osos Valley Rd Signal B 18.0 0.78 B 18.4 0.61 82 Higuera St Los Osos Valley Rd Signal B 13.0 0.67 B 15.6 0.88 83 Higuera St Vachell Lane SSSC WB F 181.0 1.02 WB F 127.6 0.87 84 Higuera St Suburban Rd Signal A 6.7 0.5 B 11.8 0.64
85 Higuera St Tank Farm Rd Signal C 21.6 0.46 C 28.5 0.66 86 Higuera St Prado Rd Signal B 17.1 0.47 C 20.1 0.59
87 Higuera St Margarita Ave Signal A 9.9 0.4 A 9.9 0.34 88 Santa Barbara St Upham St Signal A 3.9 0.41 A 5.1 0.48 89 Broad St High St SSSC WB B 13.9 0.04 WB C 16.1 0.05
90 Broad St South St Signal C 25.6 0.7 C 27.5 0.71
91 Johnson Ave Bishop St Signal B 19.0 0.75 A 9.3 0.42
92 Broad St Orcutt Rd Signal B 19.6 0.51 C 22.4 0.62
93 Laurel Lane Johnson Ave Signal B 14.9 0.47 B 16.4 0.59 94 Broad St Rockview Pl SSSC EB C 20.5 0.18 EB C 23.4 0.12 95 Broad St Capitolio Way SSSC WB B 14.5 0.1 WB C 17.9 0.32 96 Johnson Ave Orcutt Rd AWSC NB C 15.4 0.05 NB B 11.4 0.11 97 Broad St Industrial Way Signal B 10.1 0.47 B 17.6 0.67 98 Broad St Tank Farm Rd Signal C 32.8 0.73 D 51.1 0.95 99 Poinsettia St Tank Farm Rd SSSC NB B 11.4 0.11 NB B 12.5 0.08 100 Brookpine Dr Tank Farm Rd SSSC NB B 13.8 0.28 NB C 16.4 0.22 101 Broad St Aero Dr Signal A 7.5 0.46 A 9.3 0.51
102 Broad St Airport Way SSSC EB C 20.0 0.05 EB F 91.9 0.3

Circulation Element
Page F-5
Int.
#
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
North-South East-West
Traffic
Control 1
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
Critical
Move 2 LOS
Delay
(seconds)
v/C
Ratio 3
Intersections operating at sub-standard conditions (LOS E or F) are highlighted; Intersections under state control are italicized. 1 Traffic control: Signal = Signalized; SSSC = Side-street stop-controlled; AWSC = All-way stop-controlled2 Critical Move = Critical movement; EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; R = Right turn; L = Left turn, does not apply to signalized intersections3 v/C = Volume to capacity Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Mid-Day
Int #
Intersection Mid-day
North-South East-West
Critical
Move 1 LOS Delay (seconds) v/C Ratio 2
22 Morro St Monterey St A 8.2 0.15
25 Broad St Higuera St B 15.4 0.39
27 Morro St Higuera St C 20.5 0.22
30 Nipomo St Marsh St B 10.4 0.31
31 Broad St Marsh St A 7.9 0.31
33 Morro St Marsh St A 7.6 0.27
37 Broad St Pismo St A 8.8 0.44
53 Santa Rosa St Marsh St A 9.2 0.49
78 Los Osos Valley Rd Froom Ranch Way D 36.2 0.58
79 Los Osos Valley Rd Calle Joaquin B 11.9 0.53
80 Los Osos Valley Rd Hwy 101 NB C 28.0 0.73
81 Hwy 101 NB Los Osos Valley Rd B 17.9 0.59
87 Higuera St Margarita Ave B 14.3 0.40
1 Critical Move = Critical movement, does not apply to signalized intersections2 v/C = Volume to capacitySource: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Chapter 2
Page F-6 Please see the next page.

