HomeMy WebLinkAboutR 2025-007 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARROYO GRANDE APPROVING THE ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND FINDING THE ACTION
EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the state of California established its Active Transportation Program
in 2013, to encourage the increased use of active modes of transportation such as walking
and biking; and
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2022, the City received a conditional letter of award for the
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (STPG) funding in the amount of$221,325 to
develop an Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, the City Council authorized the Community
Development Director to execute the necessary agreements for the STPG to allow City
staff to retain a consultant to assist with preparation of an Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, On June 13, 2023, the City Council approved a consultant services
agreement with KTUA to assist staff with preparation of the ATP; and
WHEREAS, the City's Circulation Element of the General Plan includes goals,
policies, and objectives that support the Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code sections 21080.20 and 21080.25, establishes
a statutory exemption for adoption of active transportation plan that is developed by a
local jurisdiction that promotes and encourages people to choose walking, bicycling, or
rolling through the creation of safe, comfortable, connected, and accessible walking,
bicycling, or rolling networks, and encourage alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle
trips; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public
testimony concerning the Active Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2025, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the Active Transportation Plan, including: (1) the public testimony and
agenda reports prepared in connection with the Active Transportation Plan; (2) the policy
considerations discussed therein; and (3) the consideration and recommendation of the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande, at its regularly
scheduled public meeting on January 28, 2025, approved the Active Transportation Plan
and found the project to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act.
65501.00002\41296594.1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-007
PAGE 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Arroyo Grande
hereby incorporate the Recitals herein, and adopt a Resolution to approve the Active
Transportation Plan as attached hereto as Exhibit"A" incorporated herein by this reference.
On motion by Council Member Guthrie, seconded by Council Member Loe, and by the
following roll call vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Guthrie, Loe, Maraviglia, Secrest, and Mayor Ray Russom
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this 28th day of January, 2025.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-007
PAGE 3
CAREN RAY ISSOM, MAYOR
ATTEST:
J SICA MATSOf N, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
MATTHEW DOWNING, CITY MANAGER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ISAAC ROSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-007
PAGE 4
EXHIBIT "A"
Active Transportation Plan
014•/411 .�f„;� : ,:T.4. ,F .i�E<<..,.,
•
•
•
. 'r. : •'. s. , :x.: •':'-1Exhibit A {�.:
{:. ., . : : . ,y, ..r..45-1:-:,„1„..0'.'," : - Ir
. � •
•:, s.. -A t 4R : ," _n '•. r , , r., --.4.i.e ? 4f ''.. " #;o • '`. CITY OF -
_. r ar'" •
rms s, • 7 "'. ." � +`'' ......•-•..k.... p.FsROY GRAN!) ' '�.
•
• ,..,,—,.... „,..,..„. .,............:..d..,,,,,,
'•-...",'
• "�'1 • . y► •r � • �CALIFORN�IA)
•
.ar•�*
�„3 r �' -a�rt'sp ' •'Y � :,t ,_ '. r �„ � di. ' -• � - s*� � �` .�? -r .+I - • • ....:4„%. - As. � .d i - l
•
..x e � K • � •�f.ice: � � -L,.•.',...-4,..,:..., , S,sa >i—i , � .r $ .R • �:ii1xr .e.. ' • • -
•
"• .,4,_
� - -„r � y L.+ •
':� - ryi� i„ .'.'�r5.`�� - slf.. � e1yys•' A ` , •,�z Ma ••C. , 7,L,_...,��!.�se+r•cp',',y�'l...i �f.-4-:,....-';4:.•••.-
Y a�..h/rR
`i . 1
C.
ry,,ha - r F - _ i: i._g � Vw• ��.i ��y {( � . ” . yM�., P- _lamJr ,• 4.....• - ti�.q'^:'
•
•
•
•
•
•
�. , i.' % 4 ,- 1 ' .,,�,_a - 0.--....141/4-,..„=„P.,-,....„-!. '}P1-.: •0. -f 'L+rFr•'r_., ' lir: . :.Ay :q• �•. '• _� . : � • •- .r''' # } a yA�::�"'. ..-.• yC.r1 y ~ ..1-• .40.-•”. sem_ � 'F� - ,' - - _ sn-.. 'tf�; � T • � r _ " , en;'_= r' :•'''••''. ��� -/ ,f _ -i- P ' � n '+ .wy • wt' �� .fF;, i. .. .. ; .'.i•
,. -T '•P:�": .7-� •:- � , c � . A •' T� - ? r `'+1 . - . f . . •• �' �•>.•r•-. ,'.....47. J. •L+ � ' ! � ,-,4_;;;...,.,10,-...;.-14.,.,.....
r.s � . fS ` ? •� r. � ...-..,-.. ........r c. Y' . �. - ' •:i. '� �"� 2s7�T'4 . r y • . • Y' :r ",••4.::
1.
•
•
•
•
14.
•
•
Rk ��4 •.4ti: .•.c ar .+f:? ,,f' ., . ! ?`•_k, . � .A �. x-
•
•
•
•
•
-;'1'=- - 7i y . � • •• ; • • •' . ,r -V ., •� ;` r a " 'r ►?: ' • "' / - ; .r- r�eti r • t[' •
0,.:::, r. 4.�. P..:-•:•'-..-).10•U :a .: ti. 1': _'��• 'r .....1:, . 1,4.: iF•v es. 4r _ ' p
Pr rte, . ,_-k.
I.�, d 7'r . • rs . •—••••••..i_-'- 7. ew•
,Y .�St-• . - _ • .7...,44.1'.-,;--• -4�' ••J s
•
...;.:94:, •405k„....:„._ , ..
.•.46. • • .,4.•...:...k....4,%i••..,r4V.;'...11, , •e. 47.- . ..-.....f..... , . • ... elaaa....:,,. ...,.. ...44IF.
41-10-k•-•:q=1-.."..'''....="0'%i'.•:!--'1'•••. .. _ �• •#;',4'''I'.%V.0.:.':,..4 R." .W 1•'F. '.:j:. ar:S•' ih • '';
1 • • I� ? `, • .r yr -` • i
•
. — �Vi.� •I . . . .-.� a - _ •:,,. E . - . . . . . . i = _ ..-1,-; .;ui ' ;-te
•� Y•
• `�I. •n...,...s. .: '
.; _ w Z, vti r e •".' ••v�r;7—. ; }-P a• • 9R,. * ^:. _ h: .
•
► Vii ,. .11
% +' Ay 4.• .
•
Y ' • �! '4
DRAFT PLAN1 JANUARY-21:1-2.4, L' Ait
'%Isilk _,iif- A,,,„,.
City of Arroyo Grande
AcTI RANSPORTATION PLAN
ii CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY
KTUA
Joe Punsalan, Principal
Jacob Leon, Senior Associate
Marina Varano, Senior Planner
Morgen Ruby, Senior Planner
Mariella Delfino, Designer
Central Coast Transportation Consulting
Joe Fernandez, Principal
Michelle Matson, Senior Transportation Engineer
A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO OUR
STAKEHOLDER WORKING GROUP
MEMBERS:
Aileen Nygaard, City of Pismo Beach Planning
Bailey Barton, Caltrans District 5
Craig Angello, Five Cities Fire
Jeff Chambers, South County Chambers of Commerce
Kyle Bell, City of Grover Beach Planning
Mary Gardner, SLO Regional Transit Agency
Pat Dempsey, Arroyo Grande Resident
Rick Ellison, Bike SLO County
Stephen Hanamaikai, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Caren Ray Russom, Mayor
Kate Secrest, Mayor Pro Tem, District 1
Aileen Loe, Councilmember, District 2
Jamie Maravigilia, Councilmember, District 3
Jim Guthrie, Councilmember, District 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
Bruce Berlin
Catherine Sackrison
Jamie Maraviglia
Kevin Buchanan
Virginia Roof
CITY STAFF
Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development
Andrew Perez, Planning Manager
Shayna Gropen, Assistant Planner
Shannon Sweeney, City Engineer
This project was funded by Caltrans.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Planning Process ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................12
Overview of the Document .......................................................................................................................................................................................13
Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................14
Community Engagement .........................................................................................................................................................................................22
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................23
Plan Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................................................30
Active Transportation Trends ...................................................................................................................................................................................32
Benefits of Active Transportation ...........................................................................................................................................................................34
Primary Guidance .........................................................................................................................................................................................................36
Applicable Legislation .................................................................................................................................................................................................37
Planning Context ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................38
1
2
INTRODUCTION
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Community Profile .......................................................................................................................................................................................................52
Commute Characteristics .........................................................................................................................................................................................54
Land Use ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................56
Activity Centers ............................................................................................................................................................................................................58
Street Classification ....................................................................................................................................................................................................60
Posted Speed Limit .....................................................................................................................................................................................................62
Pedestrian Infrastructure ..........................................................................................................................................................................................64
Existing and Previously Proposed Bike Facilities ...............................................................................................................................................68
Public Transit ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................70
Collision History ............................................................................................................................................................................................................72
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis..................................................................................................................................................................74
Bicycle-Pedestrian Propensity Model ...................................................................................................................................................................76
Popular Active Transportation Routes ..................................................................................................................................................................78
Health and Equity .........................................................................................................................................................................................................80
Schools .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................87
iv CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Conventional Bicycle Treatments ...........................................................................................................................................................................119
Enhanced Bicycle Treatments .................................................................................................................................................................................120
Pedestrian Treatments ...............................................................................................................................................................................................123
Traffic Calming ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................125
Public Transit Enhancements ...................................................................................................................................................................................129
Green Street Improvements .....................................................................................................................................................................................131
Placemaking ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................133
New Mobility ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................134
Pop-up Events ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................105
Community Events ......................................................................................................................................................................................................106
Community Survey ......................................................................................................................................................................................................108
Stakeholder Meetings .................................................................................................................................................................................................112
Other Engagement Efforts ........................................................................................................................................................................................115
Bicycle Network ............................................................................................................................................................................................................138
Pedestrian and ADA Enhancements ......................................................................................................................................................................144
Safe Routes to School Recommendations .........................................................................................................................................................151
Future Traffic Studies ..................................................................................................................................................................................................162
Priority Projects.............................................................................................................................................................................................................164
Program Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................................176
3
5
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT4
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIXAAppendix A - Applicable Guidance and Legislation ..........................................................................................................................................186
Appendix B - Community Engagement Results ................................................................................................................................................194
Appendix C - Caltrans Guidance .............................................................................................................................................................................226
Appendix D - Priority Project Conceptual Drawings ........................................................................................................................................227
Appendix E - Potential Funding Sources ..............................................................................................................................................................248
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure E-1: Existing Sidewalks .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................15
Figure E-2: Existing Curb Ramps ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Figure E-3: Existing Bicycle Facilities ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................18
Figure E-4: Bicycle and Pedestrian-Related Collisions (2012-2022) .................................................................................................................................................19
Figure E-5: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity Model ...........................................................................................................................................................................21
Figure E-6: Proposed Bicycle Network ........................................................................................................................................................................................................24
Figure E-7: Proposed Pedestrian Enhancement Areas ..........................................................................................................................................................................25
Figure E-8: Priority Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 2-1: Land Use ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57
Figure 2-2: Activity Centers .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................59
Figure 2-3: Street Classification ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................61
Figure 2-4: Posted Speed Limit .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................63
Figure 2-5: Sidewalk Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................65
Figure 2-6: Curb Ramp Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................................................................................................67
Figure 2-7: Existing and Previously Proposed Bicycle Facilities .........................................................................................................................................................69
Figure 2-8: Public Transit Routes and Stops .............................................................................................................................................................................................71
Figure 2-9: Bicycle and Pedestrian-Related Collisions ..........................................................................................................................................................................73
Figure 2-10: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress .................................................................................................................................................................................................75
Figure 2-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity Model ..........................................................................................................................................................................77
Figure 2-12: Popular Active Transportation Routes .................................................................................................................................................................................79
Figure 2-13: Transportation Equity Index ....................................................................................................................................................................................................82
Figure 2-14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................83
Figure 2-15: Healthy Places Index .................................................................................................................................................................................................................84
Figure 2-16: SLOCOG Disadvantaged Communities ...............................................................................................................................................................................85
Figure 2-17: Areas within Walking Distance to Arroyo Grande Schools............................................................................................................................................88
Figure 2-18: Areas within Bicycling Distance to Arroyo Grande Schools .........................................................................................................................................89
Figure 2-19: Harloe Elementary Active Transportation Routes and Facilities ..............................................................................................................................93
Figure 2-20: Ocean View Elementary Active Transportation Routes and Facilities ...................................................................................................................95
Figure 2-21: Paulding Middle School Active Transportation Routes and Facilities .....................................................................................................................97
Figure 2-22: Arroyo Grande High School Active Transportation Routes and Facilities .............................................................................................................99
Figure 3-1: How often do you walk in Arroyo Grande? ...........................................................................................................................................................................108
Figure 3-2: How often do you bike in Arroyo Grande? ...........................................................................................................................................................................108
Figure 3-3: What are your reasons for using active transportation? (Select all that apply) .....................................................................................................109
Figure 3-4: Where would you like to see better walking and bicycling routes to? (Select all that apply) ...........................................................................109
Figure 3-5: What would make it easier for you to walk or roll (wheelchair, skateboard, etc.) more in your community? (Select all that apply) ...109
vi CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Maps and photos are by the City of Arroyo Grande, project consultants, open source, or otherwise cited by source.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-6: What would make it easier for you to bike more in your community? (Select all that apply) ...........................................................................109
Figure 5-1: Proposed Bicycle Network .........................................................................................................................................................................................................139
Figure 5-2: Proposed Pedestrian Enhancement Areas ..........................................................................................................................................................................145
Figure 5-3: SRTS Recommendations: Harloe Elementary School .....................................................................................................................................................153
Figure 5-4: SRTS Recommendations: Ocean View Elementary School ...........................................................................................................................................155
Figure 5-5: SRTS Recommendations: Fairgrove Elementary School ................................................................................................................................................157
Figure 5-6: SRTS Recommendations: Paulding Middle School ..........................................................................................................................................................159
Figure 5-7: SRTS Recommendations: Arroyo Grande High School ....................................................................................................................................................161
Figure 5-8: Future Traffic Study Areas .........................................................................................................................................................................................................163
Figure 5-9: Priority Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................165
Figure A-1: Survey Question 1: How would you best describe your relationship with Arroyo Grande? (Select all that apply) ......................................204
Figure A-2: Survey Question 2: Which age group are you in? (Select one) ......................................................................................................................................204
Figure A-3: Survey Question 3: What form(s) of active transportation do you mainly use? (Select all that apply) .........................................................205
Figure A-4: Survey Question 4: How often do you walk in Arroyo Grande? ....................................................................................................................................205
Figure A-5: Survey Question 5: I walk in Arroyo Grande for (Check all that apply): ......................................................................................................................206
Figure A-6: Survey Question 6: How often do you bike in Arroyo Grande? ....................................................................................................................................206
Figure A-7: Survey Question 7: I bike in Arroyo Grande for (Check all that apply): .......................................................................................................................207
Figure A-8: Survey Question 8: What are your reasons for using active transportation? (Select all that apply) ..............................................................207
Figure A-9: Survey Question 9: What time of day do you use active transportation? (Select all that apply) ....................................................................208
Figure A-10: Survey Question 10: Where would you like to see better walking and bicycling routes to? (Select all that apply) .................................208
Figure A-11: Survey Question 11: What would make it easier for you to walk or roll more in your community? (Select all that apply) ......................209
Figure A-12: Survey Question 12: What would make it easier for you to bike more in your community? (Select all that apply) .................................210
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table E-1: Proposed Bicycle Facilities Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................23
Table E-2: Priority Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
Table 1-1: Relevant Capital Improvement Program Projects (FY 2024/25 to 2028/29) ...........................................................................................................41
Table 1-2: SLOCOG Funded and Planned Active Transportation Projects in Arroyo Grande ..................................................................................................44
Table 1-3: SLOCOG Unconstrained and Unfunded Active Transportation Projects in Arroyo Grande ................................................................................45
Table 2-1: Summary of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions Near Arroyo Grande Schools (2012-2022) ................................................................................90
Table 2-2: Percent of Students Eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Meals Program at Each School.........................................................................91
Table 5-1: Proposed Bicycle Facilities Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................................138
Table 5-2: Proposed Bicycle Network Ranked ........................................................................................................................................................................................141
Table 5-3: Pedestrian Enhancement Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................................146
Table 5-4: Priority Projects ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................164
Table A-1: Pop-Up Event #1: Citywide Map Activity Comments.......................................................................................................................................................194
Table A-2: Pop-Up Event #2: Citywide Map Activity Comments .....................................................................................................................................................195
Table A-3: Pop-Up Event #3: Draft Priority Corridor Comments .....................................................................................................................................................196
Table A-4: Pop-Up Event #3: Draft Bicycle Recommendations Comments ...............................................................................................................................196
Table A-5: Pop-Up Event #3: Draft Pedestrian Recommendations Comments ........................................................................................................................197
Table A-6: Workshop #1: Voting Activity Results ...................................................................................................................................................................................198
Table A-7: Workshop #1: Citywide Map Activity Comments .............................................................................................................................................................199
Table A-8: Workshop #2: General Comments ........................................................................................................................................................................................200
Table A-9: Workshop #2: Draft Priority Corridor Comments.............................................................................................................................................................200
Table A-10: Workshop #2: Draft Bicycle Recommendations Comments .....................................................................................................................................201
Table A-11: Workshop #2: Bicycle Project Prioritization Comments ...............................................................................................................................................201
Table A-12: Workshop #2: Draft Pedestrian Recommendations Comments ..............................................................................................................................202
Table A-13: Workshop #2: Draft SRTS Recommendations Comments ..........................................................................................................................................203
Table A-14: Online Map Comments ............................................................................................................................................................................................................220
Table A-15: Priority Projects ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................227
Table A-16: Cost Estimate: East Grand Avenue (Oak Park Boulevard to El Camino Real) ........................................................................................................228
Table A-17: Cost Estimate: Elm Street (Linda Drive to Paul Place) ...................................................................................................................................................229
Table A-18: Cost Estimate: Fair Oaks Avenue (Elm Street to Valley Road) ....................................................................................................................................230
Table A-19: Potential Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................................................248
viii CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
A NOTE FROM THE DIRECTOR
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is a first-of-its-kind planning document for the City of Arroyo Grande. It presents a tremendous opportunity to
outline a roadmap for transforming our city into a pedestrian, rolling, and bicycle-friendly environment, connecting our homes, schools, businesses,
and public spaces with safe and convenient routes.
We recognize that a truly inclusive transportation system must serve everyone – regardless of age, ability, race, income, or background. As we
look to the future, this ATP is a key step in achieving this vision to improve the health of our citizens, reduce environmental impacts associated
with vehicle use, reduce traffic congestion, improve safety, and create more vibrant and equitable communities by increasing mobility options for
all people. The ATP builds off many elements that make the City of Arroyo Grande a desirable place for many residents and businesses, as well
as an exciting destination for visitors.
Together we can build a future where the City of Arroyo Grande is a leader in active transportation choices for our communities.
Thank you for being part of this exciting journey!
Brian Pedrotti
Brian Pedrotti, Director of Community Development
ix
E
Executive Summary
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN12
The City of Arroyo Grande (City) developed the Arroyo Grande Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to promote walking, riding a bicycle, using a mobil-
ity aid device, and taking public transit as safe, viable, and enjoyable means of transportation within the city and to neighboring communities. The
City will use the ATP to pursue and secure grant funding; develop new programs; and implement Capital Improvement Projects to advance active
transportation throughout Arroyo Grande.
THE ATP ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING GOALS:
1. Identify gaps and barriers, both perceived and actual, in the existing active transportation network.
2. Engage with the community to gather local knowledge on existing challenges and opportunities.
3. Analyze the existing infrastructure around activity centers such as parks, schools, and commercial areas to explore potential solutions.
4. Develop a list of prioritized projects that improve the active transportation facilities along key corridors.
5. Create programmatic recommendations that promote walking, rolling, and bicycling as viable transportation modes.
6. Provide the City with a clear framework for implementation that can be used to pursue future grant and funding opportunities.
PLANNING PROCESS
The ATP was developed through a comprehensive 18-month planning process that included an in-depth review of local and regional planning
documents; a data-driven analysis of existing conditions; extensive engagement with community members, stakeholders, and City staff; and the
development of recommendations that address active transportation gaps and needs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Review relevant local
and regional policies
and evaluate the existing
conditions of Arroyo
Grande’s pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure.
Engage community
members and key
stakeholders in the
planning process through
a variety of activities and
events.
Develop recommendations
for infrastructure projects
and programs that will
respond to community
needs and advance active
transportation.
Present the ATP to the
Planning Commission and
then the City Council for
adoption.
Phase 1:
Existing Conditions
Analysis
Phase 2:
Community
Engagement
Phase 3:
Recommendations
Development
Phase 4:
Plan
Adoption
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13
OVERVIEW OF THE DOCUMENT
The ATP contains a summary of existing planning efforts; an analysis of the existing transportation system; an assessment of key active transpor-
tation needs; input from the community; an overview of active transportation facilities; recommendations for improvement; and more. The ATP is
organized into an executive summary, five chapters, and an appendix, all of which are described below.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary provides an overview of the document, iden-
tifies key issues and themes within Arroyo Grande’s transportation
system, and summarizes the ATP’s recommendations.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 provides an overview of active transportation trends, bene-
fits, primary guidance, applicable legislation, and relevant local and re-
gional planning documents. This foundational chapter introduces the
purpose of the ATP and sets the stage for the rest of the document.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
Chapter 2 documents and analyzes the existing conditions of Arroyo
Grande’s transportation system. The chapter includes geospatial anal-
yses of several relevant datasets, such as land use, activity centers,
existing active transportation infrastructure, public transit, activity
centers, collision history, and more. Chapter 2 findings were used in
combination with community input to identify key active transportation
gaps, needs, and priorities.
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Chapter 3 summarizes the information gathered from the communi-
ty engagement process. The chapter includes key takeaways from
public input collected through community surveys, five stakehold-
er meetings, three pop-up events, and two community workshops.
The chapter identifies key issues and priorities of the community and
stakeholders, which were used to develop recommendations.
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT
Chapter 4 provides an overview of potential active transportation in-
frastructure facilities that can be implemented in Arroyo Grande. This
chapter serves as a toolkit of solutions to make it safer, easier, and
more enjoyable to walk, ride a bicycle, and use a mobility aid device in
Arroyo Grande. Many of the active transportation “tools” described in
Chapter 4 are included as recommended infrastructure improvements
in Chapter 5.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 5 proposes physical improvement projects and programmatic
recommendations to facilitate and encourage active transportation
in Arroyo Grande. Project recommendations include a future bicycle
network, pedestrian and ADA enhancements, Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) improvements, and conceptual designs for three priority
projects.
APPENDIX
The Appendix contains descriptions of primary guidance and appli-
cable legislation (Appendix A), the complete results of community
engagement efforts (Appendix B), guidance from Caltrans (Appendix
C), high-level planning drawings for the ATP’s three priority projects
(Appendix D), and potential funding sources for ATP implementation
(Appendix E).
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN14
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are the foundation of pedestrian infrastructure. However,
Arroyo Grande lacks a complete sidewalk network. Figure E-1 displays
the existing sidewalk infrastructure in Arroyo Grande. Figure E-1 shows
that many streets in Arroyo Grande lack sidewalks, which forces
pedestrians and mobility aid device users to walk or roll alongside
vehicular traffic in the street or avoid these routes altogether.
CURB RAMPS
A curb ramp is a short ramp that cuts through or is built up to a curb to
facilitate access between a sidewalk and a roadway for people using
wheelchairs, walkers, strollers, skateboards, scooters, mobility devic-
es, or health-related mobility limitations. Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) standards require that new curb ramps include detectable
warnings to alert pedestrians with vision impairments of an upcoming
hazard, such as passing traffic. Detectable warnings consist of a series
of small domes, also known as truncated domes, that contrast in color
with the surrounding sidewalk or street. Curb ramps with truncated
domes are essential infrastructure that allow people to safely access
their desired destination.
Figure E-2 shows a current inventory of curb ramps with and without
truncated domes, as well as pedestrian crossings that are missing curb
ramps altogether. Collecting an inventory of missing curb ramps is the
first step to identifying and prioritizing curb ramp installation projects
that will make Arroyo Grande more accessible for people with dis-
abilities. In recent years, the City has made strides to install new curb
ramps in priority areas, such as near Harloe Elementary and Ocean
View Elementary schools, as well as others.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15Figure e-1: Existing Sidewalks
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN16Figure e-2: Existing Curb Ramps
Ramp without
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
There are 15.5 miles of existing bicycle facilities in Arroyo Grande (Figure E-3). Arroyo Grande’s existing network of bicycle facilities mostly con -
sists of Class II bicycle lanes, with short segments of Class I multi-use paths and Class III bicycle routes. The existing bicycle facility network was
analyzed for safety and connectivity within Arroyo Grande and to neighboring jurisdictions. Gaps currently exist along key corridors, including Oak
Park Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Elm Street, Farroll Avenue, and West Branch Street. Additionally, there are opportunities for greater levels of
separation and protection between vehicles and bicyclists along existing bicycle facilities on East Grand Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue, Huasna Road,
West Branch Street, Valley Road, and more. The ATP aims to strengthen and expand Arroyo Grande’s existing bicycle network by recommending
new and improved bicycle facilities.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISION HISTORY
Bicycle and pedestrian collision data were obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) managed by SafeTec to provide State-
wide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data. This dataset captures reported bicycle-vehicle, pedestrian-vehicle, and bicycle-pe-
destrian collisions that resulted in injury or property damage in Arroyo Grande in the 11-year period of 2012 through 2022. Collision density and
location data are displayed in Figure E-4.
During these 11 years, there were a total of 45 pedestrian-related collisions and 50 bicycle-related collisions, which resulted in 94 injuries and three
fatalities. The bulk of both collision types resulted in visible injury (47 percent) or complaint of pain (35 percent), with 18 percent resulting in severe
injury or death. It is important to note that collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians are known to be underreported, and therefore such col-
lisions are likely under-represented in this analysis. Collision history was used to develop and prioritize pedestrian and bicycle recommendations
proposed by this ATP.
Class I Multi-Use Paths: 0.8 miles Class II Bicycle Lanes: 14.6 miles Class III Bicycle Routes: 0.1 miles
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN18Figure e-3: Existing Bicycle Facilities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19Figure e-4: Bicycle and Pedestrian-Related Collisions (2012-2022)
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN20
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROPENSITY MODEL
To help identify priority areas for active transportation infrastructure, a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based model called a Bicycle-Pedes-
trian Propensity Model (BPPM) was created to reveal relationships between several key factors, including activity centers, demographic data, and
physical infrastructure. A BPPM was developed to establish where bicyclists and pedestrians are most likely to be, both currently and if improve-
ments were to be made. The BPPM is comprised of three submodels:
Attractor Model: Attractors are activity centers known to attract bicyclists and pedestrians, such
as schools, public transit stops, and shopping centers.
Generator Model: Generators estimate potential pedestrian and bicyclist volumes based on
how many people live and work within an area. Demographic data used to model generators include
population density, employment density, primary mode of transportation to work, and vehicle ownership.
Barrier Model: Barriers are features likely to discourage or detract people from bicycling or
walking. These are generally physical limitations, such as areas with missing sidewalks, high vehicle
volumes and speeds, and high numbers of bicycle or pedestrian-related collisions.
These three sub-models were combined to create the composite BPPM, displayed in Figure E-5, to demonstrate areas in greatest need of active
transportation infrastructure. The BPPM shows the highest likely bicycle and pedestrian use near mixed-use and commercial areas, especially
around the Village, East Grand Avenue, Halcyon Road, West Branch Street, and Traffic Way. However, bicycle and pedestrian propensity is not only
concentrated on the major roadways, it also permeates into local streets that people tend to use frequently. When comparing community input
with the BPPM, there was a correlation between commonly mentioned corridors and high-propensity areas for bicycling and walking.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 21Figure e-5: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity Model
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN22
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Engaging Arroyo Grande community members in the planning process
was essential to the development of the ATP. Community engagement
methods were designed to be open, transparent, and accessible to
Arroyo Grande residents, stakeholders, and visitors.
The primary methods used to engage Arroyo Grande community
members were:
»Community Survey
»Five (5) Stakeholder Meetings
»Three (3) Pop-up Events
»Two (2) Community Workshops
»One (1) City Council Study Session
»Project Website
»Social Media
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TAKEAWAYS
Key takeaways from community feedback include:
»Across all community engagement methods, it was evident that
Arroyo Grande residents, visitors, and stakeholders see the value
of safe and efficient active transportation facilities.
»Community engagement participants frequently expressed the
desire for complete sidewalks, a connected system of bicycle
facilities, and safe walking and bicycling routes to schools, parks,
the Village, the Library, and commercial corridors, such as East
Grand Avenue.
»Corridors mentioned most by community engagement participants
were: East Grand Avenue, West Branch Street, East Branch Street,
Halcyon Road, Fair Oaks Avenue, and Oak Park Boulevard.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 23
RECOMMENDATIONS
The ATP proposes new and improved bicycle, pedestrian, and ADA
facilities to make it safer, easier, and more comfortable to use active
transportation throughout Arroyo Grande. The ATP also contains
programmatic recommendations and funding resources to support,
encourage, and celebrate active transportation. Recommendations,
which can be found in greater detail in Chapter 5, can be used by the
City to secure and allocate future funding to create a safe and inter-
connected network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK
Information gathered throughout the planning process, including
through community and stakeholder input, field observations, exist-
ing conditions analyses, previous planning, and Capital Improvement
Projects (CIPs), was used to develop a future bicycle network. The ATP
proposes 33 miles of new bicycle facilities to expand and upgrade
Arroyo Grande’s existing bicycle network.
The bicycle facilities proposed in Table E-1 and Figure E-6 are intended
to facilitate a future where Arroyo Grande has an interconnected bicy-
cle network. These recommendations are meant to serve as a guide
to help the City pursue and allocate funds as they become available
through various sources.
Table e-1: Proposed Bicycle Facilities Summary
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN
ENHANCEMENTS
Through a process similar to the one used to develop the proposed
bicycle network, the ATP identifies over 60 opportunities for improved
pedestrian facilities, including both site-specific and corridor-wide
enhancements. Recommendations for pedestrian enhancements are
displayed in Figure E-7 and include a range of proposed amenities,
such as new sidewalks, mid-block crossings, curb extensions, and
traffic calming treatments. The proposed pedestrian recommenda-
tions were developed to enhance safety, comfort, and walkability to
schools, parks, and commercial destinations. A list of proposed pe-
destrian enhancements corresponding to the numbers in Figure E-7 is
provided in Table 5-3 in Chapter 5.
PROPOSED SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
IMPROVEMENTS
Making it safe for students and their families to walk, ride a bicycle, or
use a mobility aid device to get to school is a top priority for the City.
The ATP evaluated the pedestrian and bicycle facilities surrounding
Arroyo Grande’s four public schools: Harloe Elementary School, Ocean
View Elementary School, Paulding Middle School, and Arroyo Grande
High School. Recommendations were also developed to improve the
route from Arroyo Grande to Fairgrove Elementary School in Grover
Beach. To support and encourage walking and bicycling to school, the
ATP proposes several Safe Routes to School (SRTS) improvements for
the areas surrounding schools. The proposed improvements include
bicycle, pedestrian, ADA, and traffic calming recommendations, such
as high-visibility crosswalks, LED stop signs, curb extensions, speed
feedback signs, pedestrian crossing signals, bicycle facilities, etc.
BICYCLE FACILITY TYPE MILES
Class I Multi-use Path 7.26
Class II Bicycle Lane 5.09
Class III Bicycle Route 10.48
Class IV: Separated Bikeway/Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle
facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost,
maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install
the improvements.
10.45
Total 33.28
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN24Figure e-6: Proposed Bicycle Network
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 25Figure e-7: Proposed Pedestrian Enhancement Areas
66
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN26
PRIORITY CORRIDORS
The City developed planning-level conceptual drawings for three
priority projects to streamline future funding pursuits and project
implementation. The three corridors shown in Table E-2 and Figure
E-8 were selected for several reasons, including their role in providing
connections to schools, parks, and commercial destinations; their need
for safety improvements; their importance to the community; and more.
Conceptual drawings include proposed bicycle facilities, pedestrian
and ADA enhancements, and traffic calming measures to facilitate
safe and comfortable active transportation along key corridors. An
overview of each priority corridor is provided in Chapter 5 and the
planning-level conceptual drawings are provided in Appendix D.
STREET BETWEEN LENGTH
(MILES)FROM TO
East Grand Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Branch Street 1.68
Elm Street Linda Drive City Limit 1.05
Fair Oaks Avenue Elm Street Traffic Way 1.59
Table e-2: Priority Projects
East Grand Avenue Elm Street Fair Oaks Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 27Figure e-8: Priority Projects
1
Introduction
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN30
PLAN OVERVIEW
PURPOSE
The Arroyo Grande Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was developed
to provide the City of Arroyo Grande (City) a guidebook for making
Arroyo Grande a safe and comfortable place to walk, roll, and ride.
The ATP includes an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian infra-
structure, identifies key gaps and safety needs, and proposes recom-
mendations for improvement. The recommendations in this ATP - both
physical and programmatic - are meant to improve active transporta-
tion infrastructure; promote walking, rolling, and bicycling in Arroyo
Grande; and create viable travel options to support the existing and
future population.
The ATP uses the latest design standards and guidelines by the State
of California (State), technical experts, and peer communities to ensure
that all recommendations are feasible and eligible for grants. The ATP
includes short-, mid-, and long-term projects that can be implemented
once funds are made available. The City will use the ATP to guide the
study, design, and implementation of active transportation projects in
Arroyo Grande to improve sustainable mobility options throughout the
community and to neighboring cities.
SCOPE
The ATP will guide the development of active transportation projects
and programs that will support safe and efficient walking, rolling, and
bicycling in Arroyo Grande.
The ATP addresses the following goals:
1. Identify gaps and barriers, both perceived and actual, in the existing
active transportation network.
2. Engage with the community to gather local knowledge on existing
challenges and opportunities.
3. Analyze the existing infrastructure around activity centers such as
parks, schools, employment, and commercial centers to explore
potential solutions.
4. Develop a list of prioritized projects that improve the active
transportation facilities along key corridors.
5. Create programmatic recommendations that promote walking,
rolling, and bicycling as viable transportation modes.
6. Provide the City with a clear framework for implementation that can
be used to pursue future grant and funding opportunities.
Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 31
STUDY AREA
Arroyo Grande is a 5.5-square-
mile incorporated community
located within the “Five Cities”
area of San Luis Obispo county,
California. Arroyo Grande lies
about 200 miles south of the San
Francisco Bay Area and 150 miles
north of Los Angeles. Regionally,
Arroyo Grande is approximately
10 miles south of the city of San
Luis Obispo and conveniently
located along the U.S. Highway
101 (U.S. 101) coastal corridor.
Arroyo Grande is bordered
by the city of Pismo Beach
to the northwest, the city of
Grover Beach to the west, the
unincorporated town of Oceano
to the south, and unincorporated
rural and suburban land to the
east. U.S. 101, which bisects Arroyo
Grande, is the primary State
highway that provides regional
access and connects the city with
other parts of San Luis Obispo
county and California. State Route
227 (SR-227) also provides more
localized access to/from the city,
connecting Arroyo Grande with
the city of San Luis Obispo and
surrounding communities.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN32
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
TRENDS
Trends in active transportation planning and design have evolved sig-
nificantly over the last decade. Communities across the country and
throughout California have seen the growth of both conventional and
contemporary active transportation infrastructure. Local leaders, com-
munity members, and advocates are showing ongoing interest in en-
suring that active transportation and new mobility facilities are not only
included but prioritized in their built environment. The State continues
to show its commitment to this movement through its Active Trans-
portation Program, which draws from federal and state funds to pro-
vide roughly $320 million annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects
across California.1 Since the program was launched in 2013, over 800
active transportation projects across California have been funded.2
Similarly, the United States Congress authorized the Active Transpor-
tation Infrastructure Investment Program as part of the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, securing $45 million in funding to kick-start
the program in 2023, with more funding to come in 2024.3
INTEREST IS CHANGING
The benefits of active transportation are far-reaching and multi-facet-
ed. Access to active transportation facilities has long been proven to
improve mental and physical health, as well as serve as a focal point
of community pride and recreation activities. The benefits associated
with effective active transportation facilities and programming can be
demonstrated through nationwide activity numbers. For example, the
Rails to Trails Conservancy, a national trail advocacy organization, re-
ported in 2020 that “more Americans are walking, biking and using
trails in 2020 than ever before—bike sales have boomed and trail use
is up 60% over the same period in 2019.” In 2022, the Rails to Trails
Conservancy reported that these trends are holding steady as data
shows “trail use in 2022 is 45% higher than in 2019, demonstrating
enduring demand for trails across the country.”4 Similarly, StreetLight
Data reported that bicycle activity in the United States has increased
substantially in 2020 and 2021, and held steady in 2022 with overall
growth since 2019 at 37%.”5 Contrastingly, StreetLight Data reported
that walking activity in the United States declined by 36% between
2019-2022, likely due to remote work and empty downtowns drawing
fewer pedestrians.6 It is critical to continue investing in active transpor-
tation safety, infrastructure, and programming to bring walking activity
up and continue to accelerate interest in hiking and bicycling.
Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 33
SAFETY IS ESSENTIAL
Encouraging more active transportation requires the provision of safe,
protected, and connected facilities, as well as programs and events to
boost awareness and interest. In 2023, the Rails to Trails Conservan-
cy released poll results that revealed that improved connectivity and
increased active transportation infrastructure would help people walk
and bike more.7 The poll found that the top five factors to increase
behavior are: (1) more destinations within a 10-to-20-minute walking
distance; (2) friends and family to join them; (3) trails and greenways
separated and protected from traffic; (4) more sidewalks; and (5) more
protected bike lanes.8 The Rails to Trails Conservancy also found that
nearly one-third of people say that interconnected trail networks would
make it easier to walk or bike to their destination instead of driving.9
Trends related to the type of infrastructure being built and advocated
for have also shown a growing preference for facilities that enhance
pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly bicycle lanes that are phys-
ically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class 1 multi-use paths and
Class 4 separated bikeways are being highlighted as the types of fa-
cilities that most encourage people to bicycle more to reach their lo-
cal destinations. Pedestrian infrastructure such as enhanced crossings
with rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) or pedestrian hybrid
beacons (PHB) are being installed at higher rates since studies have
shown increased safety for pedestrians.