Circulation Element
Page G-1
APPENDIX G. LIST OF PREPARERS
City Staff
LUCE Update
Project Management
 Derek Johnson Director, Community Development Department  Kim Murry Deputy Director, Community Development Department  Peggy Mandeville Principal Transportation Planner
 Jake Hudson Traffic Operations Manager
Other City Staff  Shannon Bates, Recreation and Arts
Manager, (Former) Parks and
Recreation department
 Erik Berg-Johansen, Planning
Technician, Community Development
Department
 Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Public
Works Department
 Claire Clark, Economic Development
Manager, (Former) Administration
Department
 James David, Associate Planner,
(Former) Community Development
Department
 Doug Davidson, Deputy Director,
Community Development Department
 Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
 Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner,
Community Development Department
 Joe Fernandez, Contract Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department
 Steven Gessell, Chief, Police
Department
 Daryl Grigsby, Director, Public Works
Department
 Neil Havlik, Natural Resources
Manager (Former) Administration
Department
 Robert Hill, Natural Resources
Manager, Administration Department
 Lee Johnson, Economic
Development Manager,
Administration Department
 Brian Leveille, Senior Planner,
Community Development
Department
 Barbara Lynch, City Engineer,
Public Works Department
 Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshall,
Fire Department
 Carrie Mattingly, Director,
Utilities Department
 Jennifer Metz, Utilities Project
Manager, Utilities Department
 Garret Olson, Chief, Fire
Department
 Freddy Otte, Biologist,
Administration Department
 Wayne Padilla, Director, Finance
and Information Technology
Department
 Kerri Rosenblum,
Communications and Records
Manager, Police Department
 Shelly Stanwyck, Director, Parks
and Recreation department
 Keith Storton, Captain, Police
Department
 David Yun, GIS, Community
Development Department

Chapter 2
Page G-2
General Plan Consulting Team
Matrix Design Group  Celeste Werner, AICP Principal in Charge  Rick Rust, AICP LUCE Update Project Manager
 Mike Hrapla Infrastructure Task Manager
 Bren Cox Senior Planner
 Willilam Kavadas Associate Planner
 Matt Simpson Engineer
 Melanie Jollett Engineer
 Jeff Clonts GIS Analyst
 Janne Graham Word Processing
 Cathy Lloyd Graphics
Mintier Harnish  Larry Mintier, FAICP Project Director  Jim Harnish, JD Planner/ Environmental Review
 Ted Holzem Senior Planner
 Dov Kadin Associate Planner
 Jim Pepper, ASLA, MCP Senior Planner
Kittelson & Associates  Jim Damkowitch Circulation Task Manager  Alice Chen Senior Planner
 Kamala Parks Senior Planner
 Frank Cai, T.E. Senior Engineer
 Sean Houck, P.E. Senior Engineer
 Darryl DePencier Associate Planner
 Mathew Braughton Transportation Analyst
 Aaron Elias, T.E. Associate Engineer
 Amy Lopez Transportation Analyst
Oliveira Environmental Consulting  Jeff Oliveira EIR Task Manager  Jason Kirschenstein Environmental Analyst
 Kevin Merk Environmental Analyst
 John Rickenbach Environmental Analyst
 Steve Rodriguez, AICP Environmental Analyst
 Bob Sloan Environmental Analyst
 David Wolff Environmental Analyst

Circulation Element
Page G-3
Applied Development Economics  Doug Svensson, AICP Fiscal/Financial Task Manager  Peter Cheng Economist
Flint Strategies  Kendall Flint Outreach Task Manager
 Steve Flint Outreach Specialist
 Eric Allen Outreach Specialist
Ascent Environmental  Honey L. Walters Senior Environmental Specialist  Dimitri Antoniou Environmental Analyst
 Erik de Kok, AICP Senior Planner
UrbanGreen  Jim Heid, FASLA Urban Design Task Manager

Chapter 2
Page G-4
Please see the next page.

APPENDIX H. RESOLUTION 10843
A resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approvinŐamendments to the General Plan Circulation Element ŝŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽƐƚƌĞĞƚĐůĂƐƐŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘

Circulation Element
Page,-1 Page 711 of 714
Chapter 2
Page,-Ϯ Page 712 of 714
Circulation Element
Page,-ϯ Page 713 of 714
Chapter 2
Page,-ϰ Page 714 of 714