ELECTRIC BICYCLE RIDERSHIP RISES
In the last several years, electric bicycles (e-bicycles) - both person-
al and shared - have swept the nation. The increasing prevalence of
e-bicycles and e-scooters has welcomed an influx of new active trans-
portation users by providing people with disabilities, seniors, and oth-
ers with viable mobility options for reaching destinations near and far.
People across the country now use personal and shared e-bicycles
and e-scooters to get to work and school, run errands, and access
community services, leisure activities, and recreational opportunities.
The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) re-
ported that shared e-bicycle and e-scooter trips in the United States
and Canada have grown by 40 percent since 2018 and have increased
35-fold from 2010.10 In 2021 and 2022, there were 112 and 113 million
shared e-bicycle and e-scooter trips in the United States, respectively.
Along the same lines, e-bicycle sales in the United States increased
by over 145 percent between 2019 and 2020.11 NACTO also empha-
sizes the reality that more people ride when cities build high-quality,
protected bicycle lanes. As alternative modes of transportation be-
come increasingly popular, it is important to design active transporta-
tion infrastructure, amenities, policies, and enforcement mechanisms
to facilitate the safe use of shared-use facilities for both motorized and
non-motorized users.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN34
BENEFITS OF ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
As shown by the trends in active transportation, investing in a network
of bicycle and pedestrian facilities will bring a variety of environmental,
health, and social benefits to Arroyo Grande community members.
HEALTH BENEFITS
Vehicle-generated air pollution contains harmful emissions such as
carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and volatile
organic compounds. These pollutants and irritants can cause asthma,
bronchitis, pneumonia, decreased resistance to respiratory infections.
and other health impacts. Increasing access to active transportation
and other related clean mobility choices will decrease dependency on
car-generated trips, contribute to the reduction of vehicle emissions,
and, ultimately, improve air quality.12
Beyond the environmental and community-wide health benefits asso-
ciated with active transportation, increased access to and opportunity
for physical activity offers the potential for substantial health benefits
on an individual level. Regular exercise also reduces the risk of high
blood pressure, heart attacks, and strokes. Exercise has also been
shown to improve mental health by relieving symptoms of depression,
anxiety, and stress. Trails, in particular, have been shown to improve
quality of life, promote health and well-being, and foster a sense of
community and belonging.13
SAFETY BENEFITS
The development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that are phys-
ically separated from vehicular traffic will not only encourage more
people to walk or bicycle to their destinations but will also significantly
reduce the potential for collisions with vehicles. Data from the U.S.
Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Ad-
ministration shows that fatalities and injuries to pedestrians and bi-
cyclists in traffic collisions are on the rise. In 2021, 7,388 pedestrians
and 966 bicyclists were killed in traffic crashes (a 12.5 and 1.9 percent
increase from 2020, respectively).14 Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities
are unacceptable and demand aggressive improvements to active
transportation facilities and programming to eliminate these unnec-
essary tragedies. Cities across the U.S. are implementing policy and
infrastructure changes to curb the rise in collisions involving pedestri-
ans and bicyclists.15 Off-street and protected bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are among the current best practices for providing safe active
transportation infrastructure and are overwhelmingly preferred by ac-
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 35
tive transportation users.16 Additionally, several major U.S. cities, such
as Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and Denver,
have proposed or passed laws that ban right turns on red lights in ar-
eas with high pedestrian volumes or citywide.17 The City will continue
to monitor emerging safety trends and consider implementing best
practices, where appropriate.
EQUITY & ACCESSIBILITY BENEFITS
Developing an equitable and accessible transportation system starts
with recognizing the reality that systemic inequality has left many
communities, especially low-income and communities of color, with
inequitable access to open space, employment opportunities, healthy
food options, and other critical needs. Prioritizing active transportation
projects in disadvantaged and underserved communities helps to pro-
vide people with additional transportation options and to increase ac-
cess to important services, resources, and opportunities. The Project
for Public Spaces reported in 2021 that health equity and access are
major themes across mobility planning. This is evident in the State’s
Active Transportation Program, which has allocated over 85 percent
of funds in every funding cycle toward projects that will benefit disad-
vantaged communities throughout California.18
In addition to locating active transportation projects in communities
with the greatest need for them, it is also important to design new
facilities to be inclusive and accessible for everyone. Increasingly,
trails and paths across the United States are incorporating inclusive
design features, such as ADA-accessible trails, sensory trails, shared-
use trails, trails for children, and trails designed for those with
cognitive disabilities.19 This is especially important because people
with disabilities rely on active transportation and public transit to a
greater degree than those without disabilities.20 Other features, such
as educational and wayfinding signage, welcoming public art, and
inclusive marketing materials can help trail users feel safe, prepared,
and welcome. Providing a variety of safe, affordable, accessible, and
equitable transportation options is essential to community health,
well-being, and vitality.
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the transportation sector accounted for the largest portion of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (29 percent) in the United States
in 2021.21 Light-duty vehicles (i.e., sports utility vehicles, passen-
ger cars, minivans, and light-duty trucks) account for 58 percent of
transportation-related GHG emissions and medium-and-heavy-duty
trucks account for 23 percent.22 With roughly 81 percent of transpor-
tation-related GHG emissions in the U.S. attributed to personal and
single-occupancy vehicles, reducing the number of vehicle miles trav-
eled in cars is imperative to mitigating climate change and can be
accomplished, in part, by making active transportation a viable travel
option. Additionally, the construction of new bikeways or pedestrian
infrastructure will also provide opportunities to design and introduce
green infrastructure into the public realm. The EPA acknowledges the
many benefits of green infrastructure, including treating stormwater at
its source, reducing flooding, adding street trees, improving air qual-
ity, creating new habitats, and improving community pride. Examples
of active transportation facilities that integrate green infrastructure in-
clude bicycle lanes protected by stormwater planter boxes and curb
extensions designed with vegetated bioswales, both of which provide
safety benefits while retaining and filtering stormwater runoff.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN36
PRIMARY GUIDANCE
Active transportation design guidance has traditionally come from the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). However,
cities are increasingly turning to national organizations for guidance
on best practices. Leading national organizations include the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), the American As-
sociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Fortunately for California cities, there is increased flexibility in design
guidance offered by both Caltrans and the FHWA. In 2014, Caltrans
officially endorsed the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide and Urban
Bikeway Design Guide as valuable toolkits for designing and con-
structing safe and attractive local streets. California cities may also
apply for experimental designation from the FHWA for projects not in
conformance with the CA MUTCD, which allows cities to endorse inno-
vative projects that are outside of conformance standards prescribed
by the CA MUTCD. The guidance documents used to inform this ATP
are listed below and described in detail in Appendix A.
CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES
Since 2014, the CA MUTCD has been updated eight times, most re-
cently in January 2024. The standards set by CA MUTCD provide
guidance to balance safety and convenience for everyone, including
drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Multimodal policies for safer cross-
ings, work zones, and intersections are integrated into the CA MUTCD,
with improvements including:
»Crosswalks Enhancements Policy
»Temporary Traffic Control Plans
»Work Zone and Higher Fines Signs and Plaques
»Traffic Control for School Areas
Additionally, NACTO guidance was analyzed to ensure flexibility and
innovation in the design and operations of streets and highways in
California. Much of the guidance provided in the CA MUTCD is con-
sistent with the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
In addition to the CA MUTCD, the following guidance documents were
also used to guide the development of this ATP.
»AASHTO Guides for Pedestrian and Bikeway Facilities
»Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000: Bicycle Transpor-
tation Design
»FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
»FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
»Massachusetts Department of Transportation Separated Bike Lane
Planning & Design Guide
»NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
»NACTO Urban Bikeway & Street Design Guides
»NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 37
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
Active transportation in California is supported by legislation at the
federal, state, and local levels. Legislation to advance active transpor-
tation is driven by a variety of factors, including safety; GHG emissions
reduction; community health and well-being; equity and environmen-
tal justice; and more. The following section lists applicable federal
and state policies that influence active transportation planning, deci-
sion-making, and funding. Descriptions for each piece of legislation
can be found in Appendix A.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
»Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle Box
(IA-18)
»Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
STATE LEGISLATION
»AB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act
»AB-43 Traffic Safety
»AB-98 Planning and Zoning: Logistics Use: Truck Routes
»AB-285 Forecast Impacts of Emerging Technologies
»AB-361 Vehicles: Photographs of Bicycle Lane Parking Violations
»AB-390 Pedestrian Crossing Signals
»AB-413 Vehicles: Stopping, Standing, and Parking
»AB-712 Tenancy: Personal Micromobility Devices
»AB-773 Street Closures and Designations
»AB-902 Traffic Violations and Diversion Programs
»AB-1096 Electric Bicycles as Vehicles
»AB-1193 Bikeways
»AB-1266 Bicycle Guidance Signs Through an Intersection
»AB-1358 Complete Streets Act
»AB-1371 Passing Distance/Three Feet for Safety Act
»AB-1774 E-Bike Modification
»AB-1909 Vehicles: Bicycle Omnibus Bill
»AB-1778 E-Bike Pilot Age Restrictions
»AB-2086 Transportation Accountability Act
»AB-2147 Pedestrians
»AB-2669 Banning Bridge Tolls for People Walking and Biking
»AB-2863 Green Building Standards: Bicycle Parking
»SB-1 Transportation Funding
»SB-375 Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gases
»SB-400 Clean Cars 4 All Program
»SB-672 Traffic-Actuated Signals: Motorcycles and Bicycles
»SB-689 Bike Lanes in Coastal Areas
»SB-743 CEQA Reform
»SB-760 Transportation Funding: Active Transportation: Complete
Streets
»SB-922 California Environmental Quality Act Exemption: Transpor-
tation-related Projects
»SB-932 General Plans: Circulation Element: Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plans and Traffic Calming Plans
»SB-960 Complete Streets Bill
»SB-1000 Planning for Healthy Communities Act
»SB-1216 Limits on Class III Bikeways
»SB-1271 E-Bike Battery Safety Standards
»California Active Transportation Program
»California Transportation Plan 2050
»Caltrans’ Deputy Directive 64-R2
»CEQA for Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
»Design Information Bulletin 89-02
»Executive Order N-19-19
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN38
PLANNING CONTEXT
The ATP incorporates regional and local planning efforts directly re-
lated to active transportation. These efforts range from long-range
regional planning to street-specific plans. The following information
summarizes the planning documents evaluated as part of the ATP de-
velopment.
Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 39
LOCAL PLANNING CONTEXT
ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN (2001)
The Arroyo Grande General Plan, adopted in 2001, is a comprehen-
sive citywide plan that guides future growth while preserving quality
of life. The General Plan is comprised of eight elements: (1) Agriculture,
Conservation, and Open Space, (2) Circulation, (3) Economic Develop-
ment, (4) Housing, (5) Land Use, (6) Noise, (7) Parks and Recreation,
and (8) Safety. The Circulation and Parks and Recreation elements, in
particular, are most relevant to this ATP.
*Note: The City is currently undergoing a comprehensive General
Plan update process. While the General Plan has not been released
or adopted, relevant findings from the General Plan community en-
gagement process were reviewed and integrated into the ATP.
Arroyo Grande General Plan: Circulation Element (2021)
The Circulation Element of the General Plan, updated in 2021, seeks
to provide safe and easy travel within and through the city for pedes-
trians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. The Circulation Element’s vision
is for Arroyo Grande to become “a community that embraces mobility
through the use of all transportation modes.”
One goal of the Circulation Element is to seamlessly connect Arroyo
Grande and adjacent communities via a safe and convenient bicycle
and pedestrian network for recreational and commuter use, while also
improving air quality by reducing vehicular trips. Initial steps to achieve
this goal involve completing the following Circulation Element policies:
»Update the City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan in the form of an Ac-
tive Transportation Plan, to incorporate pedestrian travel, in accord-
ance with State guidelines and industry best practices.
»Expand the City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan into a citywide Active
Transportation Plan including pedestrian mode improvement plan
and policies.
This ATP updates and expands upon the City’s existing Bicycle & Trails
Master Plan to include pedestrian travel and up-to-date best practices
for active transportation. By developing this document in alignment
with the Circulation Element, the ATP is able to incorporate recom-
mendations that are consistent with City policies and visions.
Arroyo Grande General Plan: Parks and Recreation Element
(2001)
The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan, adopted in
2001, guides the long-term planning and provision of parks and rec-
reation facilities in Arroyo Grande. The Parks and Recreation Element
contains an objective for the City to establish a network of recreational
trails, bicycle lanes, and bikeways for residents and visitors to the Ar-
royo Grande Valley. This objective includes policies that prioritize the
development of trails that provide connections to schools and recrea-
tion facilities, a regional recreational trail along Arroyo Grande Creek,
and safe crossings for any trails crossing major streets.
HALCYON COMPLETE STREETS PLAN (2023)
The City adopted the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan in 2023
to improve mobility and accessibility throughout the 1.7-mile Halcyon
Road corridor, a major urban arterial in Arroyo Grande. The plan pro-
poses concepts for an improved transportation corridor that facilitates
safe mobility and accessibility for all users, including pedestrians, bi-
cyclists, transit vehicles, trucks, and motorists. The plan proposes mul-
timodal transportation enhancements, such as infilling sidewalk gaps,
installing buffered and separated bicycle lanes, and implementing a
road diet. Additionally, the plan proposes two alternative improve-
ments at Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue: an upgraded traffic
signal with enhanced bicycle facilities or a roundabout. The plan con-
cludes that a single-lane roundabout will significantly enhance safety
and improve multimodal connectivity.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN40
ARROYO GRANDE BICYCLE AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN
(2012)
The City’s Bicycle & Trails Master Plan was adopted in 2012 to improve
and encourage bicycle and off-street pedestrian transportation within
Arroyo Grande by achieving the following goals:
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE MUNICIPAL CODE
The City’s Municipal Code contains regulations relevant to the
ATP, including, but not limited to improvements to circulation,
transportation, and trail facilities; street tree requirements; street and
sidewalk obstructions; building setbacks; and the use of bicycle and
wheeled toys. ATP recommendations consider and are consistent with
the City’s Municipal Code. »Goal 1: Safe, Convenient Bicycle and Pedestrian Access
»Goal 2: A “Bicycle Friendly Community”
»Goal 3: Maximize Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Funding
Opportunities
»Goal 4: Demonstrate City Commitment to Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvement
The plan proposed a bicycle and trail system and recommended the
following ten priority improvement projects:
1. East Branch Street from Paulding Middle School to Le Point
Terrace Road (Class II Bicycle Lane)
2. East Branch Street from Traffic Way to Le Point Terrace Road
(Class III Bicycle Boulevard)
3. West Branch Street from Traffic Way to El Camino Real (Class III
Bicycle Route)
4. Fair Oaks Avenue from Traffic Way to Orchard Avenue (Class III
Bicycle Route)
5. Fair Oaks Avenue from Orchard Avenue to Elm Street (Class III
Bicycle Route - Class II Bicycle Lane)
6. North Oak Park Boulevard from the City Limit to SLO County Line
(Class II Bicycle Lanes)
7. Tally Ho from Printz Road to East Branch Street (Class III Bicycle
Route and Bicycle Boulevard)
8. Roundabout - East Branch Street, Husana Road, and Corbett
Canyon Road (Roundabout and Class II Bicycle Lane)
9. Valley Road from High School to City Limits (Class II Bicycle Lane)
10. Wayfinding Sign System (Expanded throughout community)
To date, projects #1, #4, #5, and #9 are complete. Projects #2, #3, #6,
#7, #8, and #10 are not complete and were integrated into the recom-
mendations presented in Chapter 5 of this ATP.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 41
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
In 2024, the City adopted its five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to address infrastructure maintenance and improvements throughout
Arroyo Grande between Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/25 to 2028/29. The CIP is divided into six major project types – miscellaneous, parks, streets, drain-
age, sewer, and water. The CIP is funded through a variety of sources including significant grants and transfers from other funds. Table 1-1 displays
relevant streets projects slated to occur between FY 2024/25 to 2028/29.
Table 1-1: Relevant Capital Improvement Program Projects (FY 2024/25 to 2028/29)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
Fair Oaks Avenue Active
Transportation Improvements
(Valley Road to Traffic Way)
Construct improvements on this corridor with better pedestrian and bicycle facilities, traffic
calming, and improved access and circulation at the intersection of US 101 southbound ramps
and Orchard Avenue.
$350,000
Halcyon Road Complete Streets
The project consists of Complete Streets improvements along 1.7 Miles of Halcyon Road from
US 101 to The Pike. The project narrows vehicle driving lanes, adds buffered bike lanes with
green conflict striping, fills in sidewalk gaps, adds two-staged crossings with stop control at
key intersections, and installs a new signal or roundabout at Fair Oaks Avenue.
$7,866,000
Bridge Street Bridge Habitat
Mitigation
Post-construction environmental mitigation and monitoring for the Bridge Street Bridge
Rehabilitation project.$97,256
Arroyo Grande Creek Stabilization Geotechnical engineering investigation to determine the stability of the slopes, and to
recommend remediation for potential slope failures.$340,000
Pavement Management Program The City annually performs pavement maintenance on public streets. Streets are selected
based on pavement condition, location, and the type of maintenance application. $10,346,624
Sidewalk Repairs and Improvements Biennial funding is allocated towards sidewalk improvements and repairs throughout the City.$1,063,000
Traffic Way Bridge Replacement Design and construction to replace the three-lane bridge constructed in 1932 over Arroyo
Grande Creek.$13,822,938
Wayfinding Install wayfinding signage in the Village.$60,000
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN42Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 43
REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT
SLOCOG REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2023)
Every four years, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLO-
COG) is required to prepare and adopt a Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP). The RTP is the region’s blueprint for a transportation system
that enhances quality of life and meets the mobility needs of the re-
gion’s residents and visitors, now and in the future. Through policies,
programs, strategies, and investments in strategic transportation im-
provements, the RTP envisions a fully integrated, intermodal trans-
portation system that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of
people, goods, and information within and throughout the region. To
achieve this vision, the 2023 RTP outlines transportation system in-
vestments, financing, and policy recommendations through the year
2045.
The RTP promotes a sustainable, multimodal transportation system
that reduces the amount of time people spend on the road, reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, and attracts funding for San Luis Obispo
county communities. Issues addressed by the RTP include efficiency,
equity, accessibility, reliability, sustainability, health, safety, and choice.
Input from the public, stakeholders, and SLOCOG staff led to the gen-
eration of seven overarching goals for the RTP:
1. Maintain and improve the efficiency of the existing transportation
system.
2. Improve intermodal mobility and accessibility for all people.
3. Support a vibrant, resilient economy.
4. Improve public safety and security.
5. Foster livable and healthy communities and promote equity.
6. Project and enhance the environment.
7. Practice financial stewardship.
Over the course of the RTP’s 23-year planning horizon (2023-2045),
SLOCOG forecasts approximately $3.1 billion to be available for trans-
portation expenditures through federal, state, and local programs. Of
the $3.1 billion budget, an estimated $184 million will be allocated to-
wards active transportation projects, such as regional bikeway corri-
dors, Safe Routes to School, bikeways, complete streets, and safety
and livability improvements.
The RTP also listed several funded and constrained active transpor-
tation projects in Arroyo Grande (Table 1-2). Constrained projects are
likely to be implemented before 2046 with reasonably expected fund-
ing from federal, state, and local funding sources. Table 1-3 displays
additional unfunded and unconstrained projects identified in the RTP.
Unconstrained projects are outside of the RTP’s planning horizon and
cannot reasonably be delivered before 2046.
Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN44
Table 1-2: SLOCOG Funded and Planned Active Transportation Projects in Arroyo Grande
PROJECT DESCRIPTION TIME HORIZON
Halcyon Road Complete Streets
Improvements
Construct Class II/IV bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossing improvements on
Halcyon Road between E. Grand and Highway 1
Fully funded through
construction in December 2022
E. Grand Avenue Midblock Crosswalk Install rapid flashing beacon and upgrade crosswalk Short (before 2029)
Farroll Road and S. Halcyon Road Crosswalk and ADA improvements Short (before 2029)
Elm Street Improvements: Ash
Street to Grand Avenue (Phase 1)Restripe for road diet improvements Mid (before 2036)
Elm Street Improvements: Farroll
Avenue to city limits (Phase 2)Restripe for road diet improvements Mid (before 2036)
Huasna Road: Safe Routes to School
Improvements
Infill sidewalks and Class II/IV bicycle lanes between E. Branch Street and city
limits Mid (before 2036)
Arroyo Grande Creek Trail (Phase 2)City of Arroyo Grande, including the Village Long (before 2046)
Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
Note: All SLOCOG projects listed in Table 1-2 on Halcyon Road will be addressed through the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Project. The remaining projects in Table 1-2
were integrated into the recommendations presented in Chapter 5 of this ATP.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 45
Table 1-3: SLOCOG Unconstrained and Unfunded Active Transportation Projects in Arroyo Grande
PROJECT DESCRIPTION TIME HORIZON
Strother Park/Bicycle Pedestrian
Improvements Bicycle/pedestrian crossing over Arroyo Grande Creek Unconstrained (after 2045)
Corbett Canyon Road Bicycle Lanes:
Huasana Road to city limits Install Class II bicycle lanes Unconstrained (after 2045)
E. Grand Avenue and E. Branch
Street Bicycle Improvement
Install bicycle lanes, sharrows, and bicycle-related signage on streets connecting
residential uses to commercial areas, parks, public facilities, and schools Unconstrained (after 2045)
Safe Streets Bicycle/Pedestrian
Improvements at Schools
Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety between five area schools by developing
safer pedestrian crossings and intersections as well as installing bicycle lanes Unconstrained (after 2045)
Meadow Creek Bridge Repair pedestrian bridge Short (before 2029)
Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge Reinforce the swinging pedestrian bridge Short (before 2029)
W. Branch Street Safe Routes to
School Improvements Construct sidewalk infill between E. Grand Avenue and Rodeo Drive Unconstrained (after 2045)
Scenic Creekside Walkway (Phase 4)Extend existing creekside trail to Kiwanis Park Unconstrained (after 2045)
South County Regional Center
Creekwalk: Rodeo Drive to W.
Branch Street
Extend trail Unconstrained (after 2045)
Scenic Creekside Shared Use Path Construct shared use path west of U.S. 101 between E. Grand Avenue and Fair
Oaks Avenue Unconstrained (after 2045)
Tally Ho Road Multimodal
Improvements
Construct class II/IV bicycle lanes and pedestrian enhancements between Printz
Road and N. Mason Street Short (before 2029)
S. Halcyon Road at Sandalwood Crosswalk and ADA improvements Short (before 2029)
Paulding Middle School Bicycle/
Pedestrian Improvements (Phase 1)Multi-use pathway along E. Branch Street from Garden Street to Stanley Avenue Long (before 2046)
Ocean View Elementary Safe Routes
to School Improvements Sidewalk infill on S. Elm Street from Poplar Street to Sunset Drive Short (before 2029)
Paulding Middle School Bicycle/
Pedestrian Improvements (Phase 2)
Bicycle/pedestrian crossing over Arroyo Grande Creek to provide a critical link
between residential neighborhoods and school Long (before 2046)
Note: All SLOCOG projects listed in Table 1-3 were integrated into the recommendations presented in Chapter 5 of this ATP except for the Meadow Creek Bridge and
Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge projects. The Meadow Creek Bridge and Arroyo Grande Creek Bridge projects were omitted because they are already complete.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN46
SLOCOG REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
(2021)
The SLOCOG Regional Active Transportation Plan (RATP) (2021) is
a compilation of active transportation corridor planning studies and
technical reports for the San Luis Obispo county region and its seven
cities, Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Paso Ro-
bles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo. The objective of the RATP is
to create healthy and appealing alternatives to driving for the region’s
residents and visitors.
SLOCOG’s goals for regional active transportation are safety, connec-
tivity, livability, accessibility to transit, coordination and collaboration
with local agencies, and focus on disadvantaged communities. Prior-
itized initiatives to meet these goals include:
»Toward Zero Deaths: Eliminating fatalities and serious injuries
caused by traffic crashes.
»Regional Bike & Hike Tourism: Enhancing the attractiveness of
bicycle tourism and pedestrian facilities in the region to boost local
economies.
»Safe Routes to School: Promoting projects that enhance the safety
and convenience of walking and bicycling to school while reducing
traffic congestion and pollution around school zones.
»Transit & Rail Connectivity: Providing safe active transportation
connections to rail and transit to help facilitate first/last mile mobility
without a vehicle.
»Significant Regional Corridors: Coordinating with jurisdictions in
the region to prioritize the connection of significant routes and
corridors for a robust active transportation network
»Complete Streets: Promoting complete street projects that
provide safe spaces and access for users of all ages, abilities, and
transportation modes.
»Bicycle Wayfinding & Signage Development: Developing a
consistent bicycle wayfinding signage program to improve the
visibility of routes and the overall network.
»Data Collection & Analysis: Tracking and measuring progress
to inform the process of evaluating, prioritizing, and developing
projects.
For Arroyo Grande, SLOCOG approved funding for sidewalk gap clo-
sures at Harloe Elementary School through its Safe Routes to School
Capital Improvement Program. SLOCOG also recognizes the Arroyo
Grande Creek Trail as an Active Route of Regional Significance due to
its potential to provide pedestrian and bicycle access from the Oceano
Dunes through the center of the Arroyo Grande Village, and potential-
ly even Lopez Lake. Currently, the Class I multi-use path through this
corridor is still in the long-range planning stages. However, Class II
bicycle lanes are planned along the corridor. The Complete Streets
network in/near this corridor has the potential to be improved greatly.
In the short term, Complete Streets are planned along Halcyon Road
from The Pike to El Camino Real, and Class II bicycle lanes are planned
along the remainder of Grand Avenue and Branch Street in the mid-
term.
CALTRANS DISTRICT 5 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
(2021)
The Caltrans District 5 Active Transportation Plan (2021) identifies
challenges and potential solutions for walking and bicycling on and
across the State Highway System. Caltrans collaborated with partners
from local and regional agencies, community organizations, and
advocacy groups to develop and implement the Plan. The Plan’s
main output is a prioritized list and map of location-based needs that
Caltrans staff and regional and agency partners will use to address
high-priority needs along and across Caltrans roadways. Needs
identified in the Plan will inform future investments by Caltrans and
local partners. Identified needs in Arroyo Grande include, but are not
limited to bicycle and pedestrian improvements along State Route 227
and at the Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 47
CHAPTER 1 REFERENCES
1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2023). Active Transportation Program. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/investment-strategies-commitments/climate-protection/active-transportation-program
2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. (2023). Active Transportation Program. https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/investment-strategies-commitments/climate-protection/active-transportation-program
3 Rails to Trails Conservancy. (2023). Connecting America’s Active Transportation System. https://www.railstotrails.org/media/1344243/caats_fact-sheet_12323.pdf
4 Rails to Trails Conservancy. (2022). New Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Data Shows Strong Demand for Places to Walk, Bike and Be Active Outside. https://www.railstotrails.org/resource-library/resources/new-rails-to-trails-conservancy-data-shows-strong-demand-for-places-to-walk-bike-and-be-active-outside/#:~:text=Nationwide%2C%20RTC’s%20trail%20counters%20showed,for%20trails%20across%20the%20country
5 StreetLight Data. (2023). Walking in America: Metro & Statewide Pedestrian & Mode Share Trends.
6 StreetLight Data. (2023). Bike Boom or Bust?: Metro & Statewide U.S. Bicyle Activity Trends.
7 Rails to Trails Conservancy. (2023). New Data Illustrates Importance of Connected Trail Infrastructure to the Nation. https://www.railstotrails.org/resource-library/resources/connected-trail-infrastructure/
8 Rails to Trails Conservancy. (2023). New Data Illustrates Importance of Connected Trail Infrastructure to the Nation. https://www.railstotrails.org/resource-library/resources/connected-trail-infrastructure/
9 Rails to Trails Conservancy. (2023). New Data Illustrates Importance of Connected Trail Infrastructure to the Nation. https://www.railstotrails.org/resource-library/resources/connected-trail-infrastructure/
10 NACTO. (2022). Shared Micromobility in the U.S. and Canada: 2022. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NACTO_sharedmicromobili-tysnapshot_correctedNov3-2023-1.pdf
11 Glusac, E. (2021). Farther, Faster and No Sweat: Bike-Sharing and the E-Bike Boom. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/travel/ebikes-bike-sharing-us.html
12 U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). CDC Transportation Recommendations: Promote Active Transportation. https://www.cdc.
gov/transportation/Improve-air-quality.html
13 American Trails. (2020). Why Trails? https://www.americantrails.org/why-trails
14 U.S. Department of Transportation. (2023). Traffic Safety Facts - Pedestrians. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813458; U.S. Department of Transportation. (2023). Traffic Safety Facts - Bicyclists and Other Cyclists.
15 U.S. cities consider banning “right on red” laws amid rise in pedestrian deaths. (2023, November 5). CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/
pedestrian-deaths-right-on-red-ban/
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN48
16 The League of American Cyclists. (2022). Benchmarking Bike Networks. https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/Benchmarking-Bike-Net-works-Report-final.pdf
17 Meyersohn, N. (2024, January 20). Why do we have right-on-red, and is it time to get rid of it? ABC7 Los Angeles. https://abc7.com/red-light-right-
on-traffic-turn/14343661/; U.S. cities consider banning “right on red” laws amid rise in pedestrian deaths. (2023, November 5). CBS News. https://
www.cbsnews.com/news/pedestrian-deaths-right-on-red-ban/; Zipper, D. (2023, June 14). It’s time to ban ‘right-on-red’. Fast Company. https://
www.fastcompany.com/90908929/its-time-for-a-nationwide-ban-of-right-on-red
18 California Transportation Commission. (n.d.). Active Transportation Program. https://catc.ca.gov/programs/active-transportation-program
19 American Trails. (2020). Why Trails? https://www.americantrails.org/why-trails
20 Rails to Trails Conservancy. (2019). Active Transportation Transforms America. https://www.railstotrails.org/media/847675/activetransport_2019-re-port_finalreduced.pdf
21 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/green-vehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
22 United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/green-vehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 49
2
Existing Conditions
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN52
Understanding the existing demographics, land use, roadway condi-
tions, previously planned projects, and other foundational information
about Arroyo Grande is essential to planning for the future. Each data-
set in this chapter provides valuable information that contributes to a
comprehensive understanding of Arroyo Grande’s current pedestrian
and bicycle network and how to improve it through the addition of
new and improved facilities and programs.
The findings of this analysis, combined with the input from a compre-
hensive community engagement process, were used to develop a set
of projects and programs to facilitate safe, comfortable, and enjoyable
modes of active transportation throughout Arroyo Grande. The recom-
mended projects are presented in Chapter 5.
COMMUNITY PROFILE
A demographic profile was completed using the most current data
available from the 2022 U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates. Arroyo Grande has a total population
of 18,435 residents and 8,016 housing units within its 5.5-square-mile
city boundary, resulting in a population density of 3,352 people per
square mile.
Key demographics and comparisons with San Luis Obispo
county and California statistics:
»Race & Ethnicity: The racial make-up in Arroyo Grande is 78.3 per-
cent white, 3.6 percent Asian, 0.5 percent Black, 0.6 percent Amer-
ican Indian, 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian, 2.4 percent some other
race, and 14.5 percent two or more races. Approximately 16.1 per-
cent of the population is Hispanic or Latino.
»Age: The median age of Arroyo Grande (45.3) is slightly higher than
county and state averages (40.0 and 37.3, respectively).
»Approximately 24.3 percent of Arroyo Grande residents are 65
or older, which is higher than 21.1 percent countywide and 14.9
percent statewide.
»Roughly 19.6 percent of Arroyo Grande residents are under age
18, which is in between the county and state percentages of 17.4
and 22.3 percent, respectively.
»Income & Poverty: Arroyo Grande’s median household income of
$99,143 is higher than the average of $90,158 for San Luis Obis-
po county and $91,905 for California. Additionally, the reported
percentage of people in poverty in Arroyo Grande (6.0 percent) is
roughly half that of San Luis Obispo county (12.6 percent) and Cali-
fornia (12.1 percent).
»Vehicle Availability: The majority of Arroyo Grande households
have access to one or more vehicles, with roughly 0.9 percent re-
porting lacking access to a vehicle.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 53
KEY DEMOGRAPHICS
RACE ETHNICITY
AGE VEHICLE AVAILABILITY
Percent Above 65
Percent Under 18
Percent Adults (19-64)
56.1%
24.3%
19.6%
Hispanic or Latino
Not Hispanic or
Latino
16.1%
83.9%
No vehicle available
1 vehicle available
2 vehicles available
3 or more vehicles
available
0.9%
49.8%
14.2%
35.1%
White
Black
Asian
American Indian
Native Hawaiian
Some other race
Two or more races
78.3%
14.5%
3.6%
2.4%
<1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables DP05, S0101, S0801.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN54
COMMUTE CHARACTERISTICS
TRANSPORTATION MODE SHARE
Transportation mode share is used to identify commuting patterns
within a community. The ATP is particularly interested in supporting
and encouraging the following mode shares as viable alternatives to
driving in single-occupancy vehicles:
»Walking Mode Share: The walking mode share measures the per-
centage of workers aged 16 years and over who commute to work
by foot. Walking mode share patterns are connected to the relative
proximity of housing to employment centers. Walking mode share
reflects how well infrastructure and land-use patterns support trav-
el to work by foot.
»Bicycling Mode Share: Similar to the walking mode share, bicycling
mode share measures the percentage of resident workers aged 16
years and over who commute to work by bicycle.
»Public Transit Mode Share: Public transit mode share measures
the percentage of workers aged 16 years and over who commute
to work by transit. This mode share reflects how well first-mile-last-
mile infrastructure (facilities that support safe and easy travel to and
from transit stops), transit routes, and land-use patterns support
travel to work by transit.
According to the 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates from the U.S. Census Bu-
reau, approximately 7,675 Arroyo Grande residents commute to work
by driving, walking, bicycling, taking public transit, or other means.
Additionally, roughly 900 residents work from home. Currently, the
majority of Arroyo Grande residents (71.7 percent) rely on personal ve-
hicles to travel to and from work. This mode is followed in prevalence
by carpooling (14.1 percent), working from home (10.5 percent), walking
(1.8 percent), taxicab/motorcycle/other (1.4 percent), public transporta-
tion (0.3 percent), and bicycling (0.2 percent). Improving active trans-
portation facilities along routes to key destinations and public transit
stops has the potential to shift transportation mode preferences away
from single-occupancy vehicles and towards walking, bicycling, and
public transit.Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
(2022). American Community
Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates
Subject Table S0801.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 55
TRAVEL TIME TO WORK
The 2022 ACS 5-Year Estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau were
used to evaluate travel time to work for Arroyo Grande commuters.
The average time it takes Arroyo Grande commuters to get to work
(across all travel modes) is estimated at 21.6 minutes. Approximately 31
percent of commuters have a commute time greater than 25 minutes,
indicating a moderate amount of non-localized employment. Howev-
er, a large majority of Arroyo Grande commuters, about 69 percent,
spend less than 25 minutes commuting. In particular, roughly 20.8 per-
cent of commuters spend less than 10 minutes traveling to work. With
a fifth of commuters getting to work in less than 10 minutes, the City
has a promising opportunity to help short-distance commuters opt for
walking, bicycling, or public transit instead of driving.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Table S0801.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN56
LAND USE
Figure 2-1 displays existing land use patterns in Arroyo Grande. Arroyo
Grande is dominated by residential land uses primarily in the form of
very low to medium-density single-family housing with some pockets
of high to very high-density multi-family housing. Interspersed with res-
idential housing are community facilities, such as parks and schools.
Mixed-use and commercial corridors are primarily concentrated near
Highway 101, along East Grand Avenue, and in the Village Core. Agri-
cultural lands and open spaces lie adjacent to residential areas in the
northwestern, northeastern, and southeastern parts of Arroyo Grande,
giving the city its scenic character.
Photo Source: Visit Arroyo Grande
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 57Figure 2-1: Land Use
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN58
ACTIVITY CENTERS
To be eligible for State funding, a city’s bicycle and pedestrian plan
must address connections between specific activity-center types. Ac-
tivity centers are essential destinations within a community, including
schools, parks, major employers, office buildings, industrial sites, gov-
ernment sites, retail centers, hospitals, and tourist attractions. Identi-
fying these activity centers, and their distribution in a community, is
essential to creating useful bicycle and pedestrian networks. Figure
2-2 shows activity centers in Arroyo Grande, such as City Hall, the Li -
brary, the Police Department, Arroyo Grande Community Hospital, and
the Village, as well as schools, parks, and shopping areas. The active
transportation projects proposed in Chapter 5 are intentionally locat-
ed along key corridors that will connect people to major destinations.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 59Figure 2-2: Activity Centers
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN60
STREET CLASSIFICATION
Figure 2-3 depicts Arroyo Grande streets based on the following street
classifications from the General Plan Circulation Element: 4-lane (Pri-
mary) arterial, 2-lane arterial, collector, local collector, and local street.
U.S. 101 and CA SR-227 provide regional access to Arroyo Grande.
Arterials (4-lane and 2-lane), which provide local access to major des-
tinations throughout Arroyo Grande, include:
»Branch Street
»Corbett Canyon Road
»East Grand Avenue
»El Camino Real
»Elm Street
»Fair Oaks Avenue
»Halcyon Road
»Huasna Road
»Traffic Way
»Valley Road
The remaining collector and local streets provide access to residen-
tial housing, schools, parks, and other destinations. Knowing that the
arterial roadways provide access to essential local destinations high-
lights the need for active transportation facilities that support safe and
comfortable non-motorized travel along these car-oriented corridors.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 61Figure 2-3: Street Classification
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN62
POSTED SPEED LIMIT
Figure 2-4 displays the posted speed limits throughout Arroyo Grande’s
road network. Arroyo Grande’s high-volume corridors include:
»Branch Street
»Brisco Road
»Corbett Canyon Road
»East Grand Avenue
»El Camino Real
»Elm Street
»Fair Oaks Avenue
»Halcyon Road
»Huasna Road
»Traffic Way
The posted speed limit for these corridors varies between 25 and 45
miles per hour (mph). None of the surface streets within Arroyo Grande
have posted speeds of 50 mph or above. Most of Arroyo Grande’s
minor streets have a posted speed limit of 30 mph, which make them
viable for potential ATP recommendations. Posted speed limits along
principal and minor arterials will play an important role in the devel-
opment of enhanced recommendations appropriate for these larger
streets.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 63Figure 2-4: Posted Speed Limit
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN64
PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
SIDEWALK NETWORK
Sidewalks and curb ramps are the foundation of pedestrian infrastructure, yet Arroyo Grande does not have a complete sidewalk network. Figure
2-5 shows that many streets in Arroyo Grande are missing sidewalks, which forces pedestrians to walk alongside vehicular traffic in the street or
avoid walking altogether.
While many areas are missing sidewalks, some areas have a more critical need than others, such as near schools, parks, and other key desti-
nations. For example, it is especially important for streets approaching or adjacent to schools and parks to have complete sidewalks due to the
prevalence of children using those roads to reach their destination. Figure 2-5 shows that all four of the schools in Arroyo Grande are in proximity
to streets with missing sidewalks, indicating a pressing need for sidewalk installation to support safe access for children and their families. Figure
2-5 is a useful tool that can be used alongside pedestrian collision data and community feedback to identify potential sidewalk installation projects.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 65Figure 2-5: Sidewalk Infrastructure
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN66
CURB RAMPS
A curb ramp is a short ramp that facilitates access between a sidewalk
and a roadway for people using wheelchairs, walkers, strollers, skate-
boards, scooters, mobility devices, or are otherwise limited in their
mobility. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards require that
newly constructed curb ramps include detectable warnings to alert
pedestrians with vision impairments of an upcoming hazard, such as
passing traffic. Detectable warnings consist of a series of small domes,
also known as truncated domes, that contrast in color with the sur-
rounding sidewalk or street. Curb ramps with truncated domes allow
people to safely access their desired destination. Figure 2-6 shows
the distribution of curb ramps with and without truncated domes, as
well as pedestrian crossings that are missing curb ramps altogether.
The ADA requires state and local governments to provide curb ramps
at pedestrian crossings and at public transportation stops where walk-
ways intersect with a curb. The ADA also requires state and local gov-
ernments to install curb ramps on any newly constructed or altered
streets, roads, highways, and pedestrian walkways (aside from circum-
stances excepted by Title 28 Part 35 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions). Streets, sidewalks, roads, and highways that were built before
the ADA went into effect may be missing curb ramps, as evidenced by
the red circles in Figure 2-6. Collecting an inventory of missing curb
ramps is the first step to identifying and prioritizing curb ramp installa-
tion projects that will make Arroyo Grande more accessible for people
with disabilities. In recent years, the City has made strides to install
new curb ramps in priority areas, such as near Harloe Elementary and
Ocean View Elementary schools, as well as others.Curb Ram p w it h o u t Truncated Do
m
e
s
M is s in g C urb Ramp
Curb Ra m p w i t h Truncated Dom
es
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 67Figure 2-6: Curb Ramp Infrastructure
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN68
EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED BIKE FACILITIES
Figure 2-7 displays existing and previously proposed bicycle facilities in Arroyo Grande.
Class IV: Separated Bikeway Cla s s I : M u lti-use Path
A two-way facility physically
separated from motor vehicles and
used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and
other non-motorized users.
C la s s I I : B icycle Lane
A one-way facility that provides an
exclusive travel lane for bicyclists on
the roadway. These are not physically
separated from motor vehicles.Clas s I I I : B icycle Route
A roadway that is shared by bicyclists
and motor vehicles through the
placement of signage and/or
pavement markings.
*Class III bicycle routes can be upgraded to “bicycle boulevards” by adding traffic calming measures (e.g., traffic diverters, street trees, green infrastructure, etc.).Class IV : S e p arated Bikew
a
y
A one or two-way facility that
provides an exclusive travel lane
for bicyclists on the roadway with
physical protection from traffic.
The General Plan Circulation Element (2021) proposes 30.5 miles of
additional bikeways, including:
»8.1 miles of Class I multi-use paths
»12.3 miles of Class II bicycle lanes (with option to upgrade to Class
IV separated bikeways on arterials)
»4.8 miles of Class III bicycle routes
»5.4 miles of Class III bicycle routes upgraded to bicycle boulevards
The previously proposed bicycle facilities documented in the General Plan Circulation Element (2021), Arroyo Grande Bicycle and Trails Master
Plan (2012), SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan (2023), and SLOCOG Regional Active Transportation Plan (2021) provided a foundation for the
bicycle network proposed by this ATP in Chapter 5.
Currently, there are 15.5 miles of existing bikeways, including:
»0.8 miles of Class I multi-use paths
»14.6 miles of Class II bicycle lanes
»0.1 miles of Class III bicycle routes
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 69Figure 2-7: Existing and Previously Proposed Bicycle Facilities
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN70
PUBLIC TRANSIT
Currently, just 0.3 percent of commuters in Arroyo Grande use public
transit as their primary mode of transportation to work. Public transit
in Arroyo Grande is provided by South County Transit (SoCo Transit),
a branch of the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLO RTA).
There are five fixed bus routes (Routes 10, 21, 24, 27, and 28) that pro-
vide service in Arroyo Grande, as shown in Figure 2-8. The Avila-Pis -
mo Trolley (not shown in Figure 2-8) connects to SoCo Transit Routes
at the Pismo Premium Outlets. All SoCo Transit Routes make stops at
the Town Center/Walmart and Ramona Gardens Park, and Routes 21
and 24 make stops at the Pismo Premium Outlets. Amenities at each
bus stop vary by location and may include benches, trash receptacles,
and bus shelters. Improving active transportation facilities along bus
routes can help address the first-last mile problem (i.e., the distance
between a bus stop and the final destination) that often deters people
from taking public transportation.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 71Figure 2-8: Public Transit Routes and Stops
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN72
COLLISION HISTORY
Bicycle and pedestrian collision data were obtained from the
Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) managed by SafeTec
to provide Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
collision data. This dataset captures reported bicycle-vehicle,
pedestrian-vehicle, and bicycle-pedestrian collisions that resulted in
injury or property damage in Arroyo Grande in the 11-year period of
2012 through 2022. Collision density and location data are displayed
in Figure 2-9.
During these 11 years, there were a total of 45 pedestrian-related
collisions and 50 bicycle-related collisions, which resulted in 94
injuries and three fatalities. The bulk of both collision types resulted
in visible injury (47 percent) or complaint of pain (35 percent), with 18
percent resulting in severe injury or death. It is important to note that
collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians are known to be under-
reported, and therefore such collisions are likely under-represented
in this analysis. Additionally, collisions on off-street paths are not
reported in the dataset.
PEDESTRIAN-RELATED COLLISIONS
Between 2012 and 2022, there were 45 pedestrian-related colli-
sions in Arroyo Grande, which resulted in 46 injuries and two fatali-
ties. Most pedestrian-related collisions were caused by a driver failing
to yield to the pedestrian right-of-way (62 percent) and a pedestrian
failing to yield to the vehicle right-of-way (18 percent). A variety of
driver, bicyclist, and pedestrian violations caused the remainder of the
collisions. Of all pedestrian-related collisions, approximately 69 per-
cent were categorized as the fault of drivers, 20 percent as the fault of
pedestrians, and 11 percent were unclear or not listed.
BICYCLE-RELATED COLLISIONS
Between 2012 and 2022, there were 50 bicycle-related collisions in
Arroyo Grande, which resulted in 50 injuries and one fatality. Most
bicycle-related collisions were caused by the bicyclist being on the
wrong side of the road (20 percent), improper turning (16 percent), or
some other hazardous violation (18 percent). A variety of driver, bicy-
clist, and pedestrian violations caused the remainder of the collisions.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 73Figure 2-9: Bicycle and Pedestrian-Related Collisions
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN74
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS ANALYSIS
The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) analysis is a Geographic Information Systems (GIS)-based tool used to quantify a bicyclist’s perception of
comfort given specific roadway conditions, such as traffic volume, speed, and proximity to vehicles. These conditions can either increase or de-
crease a bicyclist’s level of stress while traveling along a roadway. Because different bicyclists have different tolerances for stress, the LTS method
identifies four levels of stress, with level one (LTS 1) being the least stressful or most comfortable, and level four (LTS 4) being the most stressful.
These LTS classifications help to acknowledge the variety in characteristics and infrastructure preferences of different bicyclists.
The LTS analysis was applied to Arroyo Grande’s entire street network, as shown in Figure 2-10. Of all of the bicycle facilities in Arroyo Grande,
the only one to show a low level of traffic stress (LTS 1) is a very short segment of Nelson Street. Five streets have portions with moderate levels of
traffic stress (LTS 2): East Cherry Avenue, Elm Street, Courtland Street, Rodeo Drive, and Mason Street. However, much more common are streets
with high and very high levels of stress (LTS 3 and 4). All main corridors in Arroyo Grande have very high levels of traffic stress (LTS 4), meaning
that only the most confident, experienced, and capable bicyclists are willing to ride on these streets.
With the majority of roadways in Arroyo Grande ranking LTS 3 and LTS 4, less confident and experienced bicyclists are not likely to feel safe or
comfortable riding a bicycle as a means of transportation to their desired destination. Bicycle facility planning should use a wide variety of options,
from shared roadways to separated facilities, to accommodate as many user types as possible and to provide a comfortable and safe experience
for the greatest number of bicyclists.
ALL AGES & ABILITIES
LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED ENTHUSIASTIC AND CONFIDENT STRONG AND FEARLESS
Almost all people,
including children, feel
comfortable riding on
LTS 1 streets and trails
Most adults are
comfortable riding on LTS
2 streets, where there are
dedicated bicycle facilities
LTS 3 streets are tolerable
for experienced adults who
prefer separate bicycle
facilities, but are confident
riding with traffic
Only the most skilled adult
bicylists will tolerate LTS 4
streets, where they share
space with vehicles on
higher speed roadways
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 75Figure 2-10: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN76
BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN PROPENSITY MODEL
To help identify priority areas for active transportation infrastructure, a GIS-based model called a Bicycle-Pedestrian Propensity Model (BPPM) was
created to reveal relationships between several key factors, including activity centers, demographic data, and physical infrastructure. A BPPM was
developed to establish where bicyclists and pedestrians are most likely to be, both currently and if improvements were to be made.
The BPPM is comprised of three submodels:
These three sub-models were combined to create the composite BPPM, displayed in Figure 2-11, to demonstrate areas in greatest need of active
transportation infrastructure. The BPPM shows the highest likely bicycle and pedestrian use near mixed-use and commercial areas, especially
around the Village, East Grande Avenue, Halcyon Road, West Branch Street, and Traffic Way. However, bicycle and pedestrian propensity is not
only concentrated on the major roadways, it also permeates into local streets that people tend to use frequently. When comparing community
input with the BPPM, there was a correlation between commonly mentioned corridors and high-propensity areas for bicycling and walking. The
BPPM was used to develop general recommendations and to help select the priority projects proposed in Chapter 5.
ATTRACTOR MODEL GENERATOR MODEL BARRIER MODEL
Attractors are activity centers
known to attract bicyclists and
pedestrians, such as schools,
parks, public transit stops, and
shopping centers.
Generators estimate potential
pedestrian and bicyclist volumes
based on how many people live
and work within an area. Demo-
graphic data used include popula-
tion density, employment density,
primary mode of transportation to
work, and vehicle ownership.
Barriers are features likely to dis-
courage or detract people from bi-
cycling or walking. These are gen-
erally physical limitations, such as
areas with missing sidewalks, high
vehicle volumes and speeds, and
high numbers of bicycle or pedes-
trian-related collisions.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 77Figure 2-11: Bicycle and Pedestrian Propensity Model
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN78
POPULAR ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES
Knowing popular active transportation routes that community members
take within Arroyo Grande can help the City identify corridors in which
improvements would have the greatest impact on those already using
them. Figure 2-12 displays the most commonly used routes by people
walking, rolling, and riding a bicycle based on data from Replica,
an independent company used widely by planning professionals,
including Caltrans, to analyze near real-time, high-quality data sources
to understand mobility, land use, people, and economic activity
patterns. Bicycle and pedestrian data from Replica is based on a
vast array of datasets that use observed data from phones, vehicles,
consumer spending transactions, survey data, counts, and more.
While the routes displayed in Figure 2-12 are already popular, most
are LTS 3 and LTS 4 (Figure 2-10), indicating that they are tolerable
for experienced adult bicyclists, rather than comfortable for all ages
and abilities. Providing safer active transportation facilities along
these popular corridors would improve conditions for those who
already use them while enabling new users of all ages and abilities
to try walking, rolling, or riding to reach their destination. The routes
displayed in Figure 2-12 are consistent with the areas of moderate to
high propensity displayed in Figure 2-11, further supporting the need
for high-quality active transportation facilities near mixed-use and
commercial areas, as well as schools and parks.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 79Figure 2-12: Popular Active Transportation Routes
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN80
HEALTH AND EQUITY
Understanding the geographic distribution of various social, econom-
ic, health, and environmental risks and burdens is essential to identi-
fying the areas in greatest need of infrastructure improvements and
supportive resources. Transportation, in particular, is a key component
of healthy and equitable communities. For example, communities
with safe and affordable multi-modal transportation options have ex-
panded access to employment and education opportunities, healthy
food sources, recreational spaces, and more. The provision of viable
non-vehicular transportation options, such as public transit and bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, enables people without access to a vehicle
to reach their desired destination with relative ease. At the same time,
improving the safety of problematic transportation corridors in under-
served communities through traffic calming and other safety meas-
ures is another important way to improve comfort and quality of life.
Prioritizing the allocation of resources in underserved areas is an im-
portant step towards improving equity and quality of life for all com-
munity members, regardless of socioeconomic status. For this assess-
ment, three sources of data were analyzed: the Transportation Equity
Index, CalEnviroScreen 4.0, and the California Healthy Places Index.
Analyzing health and equity patterns in Arroyo Grande is critical in
leveraging funds from not only the Caltrans ATP grant but also other
funding sources aimed at supporting equitable communities.
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY INDEX
In 2024, Caltrans launched the spatial screening tool, Transportation
Equity Index (EQI), to identify transportation-based priority populations
at the Census block level and operationalize Caltrans’ commitment
to equity. Transportation-based priority populations are communities
that are most burdened by the transportation system and receive the
fewest benefits. The EQI integrates transportation and socioeconomic
indicators into three “screens” to identify transportation-based priority
populations.
A census block will meet the threshold of a transportation-based pri-
ority population if the Demographic Overlay, Traffic Exposure Screen,
and Access to Destinations criteria are all met:
»Demographic Overlay: Communities with low-income and/or tribal
land status. If either of the low-income household or Tribal Land
criteria are met, the block is screened for inclusion for further
analysis with the transportation-specific indicators (traffic exposure
and access to destinations indicators).
»Traffic Exposure: Communities with low-income and/or tribal land
status that are the most burdened through high exposure to traffic
and crashes. Exposure to traffic is measured by proximity, volume,
and vehicle type for all interstates, highways, principal arterials,
and minor arterials in the state. Exposure to crashes is measured
through a statewide crash exposure calculation.
»Access to Destinations: Communities with low-income and/or
tribal land status that have the greatest gaps in multimodal access
to destinations. Access to destinations is measured by three
unique indicators designed to evaluate gaps in transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian access to work and non-work destinations.
Because the EQI is a novel tool, the practical applications of the EQI
are still being tested. For example, the EQI is currently being pilot-
ed for use in the Caltrans System Investment Strategy (CSIS). Other
program-specific use cases for the EQI are also under development.
However, generally, the EQI was developed to identify transporta-
tion-based priority populations for applicable funding programs, to
support planning- and project-level analysis, and to identify opportuni-
ties to advance equitable outcomes during project planning, develop-
ment, and design. For these reasons, the EQI was used as one of three
tools to evaluate health and equity in Arroyo Grande.
Figure 2-13 displays the results of the EQI for Arroyo Grande. While
Arroyo Grande has census blocks that meet the Demographic Over-
lay and Access to Destinations criteria, it does not have any census
blocks that meet the criteria of all three EQI screens. Therefore, Ar-
royo Grande does not have any transportation-based priority popu-
lations. However, the census blocks that meet two of the three crite-
ria, as shown in Figure 2-13, demonstrate areas that experience more
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 81
transportation-related burdens than the rest of Arroyo Grande even
if they are not considered a transportation-based priority population.
CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is a mapping tool from CalEPA and the Califor-
nia Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that
identifies areas most affected by an accumulation of environmental
pollution, health burdens, and social stressors. CalEnviroScreen pro-
vides a score based on the cumulative impacts experienced by a par-
ticular community, with higher scores experiencing greater burdens
and lower scores experiencing lower burdens. These scores are used
to identify and prioritize communities that are most burdened by envi-
ronmental injustices.
Figure 2-14 displays the range of CalEnviroscreen scores across the
three census tracts in Arroyo Grande. All three census tracts in Arroyo
Grande have low scores, indicating that, on the whole, the city does
not experience significant exposure to pollution or other environmen-
tal hazards relative to other census tracts in California. While all three
census tracts have very low CalEnviroScreen scores, the census tract
on the southwestern part of Arroyo Grande has a slightly higher score,
indicating that the area experiences more exposure to pollution than
other areas in Arroyo Grande.
CALIFORNIA HEALTHY PLACES INDEX
The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a peer-reviewed data
mapping platform created by the Public Health Alliance of Southern
California. The HPI maps data for social indicators that impact health,
such as education, job opportunities, access to clean air and water,
and more. Similar to CalEnvioScreen 4.0, HPI is a useful tool to help
identify health inequities affecting neighborhoods across California.
Overall, Arroyo Grande has an HPI score of 79.6, meaning that the city
has healthier conditions than 79.6 percent of other cities in California.
HPI scores can also be broken down into census tracts to better un-
derstand health patterns within a city and how they compare to other
census tracts across California.
Figure 2-15 displays the HPI scores for different census tracts in Arr-
royo Grande, with lower percentile areas (light green) experiencing
less healthy conditions than higher percentile areas (dark green).
While all of Arroyo Grande ranks highly in comparison to other cities
in California, there is a drop in HPI scores on the south side of U.S. 101
with the two census tracts south of U.S. 101 ranking 10 to 20 percentile
points lower than the census tract north of U.S. 101. The difference
in HPI scores is due to a combination of differences in social, health,
and environmental factors, including tree canopy, automobile access,
homeownership, and poverty level. Additionally, the proportion of His-
panic/Latino community members south of U.S. 101 is roughly double
that of the population north of U.S. 101, which reflects ethnic disparities
in community health outcomes. The HPI scores help to demonstrate
which areas would benefit most from infrastructure and programs
aimed at improving community health and safety, access to opportuni-
ties, and quality of life.
SLOCOG DISADVANTAGED
COMMUNITIES
Based on the State’s definition of disadvantaged communities under
Senate Bill 535, no San Luis Obispo County census tracts are des-
ignated as disadvantaged communities. For this reason, SLOCOG
created a regional definition of disadvantaged communities to help
distribute funds more equitably across the region. SLOCOG defines
regional disadvantaged communities as disproportionately burdened
areas that are economically distressed and/or historically underrepre-
sented as a part of the local government process.
SLOCOG’s Disadvantaged Communities Assessment is based on
the following variables: racial minority, ethnic minority, disability sta-
tus, household income, free or reduced-price meals, educational at-
tainment, renter affordability, housing ownership affordability, older
adults, youth, households with no vehicle available, and households
with no computing device available. As shown in Figure 2-16, several
areas in Arroyo Grande are designated as disadvantaged communi-
ties by SLOCOG. Figure 2-16 helped guide the prioritization of projects
recommended in Chapter 5.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN82Figure 2-13: Transportation Equity Index
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 83Figure 2-14: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN84Figure 2-15: Healthy Places Index
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 85Figure 2-16: SLOCOG Disadvantaged Communities
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN86
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 87
SCHOOLS
Providing safe routes to schools can enable students and their families
to walk, roll, or ride a bicycle to school instead of driving. Safe Routes
to School (SRTS) is a movement that promotes walking and bicycling
to school through a combination of infrastructure improvements, edu-
cational campaigns, encouragement programs, and enforcement. Ac-
tive transportation and traffic calming infrastructure near schools, in
combination with education and encouragement programs, can lead
to more students getting to school by foot or bicycle, which in turn re-
duces traffic congestion and air pollution near schools and promotes
active lifestyle habits for students and their families. This section in-
cludes information on the current conditions at each Arroyo Grande
school, which was used in combination with community input to devel-
op the SRTS recommendations in Chapter 5.
WALKING AND RIDING TO SCHOOL IN
ARROYO GRANDE
Arroyo Grande contains four schools in the Lucia Mar Unified School
District: Harloe Elementary School, Ocean View Elementary School,
Paulding Middle School, and Arroyo Grande High School. As displayed
in Figure 2-17, a substantial portion of residential neighborhoods and
parks are within walking distance of Arroyo Grande schools, which
helps to inform the geographic extent of where SRTS infrastructure
improvements should be considered and recommended. For added
emphasis, Figure 2-18 displays the areas within bicycling distance to
Arroyo Grande schools and shows that nearly the entire city is within
a five to ten-minute bicycle ride to a school. Given that a substantial
amount of the community lives within walking or bicycling distance of
a school, the provision of safety programs and infrastructure improve-
ments that would help youth and their families opt for active trans-
portation has the potential to make a large impact on Arroyo Grande
mobility patterns.
Additionally, Fairgrove Elementary School is located just outside of
the southwestern city limit and is attended by children living in Arroyo
Grande. While not included in the subsequent analysis, Fairgrove Ele-
mentary was considered when developing project recommendations.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN88Figure 2-17: Areas within Walking Distance to Arroyo Grande Schools
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 89Figure 2-18: Areas within Bicycling Distance to Arroyo Grande Schools
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN90
COLLISIONS NEAR SCHOOLS
All students who live within walking or bicycling distance should have the opportunity to walk or ride a bicycle to school without fear or threat of
collision. Unfortunately, in Arroyo Grande, both perceived and real safety threats to pedestrians and bicyclists exist in the areas surrounding each
school. As previously displayed in Figure 2-10, the bicycle levels of traffic stress near Arroyo Grande schools are LTS 3 and 4, meaning that the
roads leading to schools are only suitable for experienced and enthusiastic bicyclists. Additionally, some pedestrian and bicyclist-related collisions
have occurred within a half-mile radius of Arroyo Grande schools between 2012 to 2022 (Table 2-1). Altogether, there were 29 pedestrian and 34
bicycle collisions over the 11-year period, which resulted in 17 complaints of pain, 44 injuries, and one fatality. The highest number of collisions
occurred near Ocean View Elementary, while the lowest number of collisions occurred near Arroyo Grande High.
Table 2-1: Summary of Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions Near Arroyo Grande Schools (2012-2022)
SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISIONS NEAR SCHOOLS (2012-2022)
Radius Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Pedestrian Bicycle Total
Harloe Elementary School
<.25 mi.0 0 7 1 4 4 8
.25 - .5 mi.0 1 3 3 3 4 7
Total 0 1 10 4 7 8 15
Ocean View Elementary School
<.25 mi.0 3 4 3 2 8 10
.25 - .5 mi.1 2 9 4 7 9 16
Total 1 5 13 7 9 17 26
Paulding Middle School
<.25 mi.0 1 2 1 1 4 5
.25 - .5 mi.0 2 5 5 11 1 12
Total 0 3 7 6 12 5 17
Arroyo Grande High School
<.25 mi.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.25 - .5 mi.0 0 5 0 1 4 5
Total 0 0 5 0 1 4 5
Total (All Schools in Arroyo Grande)
<.25 mi.0 4 13 5 7 16 23
.25 - .5 mi.1 5 22 12 22 18 40
Total 1 9 35 17 29 34 63
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 91
FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE MEALS PROGRAM
In the 2022–23 school year, California became the first state to implement a statewide Universal Meals Program for all school children. All students
attending public school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools are eligible for breakfast and lunch at no charge, regardless of
their eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. While all children are now eligible for free meals, the Free and Reduced Price Meal (FRPM) Eligibil-
ity dataset provided by the California Department of Education is still useful for measuring student poverty levels within schools. FRPM data uses
specified family size and income standards to identify and distribute additional resources to students experiencing poverty.
Table 2-2 shows the percentage of students eligible for the FRPM program at each school in Arroyo Grande. Schools with greater percentages of
students eligible for the FRPM program, such as Harloe Elementary School, should be prioritized for programs and projects aimed at improving
safe and easy access to school as a way to uplift underserved communities.
SCHOOL PERCENT ELIGIBLE FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE MEALS
Harloe Elementary School 52.5%
Arroyo Grande High School 47.5%
Paulding Middle School 46.6%
Ocean View Elementary School 33.3%
Source: California Department of Education
Table 2-2: Percent of Students Eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Meals Program at Each School
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN92
FIVE-MINUTE WALK ZONES
Figure 2-19 through Figure 2-22 display popular active transportation
routes, existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and historic collisions
within a five-minute walk zone (quarter-mile) around all four schools
in Arroyo Grande. By zooming into the five-minute walk zone, safety
issues and missing facilities in high-priority areas become easier to
recognize. The missing facilities and opportunity areas identified with-
in the five-minute walk zones were used alongside community input to
develop the SRTS recommendations in Chapter 5.
HARLOE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Harloe Elementary School is located in the southern part of
Arroyo Grande. Between 2012 and 2022, there were seven
pedestrian collisions and eight bicycle collisions within a half-
mile radius of Harloe Elementary School. Figure 2-19 shows
that bicycle facilities are minimal, 19 curb ramps are missing, and
several sidewalks are incomplete within the five-minute walk
zone, including along the popular active transportation routes.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 93Figure 2-19: Harloe Elementary Active Transportation Routes and Facilities
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN94
OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ocean View Elementary School is located in the central-western
part of Arroyo Grande. Between 2012 and 2022, there were
nine pedestrian collisions and 17 bicycle collisions within a
half-mile radius of Ocean View Elementary School. Figure 2-20
shows that, much like Harloe Elementary School, bicycle facilities
are extremely limited, seven curb ramps are missing, and several
sidewalks are incomplete within the five-minute walk zone and
along common active transportation routes.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 95Figure 2-20: Ocean View Elementary Active Transportation Routes and Facilities
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN96
PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL
Paulding Middle School is located in the northeastern part
of Arroyo Grande. Between 2012 to 2022, there were 12
pedestrian collisions and five bicycle collisions within a half-
mile radius of Paulding Middle School. The most striking feature
is that nearly all streets within the five-minute walk zone have
incomplete sidewalks on one or both sides of the street (Figure
2-21). Additionally, there are nine missing curb ramps within the
five-minute walk zone. Both findings indicate a major need to
improve pedestrian facilities around Paulding Middle School.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 97Figure 2-21: Paulding Middle School Active Transportation Routes and Facilities
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN98
ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL
Arroyo Grande High School is located in the central-eastern
part of Arroyo Grande. Between 2012 to 2022, there was one
pedestrian collision and four bicycle collisions within a half-
mile radius of Arroyo Grande High School. Figure 2-22 shows
that while many streets within the five-minute walk zone have
incomplete sidewalks, all minor arterials within the five-minute
walk zone have Class I or Class II bicycle facilities, indicating a
strong bicycle network.
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS 99Figure 2-22: Arroyo Grande High School Active Transportation Routes and Facilities
3
Community Engagement
Photo Source: Namu Williams
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN102
Hearing the lived experiences of people who regularly use Arroyo
Grande’s transportation network was essential to identifying the ar-
eas in greatest need of new and improved active transportation in-
frastructure. Comprehensive community engagement was conducted
throughout the various phases of the project to facilitate a collabora-
tive planning process and to gather meaningful input from residents,
stakeholders, and City staff.
The primary methods used to engage Arroyo Grande community
members were:
»Community Survey
»Two (2) Community Workshops
»Three (3) Pop-up Events
»Five (5) Stakeholder Meetings
»One (1) City Council Study Session
»Project Website
»Social Media
This chapter provides a summary of the key findings from feedback
gathered throughout the community engagement process. These
findings were used to develop the recommendations presented in
Chapter 5. The complete results of all community engagement efforts
are in Appendix B.
PROJECT PUBLICITY
Several tools were used to inform the community about the ATP and to
engage community members in the planning process. Tools included
social media posts, a project website, and distinct project branding.
All engagement materials were provided in both English and Spanish.
PROJECT BRANDING
Distinct branding was developed for the ATP to promote project fa-
miliarity and distinguish the project as a new planning effort. A unique
project logo and color palette was used for all outreach materials and
presentations.
PROJECT WEBSITE
A project website was created to provide information about the pro-
ject, share project announcements, and gather community feedback.
The website included an interactive online comment map that ena-
bled community members to add location-specific comments about
Arroyo Grande’s transportation network.
SOCIAL MEDIA
Social media was used throughout the development of the ATP to
share information and invite community members to participate in a
collaborative planning process. Social media posts were made to pub-
licize the ATP, promote events and feedback opportunities, and share
project updates.
Social Media Posts to Promote Community SurveyProject Logo and Color Palette Project Website
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 103
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN104
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 105
POP-UP EVENTS
POP-UP #1: HARVEST FESTIVAL 2023
A pop-up booth was held on September 30th, 2023 at the annual
Harvest Festival in the Village. The booth had several informational
and interactive poster boards that invited community members to pro-
vide input on Arroyo Grande’s transportation network. Input collected
at this event helped the planning team gain an initial understanding
of community priorities and key problematic corridors in need of bet-
ter active transportation infrastructure. Several location-specific com-
ments related to traffic calming and bicycle, pedestrian, and driving
concerns were made for a range of streets in Arroyo Grande with
Huasna Road, East Branch Street, and the streets near Arroyo Grande
High School receiving the most comments.
POP-UP #2: FARMERS MARKET
A pop-up booth was held on April 20th, 2024 at the Arroyo Grande
Farmers Market in the Village. The booth had exhibits that shared find-
ings from the existing conditions analysis and invited community mem-
bers to provide input on mobility needs throughout Arroyo Grande.
On a citywide map, participants noted specific areas in need of active
transportation improvements, such as traffic calming, bicycle facilities,
sidewalks, and street maintenance. While comments were placed on
several streets, East Grand Avenue, Fair Oaks Avenue, and Huasna
Road received the most comments. The planning team used partici-
pant input to identify problem areas and develop community-driven
solutions.
POP-UP #3: HARVEST FESTIVAL 2024
A pop-up booth was held on September 28th, 2024 at the annual Har-
vest Festival to collect community feedback on draft ATP recommen-
dations. Over 120 people stopped by the booth, resulting in 40 written
comments either showing support of draft recommendations or iden-
tifying areas in need of improvement. Participants expressed the need
for better enforcement for vehicles and objects obstructing sidewalks;
improved maintenance of sidewalks and curb ramps; enhanced cross-
ings and traffic calming measures; and more bicycle facilities. This
feedback was incorporated into the draft recommendations.
P
o
p-Up #3: Harve s t F e s tiv al 2024P
o
p-Up #1: Harve s t F e s tival 2023P
op-Up #2: AG F a r m e rs M arket
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN106
COMMUNITY EVENTS
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1
A community workshop was held on December 13th, 2023 at the City
Council Chambers. The workshop consisted of an overview presenta-
tion to introduce the project and an open discussion before inviting
participants to provide input at various exhibits. Interactive exhibits
were designed to educate participants on the existing conditions of
Arroyo Grande’s transportation system and to solicit feedback on the
current strengths, needs, and opportunities for making the community
a safer and easier place to walk and ride a bicycle.
Participants were invited to add location-specific comments to cit-
ywide maps; vote on a variety of bicycle and pedestrian infrastruc-
ture facilities; and share any other ideas or concerns related to active
transportation. The active transportation facilities that received the
most votes from participants were Class IV separated bikeways, sig-
nage and lighting, traffic calming circles, enhanced crossings, and bus
shelters. Several location-specific comments related to traffic calming
and bicycle, pedestrian, and driving concerns were made for a range
of streets in Arroyo Grande. The streets that received the most loca-
tion-specific comments were Huasna Road, Fair Oaks Avenue, East
Branch Street, Corbett Canyon Road, Traffic Way, and James Way.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
A community workshop was held on September 26th, 2024 at the City
Council Chambers to give the public an opportunity to provide input on
draft recommendations, including the draft bicycle network, pedestrian
improvements, SRTS projects, and priority corridors. Participants
shared ideas for improving proposed bicycle recommendations along
Brisco Road, Fair Oaks Avenue, and Traffic Way and noted the need
for more pedestrian improvements, such as enhanced crosswalks,
traffic calming measures, LED stop signs, and sidewalk infill at various
locations. Participants also identified opportunities for additional
active transportation facilities along the three priority corridors: East
Grand Avenue, Elm Street, and Fair Oaks Avenue. Input collected at
the workshop was used to inform the draft recommendations.Comm
u
nity Workshop #1 : N e e d s AssessmentCommu
nity Workshop #2: D r a f t R e commendations
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 107
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN108
COMMUNITY SURVEY
A community survey was used to understand needs, concerns, and priorities for active transportation in Arroyo Grande. The 15-question survey
was open to the public for five months from December 2023 to April 2024. The survey was available in English and Spanish and provided as hard
copies at in-person events and online on the ATP project website. The survey was promoted on social media and at community events. At the
end of the survey window, 101 surveys were collected. A summary of the survey results is included in this chapter. Complete survey results can be
found in Appendix B.
SURVEY RESULTS SNAPSHOT
The survey results provided a useful source of community input on active transportation patterns and the need for improvements. Generally, sur-
vey respondents were interested in walking and bicycling in Arroyo Grande, but expressed serious concern regarding safety. Survey respondents
stressed the need for continuous sidewalks and contiguous, protected bicycle paths, particularly along routes leading to key community destina-
tions, such as schools, the Library, the Village, and the hospital. Respondents also expressed the importance of high-visibility crosswalks and traffic
calming measures to promote pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Figure 3-1: How often do you walk in Arroyo Grande?Figure 3-2: How often do you bike in Arroyo Grande?
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 109
Figure 3-3: What are your reasons for using active transportation?
(Select all that apply)
Figure 3-4: Where would you like to see better walking and bicycling
routes to? (Select all that apply)
Figure 3-5: What would make it easier for you to walk or roll (wheelchair,
skateboard, etc.) more in your community? (Select all that apply)
Figure 3-6: What would make it easier for you to bike more in your com-
munity? (Select all that apply)
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN110
PRIORITY STREETS
The most common answers to the survey question, “Do you avoid certain streets to walk or bike on?,” were the following streets (in order
of prevalence):
Additionally, many survey respondents expressed the need for
safer bicycle and pedestrian routes around Harloe Elementary
School, Arroyo Grande High School, and the Library. The streets and
destinations shared by survey respondents are consistent with the
findings of the analyses of the existing conditions in Chapter 2.
1.
EAST
GRAND
AVENUE
2.
WEST
BRANCH
STREET
3.
THE
VILLAGE
4.
HALCYON
ROAD
5.
FAIR OAKS
AVENUE
6.
HUASNA
ROAD
7.
CORBETT
CANYON
ROAD
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 111
I was the student hit by a car
outside of AGHS on December 4th.
Despite being extremely cautious
(staying in the bike lanes, wearing
a helmet, etc.). I was still sent
to the ER from the impact, and
the injuries will make for lifelong
dentist appointments, scarring, and
medical bills. I strongly believe in
the need for protected bike lanes
in school zones. There are many,
many children just like me who are
vulnerable to lifelong injuries if the
issue is not addressed.
I used to walk from
the Village to the
library, however, the
lack of sidewalks
makes it more
difficult as I get
older.
We visit the region several
times a year. We always travel
by bike once we’re there. We’ve
opted to spend more time
and money in the cities that
have focused on improving
bike infrastructure. Because of
that, we’ve spent much more
time and money in SLO rather
than in AG. AG would be more
attractive if the streets were
safer for bikes.
It would be wonderful
to encourage more
bike/walking. Currently,
the lack of pathways/
protection makes
the whole thing very
unattractive for most
people.
Areas around schools
MUST be prioritized for the
sake of parents and kids
walking and encouraging
active transportation.
Our kids need to know
that they can walk in our
community and get around
without a car.
QUOTES FROM THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN112
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Five stakeholder meetings were held throughout the course of the
ATP planning process. Stakeholders included representatives from lo-
cal organizations, governmental agencies, schools, and businesses,
as well as City staff and individual community members. Each meeting
is summarized below. Complete minutes for all stakeholder meetings
are in Appendix B.
Participating organizations included:
»Bike SLO County
»Caltrans, District 5
»City of Arroyo Grande, Planning Department
»City of Grover Beach, Planning Department
»City of Pismo Beach, Planning Department
»Five Cities Fire Authority
»San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
»San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
»South County Chambers of Commerce
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1: PROJECT
KICK-OFF & GOAL SETTING
The first stakeholder meeting was held virtually via Zoom on March
7th, 2024. The meeting consisted of stakeholder introductions; an in-
formational presentation to introduce the ATP and report on progress
to date; and an open discussion to understand the major concerns
and goals of the stakeholders. The open discussion involved resource
and idea sharing, as well as establishing an initial set of desired out-
comes for the ATP. Most notably, stakeholders expressed their desire
for the ATP to result in the following outcomes:
»Providing safe routes to key destinations such as schools and parks.
»Slowing down vehicular traffic along commercial corridors.
»Considering ways to support the use of active transportation for
tourists and visitors.
»Prioritizing project recommendations to help the City allocate re-
sources to the highest priority projects first.
»Supporting increased priority for separated bicycle lanes.
»Increasing the availability of bicycle racks, particularly in front of
businesses.
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 113
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2:
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL AND
PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA
The second stakeholder meeting was held virtually via Zoom on May
2nd, 2024. The meeting consisted of a community engagement up-
date, a review of existing active transportation infrastructure around
schools, and an open discussion on prioritization criteria used to rank
recommended bikeway projects. Stakeholders reviewed potential cri-
teria (e.g., schools, parks, transit, collisions, population density, etc.)
and discussed how criteria should be weighted based on Arroyo
Grande’s demographics and needs. In particular, stakeholders shared
that the following criteria are important and should be weighted high-
er during the prioritization process:
»Proximity to transit stops and routes
»Child population density
»Senior population density
Additionally, stakeholders asked questions about the project and rec-
ommended additional resources for the planning team to use when
developing recommendations, such as the SLOCOG Disadvantaged
Communities geodatabase.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #3: DRAFT
BIKEWAY NETWORK
The third stakeholder meeting was held virtually via Zoom on July
30th, 2024. At this meeting, stakeholders reviewed and provided
feedback on the draft bicycle facility recommendations, including the
proposed citywide network of Class I multi-use paths, Class II bicycle
lanes, Class III bicycle routes, and Class IV separated bikeways. Stake-
holders also received an update on the prioritization criteria and had
a second opportunity to share input. Stakeholder questions and input
were used to modify and improve the draft bikeway network before
sharing it with the community at large at the final community events in
late September 2024.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #4:
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
In lieu of a standard stakeholder meeting, stakeholders were invited
to participate in Community Workshop #2 on September 26th, 2024.
This meeting gave stakeholders an opportunity to meet each other in
person and interact with members of the public. Stakeholders partici-
pated in the workshop by listening to the presentation and providing
input on draft recommendations. Stakeholder input was used to mod-
ify draft recommendations and finalize the draft ATP.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #5: DRAFT
PLAN REVIEW
The final stakeholder meeting was held virtually via Zoom on Novem-
ber 25th, 2024. Stakeholders were asked to review the draft ATP be-
fore the meeting and bring their feedback for group discussion. At
the meeting, stakeholders shared input and asked questions about
the ATP. Stakeholder feedback, including suggestions for expanding
the educational programs and referencing existing regional programs,
was integrated into the draft ATP.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN114
CHAPTER 3: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 115
OTHER ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION
The planning team presented an ATP progress report at the City
Council meeting on October 22nd, 2024. The purpose of the pres-
entation was to provide the City Council and members of the public
with an overview of the ATP, including the project objectives, plan-
ning process, data analysis findings, community engagement efforts,
and draft recommendations. The planning team received one public
comment regarding Class IV separated bikeways, as well as questions
and comments from City Council members. City Councilmember com-
ments were related to adopting the ATP and adding it to the Capital
Improvement Program; including The Pike in the ATP; emphasizing
the importance of safe commuting for students at Arroyo Grande High
School; and taking a further look at East Grand Avenue safety.
ONLINE COMMENT MAP
To enable community members to
participate in the planning process
from their own homes, an online
comment map was hosted on the
project website. The online com-
ment map invited community mem-
bers to share location-specific input
by dropping a pin and leaving a com-
ment related to pedestrian, bicyclist,
ADA, driving, and other transporta-
tion-related issues. The issues that
received the most comments were
bicyclist concerns and the locations that received the most comments
were West Branch Street, East Grand Avenue, Huasna Road, Traffic
Way, El Camino Real, and Elm Street.
ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE
Concurrent with the development of this ATP,
the City is also updating its General Plan. Sev-
eral community engagement opportunities
were held as part of the General Plan update
process, including a survey, workshops, so-
cial media campaigns, and more. Throughout
these engagement efforts, active transporta-
tion came up as a top priority for community
members. The information below is from the document titled Commu-
nity Engagement Summary Report: City of Arroyo Grande General Plan
Update prepared by Mintier Harnish for the City.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR
THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Several engagement participants identified a lack of safe pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure as a major problem in the community. Some
participants expressed their desire for enhanced active transportation
infrastructure along school routes, advocating for features like dedi-
cated bike lanes and crosswalks equipped with flashing light beacons
to encourage reduced traffic speed near educational institutions.
Participants also identified the lack of bicycle routes to Paulding Mid-
dle School and the absence of sidewalks along routes to Ocean View
Elementary as areas for improvements. Specific suggestions for bicy-
cle infrastructure improvements were made for Corbett Canyon Road,
East Branch Street through the Village, and Tally Ho Road. Pedestrian
infrastructure improvements were also recommended, with a focus on
East Branch Street, the Village, and walking paths. Additional sugges-
tions included improving signage along the Grace Lane Trail.
“In the future, Arroyo Grande will… be easier to get around without a
car.” - Vision statement from a General Plan outreach participant
4
Active Transportation Toolkit
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN118
Providing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that promotes safer and less stressful circulation is a major focus across the nation. For example, a
significant transformation in the state of practice for bicycle travel has occurred over the last decade. Much of this may be attributed to bicycling’s
changing role in the overall transportation system. No longer viewed as an “alternative” mode, bicycling is increasingly considered a conventional
transportation mode that should be actively promoted as a means of achieving environmental, social, and economic goals. While connectivity and
convenience remain essential bicycle travel quality indicators, recent research indicates that increased acceptance and adoption of daily bicycling
will require the provision of “low-stress” bicycle routes, which are typically understood to be those that provide bicyclists with separation from
high-volume and high-speed vehicular traffic.
Similarly, pedestrian improvements are essential components of an inclusive active transportation plan because they help to serve populations
who cannot or do not want to drive or ride a bicycle. People are more likely to rely on walking or rolling (with a wheelchair or mobility aid) for rec-
reation or their daily mobility needs when the road network feels safe, comfortable, and designed for pedestrians. Newer innovations like all-way
pedestrian crossings (also known as pedestrian scrambles), modified signal timing, and flashing beacons are making pedestrians more visible
and creating safer streets for all.
This chapter provides an overview of both conventional and innovative forms of active transportation infrastructure to inform the recommenda-
tions proposed in Chapter 5. This “toolkit” also includes treatments for traffic calming, public transit enhancements, green street improvements,
placemaking, and new mobility because they enhance the safety, comfort, and convenience of people walking, rolling, and bicycling. This toolkit
can serve as a reference and starting point for the City in developing and implementing active transportation improvement projects across Arroyo
Grande. Many of the active transportation facilities described in this chapter are integrated into the site-specific recommendations provided in
Chapter 5.
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 119
CONVENTIONAL BICYCLE TREATMENTS
There are four conventional bikeway types recognized by Caltrans. Details of their design, associated wayfinding, and pavement markings can be
found in the CA MUTCD and CA Highway Design Manual.
Class I: Mult i -U s e P athCLASS I: MULTI-USE PATHS
Class I multi-use paths are physically separated from motor vehicle
travel routes, with exclusive rights-of-way for non-motorized users like
bicyclists and pedestrians. They require physical buffers to ensure the
safety and comfort of the path user.
CLASS II: BICYCLE LANES
Class II bicycle lanes are one-way facilities that carry bicycle traffic
in the same direction as the adjacent motor vehicle traffic. They are
typically located along the right side of the street (although they can
be on the left side) and are between the adjacent travel lane and the
curb, road edge, or parking lane. They are not physically separated
from motor vehicle traffic.
CLASS III: BICYCLE ROUTES
Class III bicycle routes are suggested bicycle corridors marked by
signs designating a preferred street between destinations. They are
recommended where traffic volumes and roadway speeds are low (35
mph or less).
CLASS IV: SEPARATED BIKEWAYS
Class IV separated sikeways, sometimes called cycle tracks, are on-
street bicycle facilities with a physical separation between the bikeway
and vehicle travel lanes. Physical protection measures can include
raised curbs, parkway strips, reflective bollards, or parked vehicles.
Separated bikeways can be either one-way or two-way, depending on
the street network, available right-of-way, and adjacent land use.
Class II: Bic y c l e L a n eClass III: Bic y c l e R o uteClass IV: Separ a t e d B ikeway
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN120
ENHANCED BICYCLE TREATMENTS
While conventional bicycle facility types can be found throughout the United States, there has been a distinct shift towards incorporating en-
hanced bicycle treatments that provide additional protection and visibility. These enhancements are low-cost, easy to install, and provide addition-
al awareness about the likely presence of bicyclists. In many instances, the installation of these bicycle route enhancements can be coordinated
as part of street resurfacing projects. For example, the use of green markings has also become a simple and effective way to communicate the
likely presence of bicyclists and to denote potential conflict zones between bicyclists and vehicles.
ADVISORY BICYCLE LANES
An advisory bike lane is a preferred space for bicyclists and motorists
to operate on narrow streets that would otherwise be a shared road-
way. Roads with advisory bike lanes accommodate low to moderate
volumes of two-way motor vehicle traffic and provide a safer space for
bicyclists with little or no widening of the paved roadway surface. Due
to their reduced cross-section requirements, advisory bike lanes have
the potential to open up more roadways to accommodate comfortable
bicycle travel.
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
Bicycle boulevards provide a convenient, low-stress bicycling en-
vironment for people of all ages and abilities. They are installed on
streets with low vehicular volumes and speeds and often parallel high-
er volume, higher speed arterials. Bicycle boulevard treatments use
a combination of signs, pavement markings, traffic diverters, and traf-
fic calming measures that help to discourage through trips by motor
vehicle drivers and create safe, convenient bicycle crossings of busy
arterial streets. They are similar to Class III bicycle routes but tend to
include more traffic calming and diversion infrastructure.
BICYCLE DETECTION
Bicycle detection is used at intersections with traffic signals to alert
the signal controller that a bicycle crossing event has been requested.
Bicycle detection can occur either through the use of push buttons or
by automated means and is marked by standard pavement symbols.
Advisory Bi c y c l e L a neBicycle B o u l e v a rd
Bicycle D e t e c tio n
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 121
BICYCLE SIGNALS
Bicycle signals include all types of traffic signals directed at bicyclists.
These can include typical green/yellow/red signals with signage ex-
plaining the signal controls, or special bikeway icons displayed within
the signage lights themselves. Nearside bicycle signals may incorpo-
rate a “countdown to green” display, as well as a “countdown to red.”
BIKE BOXES
A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a sig-
nalized intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way
to wait ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. This po-
sitioning helps encourage bicyclists traveling straight through not to
wait against the curb for the signal change.
BUFFERED BICYCLE LANES
Buffered bicycle lanes provide additional space between the bicycle
lane and traffic lane, parking lane, or both, to provide a more protected
and comfortable space for bicyclists than a conventional bicycle lane.
The buffering also encourages bicyclists to avoid riding too close to
parked vehicles, keeping them out of the “door zone” where there is
the potential danger of drivers or passengers suddenly opening doors
into the bicyclists’ path.
COLORED BICYCLE LANES
Colored pavement increases the visibility of bicycle routes, identifies
potential areas of conflict or transition, and reinforces bicyclist priority
in these areas. Colored pavement can be used as a corridor treat-
ment, along the length of a bicycle lane, or within a protected bikeway.
Additionally, it can be used as a spot treatment, such as crossing mark-
ings at particularly complex intersections where the bicycle path may
be unclear. Consistent application of color across a bikeway corridor is
important to promote clear understanding for all roadway users.
Bicycle S i g n a lBike B o x
Colored Bic y c l e L a neBuffered Bi c y c l e L a ne
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN122
GREEN COLORED TRANSITION STRIPING
Green-colored striping can be used to highlight conflict areas between
bicyclists and vehicles, such as where bicycle lanes merge across mo-
tor vehicle turn lanes or driveways.
PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS
Protected intersections maintain the integrity (low-stress experience)
of their adjoining separated bicycle lanes by fully separating bicyclists
from motor vehicles at intersections. Features of these protected
intersections include two-stage crossings supported by an advanced
queuing space, protective concrete corner islands, special signal
phasing, and special bicycle-cross markings (parallel with crosswalks).
SHARED LANE MARKINGS (“SHARROWS”)
Shared lane markings, also known as sharrows, are commonly used
where parking is allowed adjacent to the travel lane. It is now common
practice to center them within the typical vehicular travel route in the
rightmost travel lane to ensure adequate separation between bicy-
clists and parked vehicles.
SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING
Signage and wayfinding on all streets and bicycle routes are intended
to identify routes to both bicyclists and drivers, provide destination
information, and inform all users of changes in roadway conditions.
TWO-STAGE LEFT TURN QUEUE BOX
Two-stage left-turn queue boxes can provide a more comfortable left-
turn crossing for many bicyclists because they entail two low-stress
crossings, rather than one potentially high-stress one. They also pro-
vide a degree of separation from vehicular traffic, because they do
not require merging with vehicle traffic to make left turns. Bicyclists
wanting to make a left turn can continue into the intersection when
they have a green light and pull into the green queue box. Bicyclists
then turn 90 degrees to face their intended direction and wait for the
green light of a new signal phase to continue through.
G
re
en Colored Tr a n s it io n StripingProtected In t e r s e c tionSignage and W a y fi n d ingSharr o w
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 123
CURB EXTENSIONS
Curb extensions, also called bulb-outs or neck-downs, extend the curb
line outward into the travelway to increase pedestrian visibility, re-
duce the pedestrian crossing distance, and reduce the effective street
width. They must not interfere with bicycle lanes or separated bike-
ways. If both treatments are needed, additional design features, such
as ramps or half-sized curb extensions, should be considered.
DAYLIGHTING
Daylighting refers to the removal of parked cars next to crosswalks to
allow people walking, bicycling, and driving to see each other better.
Daylighting can be used as a tool to improve visibility and safety at in-
tersections, particularly on highways and arterials. The 2023 MUTCD
allows, for the first time, “daylighting” of intersections using only paint
and flex posts.
Curb Ext e n s io n
E
nhanced Cros s w a lk M arkingDaylig h t i n g
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS
Pedestrian treatments can help to reduce pedestrian crossing distances, increase pedestrian visibility, and reduce unpredictable crossings be-
tween intersections to enhance pedestrian comfort and safety.
ENHANCED CROSSWALK MARKINGS
Enhanced crosswalk markings with perpendicular striping, in addition
to parallel stripes, can be installed at existing or proposed crosswalk
locations. Their bold pattern is designed to both guide pedestrians
and to alert drivers of a crossing location.
LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS
A Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) is a signal timing technique that
typically gives pedestrians a three to seven-second head start when
entering a crosswalk with a corresponding green signal in the same
direction of travel. LPIs enhance the visibility of pedestrians in the in-
tersection and reinforce their right-of-way ahead of turning vehicles,
especially in locations with a history of conflict. Generally, this leads
to a greater likelihood of vehicles yielding. Depending on intersection
volume and safety history, an otherwise legal right-turn-on-red might
be explicitly prohibited during the LPI phase.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN124
PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING
Pedestrian-scale lighting provides many practical and safety benefits,
such as illuminating the path and making crossing pedestrians and
bicyclists more visible to drivers. Lighting can also be designed to be
fun, artistic, and interactive to enhance user experience.
MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
Mid-block crossings provide convenient locations for pedestrians
and bicyclists to cross thoroughfares in areas with infrequent inter-
section crossings or where the nearest intersection creates substan-
tial out-of-direction travel. Mid-block crossings should be paired with
additional traffic-control devices, such as traditional pedestrian sig-
nals, pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons,
LED-enhanced flashing signs, and/or refuge islands.
MODIFIED TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING
Adjusting the timing, phasing, and actuation needed to cross high-vol-
ume and wide streets decreases waiting times and provides addition-
al safety and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mid-block C r o s s in gM
odified Traffic S i g n a l T im ingRefuge I s l a n dPedestrian S c r a m b lePEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE
Pedestrian scrambles, also known as all-way pedestrian phases, stop
vehicular traffic flow simultaneously in all directions to allow pedes-
trians to cross the intersection in any direction. These are used at in-
tersections with particularly heavy pedestrian crossing levels. Unless
cycle lengths can be kept under 90 seconds, LPIs are generally pre-
ferred over pedestrian scrambles.
REFUGE ISLAND
Refuge islands provide pedestrians and bicyclists a relatively safe
place within an intersection and midblock crossing to pause and ob-
serve before crossing the next lane of traffic.
SENIOR ZONES
Designated senior zones can be enhanced with street signage, in-
creased crossing times at traffic signals, benches, bus stops with shel-
ters, and pedestrian lighting.
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 125
TRAFFIC CALMING
Traffic calming involves changes in street alignment, installation of barriers, and other physical measures to reduce traffic speeds and/or motor
vehicle traffic volumes. Traffic calming is used to alter driver behavior and to improve street safety, livability, and other public purposes. Other
techniques consist of operational measures, such as police enforcement and speed displays.
BEACONS AND WARNING DEVICES
Traditional pedestrian signals with countdown timers remain the gold
standard for high-quality pedestrian crossings, although some cases
warrant new signal technologies. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs)
and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are special signals
used to warn traffic at unsignalized locations and assist pedestrians
crossing a street via a marked crosswalk.
PHBs include a “red phase” that requires vehicles to come to a full
stop while RRFBs are yield stops. Either of these devices should be in-
stalled at locations that have pedestrian desire lines connecting peo-
ple to popular destinations, such as schools, parks, and retail.
Research has shown that PHBs tend to have a 90 percent motorist
compliance rate versus RRFBs, which tend to have an 80 percent mo-
torist compliance rate. Traditional pedestrian signals with countdown
timers at signalized intersections tend to have a near 100 percent
compliance rate.
Signals and warning devices should be paired with additional pe-
destrian improvements, where appropriate, such as curb extensions,
enhanced crosswalk markings, lighting, median refuge islands, cor-
responding signage, and advance yield markings to mitigate multiple
threat crashes on multi-lane roadways.
CHICANES
Chicanes are a series of narrowings or curb extensions that alternate
from one side of the street to the other forming an S-shaped path. Chi-
canes reduce drivers’ speeds by causing them to shift their horizontal
path of travel.Re
c
t
a
n
gular Rapid Fla s h i n g B e acon (RRFB)Chica n e
P
e
destrian Hybri d B e a c o n (PHB)
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN126
HARDENED CENTER LINES
Hardened centerlines are small rubber barriers next to crosswalks
that require people driving to make slower and more square left-hand
turns. This small change has been shown to significantly slow down
vehicle speeds at crosswalks and improve safety for people in the
crosswalk.
LIGHT-UP STOP SIGNS
Light-up stop signs are eye-catching stop signs that use flashing LEDs
to encourage motor vehicle drivers to properly stop for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
NECKDOWNS
Neckdowns narrow a street by extending the sidewalk or widening the
landscape area to give the perception that speeds should be reduced.
ONE-WAY COUPLETS
One-way couplets are a pair of parallel one-way streets with motor ve-
hicle traffic traveling in opposing directions. Couplets are often used
in high-volume areas to manage and increase the capacity of travel.
ON-STREET EDGE FRICTION
Edge friction is a combination of vertical elements, such as on-street
parking, bicycle lanes, chicanes, site furnishings, street trees, and
shrubs, that reduce the perceived street width, which has been shown
to reduce motor vehicle speeds.
Light-up S t o p S ig n
On-street Ed g e F ric tionNeckd o w n
Hardened C e n t e r L ine
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 127
Speed D i s p la y
REFLECTIVE BORDER ON SIGNAL HEADS
Reflective borders on signal heads improve the visibility of signal
heads with a backplate and are made even more conspicuous by
framing them with a yellow retroreflective border. These are more vis-
ible in both daytime and nighttime conditions.
ROUNDABOUTS/TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Roundabouts are circular intersections with yield control at their entry
that allows a driver to proceed at controlled speeds in a counter-clock-
wise direction around a central island. Roundabouts are designed to
maximize motorized and non-motorized traffic through their innova-
tive design which includes reconfigured sidewalks, bikeway bypasses,
high-visibility crosswalks, pedestrian flashing beacons, and other traf-
fic measures. Roundabouts can be implemented on most streets but
may require additional right-of-way.
Traffic circles are small-scale traffic calming measures commonly ap-
plied at uncontrolled intersections on low-volume, local residential
streets. They lower traffic speeds on each approach and typically
avoid or reduce right-of-way conflicts because the overall footprint is
smaller compared to roundabouts. Traffic circles may be installed us-
ing simple markings or raised islands but are best accompanied by
drought-tolerant landscaping or other attractive vertical elements.
SPEED DISPLAYS
Speed displays measure the speed of approaching vehicles by radar
and inform drivers of their speeds using an LED display. Speed dis-
plays contribute to increased traffic safety because they are particular-
ly effective in getting drivers traveling ten or more miles per hour over
the speed limit to reduce their speed.
R
e
flective Border O n S ig n a l HeadsRound a b o u t
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN128
Speed C u s h io n
S
chool Pick-up/D r o p -o ff ZoneTraffic D i v e r t e rSPEED TABLES/RAISED CROSSWALKS
Speed tables are flat-topped road humps, often constructed with tex-
tured surfacing on the flat section. Speed tables and raised crosswalks
help to reduce vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety.
SPEED CUSHIONS
Speed cushions are a form of vertical traffic calming with wheel cut-
outs that allow emergency vehicles to easily pass. Speed cushions
help to reduce vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety.
SCHOOL PICKUP/DROP-OFF ZONE
School pick-up/drop-off zones are designated areas typically man-
aged by schools where school buses and parent and guardian motor
vehicles can drop off and pick up children.
TRUCK APRONS
Truck aprons allow large vehicles, such as trucks, buses, and recrea-
tional vehicles, to turn without striking fixed objects or people walking,
rolling, or bicycling. They are located between the road surface and
the sidewalk, or inner circle of a roundabout. The pavement is raised
slightly to encourage light vehicles to stay on the main road surface.
TRAFFIC DIVERTERS
A traffic diverter is a roadway design feature placed in a roadway to
prohibit vehicular traffic from entering into or exiting from the street.
Raised Cr o s s w a lk
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 129
PUBLIC TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS
Public transit rider satisfaction and interest can be enhanced through the provision of safe, convenient, and fast service. By making public transit
easy to access, comfortable to use, and efficient, transit providers can improve public perception of transit and encourage increased use.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a high-quality bus-based transit system that
delivers fast and efficient service through the use of bus-only lanes,
busways, traffic signal priority, off-board fare collection, elevated
platforms, and enhanced stations. BRT offers more reliable and fast-
er public transit service than regular buses because it is designed to
avoid typical delays, such as waiting in traffic or waiting for a line of
riders to pay their fare.
FLOATING BUS ISLAND
A floating bus island is located between travel lanes and bicycle lanes
where transit passengers board and alight transit vehicles. Pedestri-
ans cross the bike lane when traveling to or from the platform where
the bus stop is located. This eliminates conflict between bicyclists
traveling in bike lanes and transit vehicles that must pull curbside to
load and unload passengers.
MICROTRANSIT
Microtransit refers to a publicly provided on-demand rideshare service
that offers the flexibility of a ride-hailing service like Uber or Lyft, but at
affordable rates. Microtransit programs typically provide rides for short
local trips with small shuttles within designated service zones, offering
safe and convenient travel for quick trips. On top of already affordable
rates, it is common for microtransit programs to offer reduced rates to
seniors, people with disabilities, and/or Medicare recipients.
Bus Rapid T r a n s itMicrotr a n s itFloating B u s I s la n d
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN130
MOBILITY HUBS
Mobility hubs offer an integrated suite of mobility options that serve
a critical function in the regional transportation system as the origin,
destination, or transfer point for a significant share of transit trips. They
allow for a combination of transportation options to gather in one
space to encourage people to use non-motorized forms of travel with
ease. Mobility hubs are typically located along a bicycle facility and a
transit stop and are paired with multimodal elements, such as bike-
share, scootershare, bicycle lockers, battery charging for e-bicycles,
wayfinding signage, ridesharing pickup/dropoff zones, and pedestrian
amenities, such as curb extensions, street furniture, and lighting.
REAL-TIME BUS INFORMATION
Real-time bus information allows riders to predict their journey and
manage their time more effectively. This increases the convenience
of transit for riders by providing an accurate, updated location of their
bus.
TRANSIT STOP AMENITIES
Transit stop amenities help to increase the comfort and safety of public
transit users. Transit stop amenities can include posted route sched-
ules, trash receptacles, lighting, sheltered waiting areas that provide
protection from rain and sun, real-time arrival updates, Wi-Fi connec-
tivity, and more. The provision of these amenities improves rider satis-
faction and may encourage increased transit use.
Mobilit y H u b
Real-time Bus I n f o r m a tionTransit Stop wi t h A m e n ities
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 131
GREEN STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Green street improvements incorporate tried and true stormwater management practices into transportation infrastructure to reduce stormwater
runoff, prevent flooding, improve water quality, provide habitat for local flora and fauna, and create an enjoyable streetscape. These improvements
can be installed alongside sidewalks, roadways, parking lots, medians, and more to create a more sustainable and resilient mobility system. The
green street improvements listed below are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Streets Handbook.
BIOSWALES
Bioswales, also known as bioretention swales or vegetated swales,
are surface depressions that use bioretention soil media and vege-
tation to facilitate stormwater infiltration, retention, sedimentation,
and pollution removal. Bioswales serve as stormwater conveyance
treatment devices and are typically located along public rights-of-way,
parking lots, sidewalks, road medians, and road shoulders to capture
water flow from nearby impervious surfaces.
INFILTRATION TRENCHES
Infiltration trenches are excavated linear areas filled with layers of
stone and sand wrapped in geotextile fabric. These trenches are cov-
ered with stone, gabion, sand, or grass with surface inlets. Stormwater
is stored in the stone reservoir and slowly infiltrates through the bot-
tom and sides of the trench. Infiltration trenches are ideal for linear
spaces, such as along a roadway, parking lot, or median.
PERMEABLE PAVEMENT
Permeable pavements allow stormwater runoff to infiltrate through
void space into the ground below or another stormwater manage-
ment system instead of becoming surface runoff. Types of permeable
pavement include porous asphalt, porous recycled surface products,
pervious concrete, and pavers arranged with void spaces. Permea-
ble pavement can be used instead of impervious materials on parking
lots, parking lanes, driveways, sidewalks, walking paths, bicycle lanes,
parkways, road shoulders, and low-traffic roads.
Biosw a l e
Infiltration T r e n c h
Permeable P a v e m e nt
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN132
STORMWATER CURB EXTENSIONS
Stormwater curb extensions, or stormwater bump outs, combine two
street improvements - traffic calming and stormwater filtration - to pro-
duce multiple streetscape benefits. This strategy involves filling the
area behind the curb with a bioretention soil media and vegetation
similar to a bioretention cell or bioswale. Stormwater curb extensions
can be located at intersections, midblock crossings, neighborhood or
collector streets, or any length of a roadway.
STORMWATER PLANTERS
Stormwater planters are narrow, flat-bottomed landscaped areas de-
signed to receive stormwater runoff from surrounding impervious sur-
faces, such as rooftop areas, sidewalks, and roadways. Stormwater
planters are typically rectangular with vertical walls and are best suit-
ed for urban areas with limited space or areas with steep slopes.
STORMWATER TREE SYSTEMS
Stormwater tree systems, such as tree pits or tree trenches, contain a
tree or shrub planted in a bioretention soil mix and a gravel reservoir
designed to capture stormwater. Stormwater tree systems are typi-
cally located along sidewalks, medians, and parking lots and receive
stormwater runoff through a curb cut, catch basin, or stormwater inlet.
Stormwate r P la n te rSTREET TREES
Street trees along roadways provide numerous benefits, such as
shade, cooler temperatures, better air quality, on-street edge friction,
and streetscape enhancement - all of which improve the overall pe-
destrian experience.
SUBSURFACE INFILTRATION/DETENTION
Subsurface infiltration and detention systems capture, temporarily
store, and slowly release stormwater to reduce peak runoff discharge.
Subsurface infiltration systems use an infiltrative chamber system
made of concrete or plastic with perforated pipes, galleys, and cham-
bers to store large amounts of runoff and slowly let it infiltrate into the
ground. Subsurface detention systems temporarily store runoff before
releasing it to a conveyance system downstream. These systems are
most suitable for parking lots, sidewalks, and roadways.
Stormwater Cu r b E x te nsionStreet Tr e e s
Stormwater Tr e e S y stem
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 133
PLACEMAKING
The inclusion of placemaking urban elements, such as parklets, encourages walking and provides usable space for all ages. In many cities, these
elements have helped transform urban villages and downtowns into walkable destinations. Coordination with local Arroyo Grande businesses and
organizations, such as the great examples currently found in the Village, may provide collaborative design and funding opportunities between the
City, its businesses, residents, and visitors.
PARKLETS
Parklets are conversions of one or two parking spaces for outdoor
seating, dining, and other amenities. Parklets can be used to activate
and improve the aesthetics of a streetscape.
PUBLIC ART
Displaying community art is a great way to showcase the history, cul-
ture, and pride of an area and create a sense of place for residents
and visitors alike. Community art can include murals, sculptures, artis-
tic paths and benches, and more.
SPECIAL INTERSECTION PAVING AND
CROSSWALK ART
Special intersection paving and crosswalk art provide unique oppor-
tunities to highlight crossings or key civic or commercial locations at
intersections while breaking the visual monotony of asphalt. Intersec-
tion paving treatments and crosswalk art can integrate context-sensi-
tive colors, textures, and scoring patterns.
Paving treatments and crosswalk art do not define a crosswalk and
should not be seen as a safety measure. Standard transverse or longi-
tudinal high-visibility crosswalk markings are still required.
STREET FURNISHINGS
Transit shelters, bicycle racks, seating, drinking fountains, and pedes-
trian-scale lighting are important amenities for the functionality, de-
sign, and vitality of the urban environment. They show that the street
is a safe and comfortable place to be.
Public A r t
Street Fu r n i s h in g
Park l e t
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN134
NEW MOBILITY
New mobility refers to evolving and emerging forms of clean and/or shared forms of transportation, which can include micromobility, ride-hailing,
carpools, and automated and connected vehicles. These forms of transportation can provide alternatives to gas-powered, single-occupancy cars
and help reduce air pollution and GHG emissions. Clean mobility and shared options also help address transportation equity by providing afforda-
ble transportation choices for lower-income households and those who are unable to drive or own a car.
DOCKED BIKESHARE
Docked bikeshare is a shared transport service in which bicycles or
e-bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a short-
term basis for a price or for free. Docked bikeshare systems allow peo-
ple to borrow a bicycle from a “dock” or station and return it to another
dock belonging to the same system. Docked bikeshare systems often
include electric-assist bicycles that provide extra comfort for users.
E-SCOOTERSHARE
Scootershare programs are popular forms of shared transportation
services that involve the rental of electric motorized scooters for short
trips. These programs involve the use of a mobile application to look
for, rent, pay, and park the rented scooter. Scootershare programs pro-
vide a high degree of flexibility for the individual user and can be an
effective method for closing mobility gaps. Short trips to visit family
members and access to schools, parks, commercial areas, and transit
stops are all possible with a scootershare program.
ELECTRIC CARSHARING SERVICE
An electric carsharing service could be established by purchasing a
fleet of electric cars. These cars could be rented by residents to ad-
dress their transportation needs, such as commuting to work, running
errands, or getting to medical appointments. The City would have its
own EV charging infrastructure which could be combined with other
electric mobility options, such as electric shuttles and electric vanpool/
carpool services.
ELECTRIC SHUTTLES
Electric shuttles can help address gaps within a community by supple-
menting the existing transit network or by creating new transit routes
where they currently don’t exist. Depending on the make and model,
electric-powered shuttles can be used to offer transit services within
a specified radius.
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE EV CHARGERS
As electric vehicles (EVs) become more common, the need for publicly
accessible EV charging stations will increase, especially for those who
cannot install an EV charger at their home. Cities can help facilitate an
equitable transition to EVs by installing publicly accessible EV charg-
ing stations at City-owned parking lots and structures. Not only can
public EV charging stations support community members, but they
can also attract new visitors into town.
Docked B i k e s h a re EV Chargin g S t a tio n
CHAPTER 4: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION TOOLKIT 135
5
Recommendations
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN138
Chapter 5 proposes new and improved bicycle, pedestrian, ADA, and SRTS facilities to improve the safety, comfort, and convenience of active
transportation throughout Arroyo Grande. The chapter includes an overview of how projects were developed, assessed for feasibility, and prior-
itized. The chapter contains maps and tables that provide key project information, such as type, location, and extent. To build momentum for future
implementation, the ATP provides conceptual drawings for three priority projects. This chapter also contains programmatic recommendations and
funding resources to support, encourage, and celebrate active transportation.
The recommendations proposed in this chapter are meant to serve as a guide to help the City pursue and allocate funds as they become available
through various sources. While the recommendations listed in this chapter are comprehensive, the City remains open to receiving and addressing
additional community needs on an ongoing basis. Other active transportation projects and programs will be considered as new issues and oppor-
tunities arise. The City can update the ATP regularly to ensure the document is appropriately responding to community priorities.
Balancing the needs of all travel modes within the confines of existing roadway widths can be challenging in cases where there is not enough
space for all roadway users to travel safely. Throughout ATP implementation, the City is encouraged to consider shifting away from car-centric
priorities and move towards a future that prioritizes active transportation facilities, especially around schools, parks, and other major destinations.
BICYCLE NETWORK
The ATP proposes 33 miles of new bicycle facilities to expand and
upgrade Arroyo Grande’s existing bicycle network. Developing the
proposed bicycle network included a review of previous planning
documents, including the 2021 Arroyo Grande General Plan Circula-
tion Element, 2023 SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan, 2021 SLO-
COG Regional Active Transportation Plan, and Capital Improvement
Projects, as well as findings of the existing conditions analysis and
input collected from community members and stakeholders. Through
this approach, ‘streets of importance’ were identified as candidates
for bicycle facilities. Each street of importance was reviewed with the
following considerations: existing pedestrian amenities and bicycle fa-
cilities; network gaps; connectivity to schools, parks, activity centers,
and other destinations; community and stakeholder input; and existing
road width, lane striping, and on-street parking.
This process resulted in an ambitious, yet feasible proposed bicycle
network for Arroyo Grande. If implemented, the proposed bicycle
network shown in Figure 5-1 will provide community members with
bicycle connectivity to all of Arroyo Grande’s major activity centers,
offering residents viable options for bicycling to popular destinations.
BICYCLE FACILITY TYPE MILES
Class I Multi-use Path 7.26
Class II Bicycle Lane 5.09
Class III Bicycle Route 10.48
Class IV: Separated Bikeway/Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle
facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost,
maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install
the improvements.
10.45
Total 33.28
Table 5-1: Proposed Bicycle Facilities Summary
NOTE: FUTURE COORDINATION WITH CALTRANS IS NEEDED
The City will need to coordinate with a Caltrans project
development team for all proposed projects within the Caltrans
right-of-way, including along the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing,
East Grand Avenue overcrossing, Brisco Road undercrossing, and
Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing. Any proposed improvements
on the State Highway System are conceptual and will require a
safety, operational, and/or warrant analysis prior to any Caltrans
approval.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 139Figure 5-1: Proposed Bicycle Network
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN140
BICYCLE NETWORK PRIORITIZATION
A prioritization analysis was conducted to rank proposed bicycle facilities in terms of need and importance. City staff and the Stakeholder Working
Group developed and refined the criteria. The City will use the results of the prioritization analysis to direct resources toward the highest-need and
highest-impact projects. The prioritization analysis ranked projects based on the following criteria (listed in order of weight):
»Schools: How many schools are along the project corridor?
»Parks: How many parks are along the project corridor?
»Households w/ No Vehicle (HNV): How many households with no vehicles are within the project area?
»Gap Closure: Does the project close a gap in the existing bicycle network?
»Commercial Land Use: How many mixed-use, commercial, and office, land uses are along the project corridor?
»Collision History: How many bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions occurred along the project corridor between 2012 and 2022?
»Transit Stops: How many bus stops are along the project corridor?
»Regional Network Connectivity: Does this project close a gap in connection to an adjacent community?
»Public Input: How many public comments were received for the project corridor?
»Increased Separation from Motor Vehicles: Is the project a Class I multi-use path or a Class IV separated bikeway?
»Population Density: How many people live in the project area?
»Child Density: How many children under 16 years old live in the project area?
»Senior Density: How many people age 65 or older live in the project area?
»Walk to Work: How many people walk to work in the project area?
»Bike to Work: How many people ride a bicycle to work in the project area?
»Transit to Work: How many people take transit to work in the project area?
»Disadvantaged Communities: What percentage of the project falls within a SLOCOG-defined Disadvantaged Community?
»Median Income: What percentage of the project falls within a census tract that has a median household income of less than $73,524/year (80%
of statewide median from 2018-2022 ACS)?
»Identified in a Previous Project: Has this project been identified in another project (i.e., Arroyo Grande General Plan, SLOCOG RTP, etc.)?
Table 5-2 displays proposed bicycle projects ranked in order of priority. For instances where the prioritization analysis resulted in ties between
bicycle projects, the planning team broke ties based on site context, community need, and professional expertise. The City will use this list to direct
the pursuit and allocation of funding sources towards projects in order of priority. Additionally, the City used the prioritization analysis results to
help select the three corridors to develop conceptual designs.
While the ranking process provides prioritization through objective data analysis and qualitative community engagement, the City has the right to
select the projects that move forward for conceptual design and even implementation based on capital improvement funding, grant opportunities
and programs, and projects that can take advantage of bicycle lane striping such as street repaving or incoming development projects.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 141
Table 5-2: Proposed Bicycle Network Ranked
RANK STREET FROM TO FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES)
1 E. Grand Avenue Oak Park Road W. Branch Street Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 1.68
2 Elm Street Linda Drive City Limit Class III Bicycle Route/Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*1.05
3 E. Branch Street Traffic Way Stanley Avenue Class III Bicycle Route/Class I Multi-use Path 0.76
4 Oak Park Blvd North of James
Way The Pike Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 1.57
5 Halcyon Road El Camino Real The Pike Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 1.16
6 Alder Street/Cameron Court Grand Avenue Halcyon Road Class III Bicycle Route 0.79
7 Farroll Avenue Elm Street Halcyon Road Class II Bicycle Lane 0.51
8 Fair Oaks Avenue Elm Street Traffic Way Class II Bicycle Lane (existing) and Class IV Separated Bikeway or
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* (proposed)0.9
9 Soto Park Ash Street Elm Street Class I Multi-use Path 0.55
10 W. Branch Street Oak Park Road Traffic Way Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 1.69
11 Ash Street City Limit Elm Street Class II Bicycle Lane 0.40
12 Arroyo Grande Creek Trail City Limit Los Berros Road Class I Multi-use Path 3.18
13 Valley Road Fair Oaks Avenue Los Berros Road Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 0.91
14 Brisco Road W. Branch Street Grand Avenue Class III Bicycle Route/Class II Bicycle Lane 0.49
15
Nelson Street/Whitely Street/
Ide Street/Garden Street/
Myrtle Street/Stillwell Drive
Traffic Way Cherry Avenue Class III Bicycle Route 0.82
16 Arroyo Grande High School
Path #2 Grand Avenue Fair Oaks Avenue Class I Multi-use Path 0.32
17 Arroyo Grande High School
Path #1 Grand Avenue Fair Oaks Avenue Class I Multi-use Path 0.44
18 Courtland Street Newport Avenue Ash Street Class III Bicycle Route 0.71
19 Traffic Way W. Branch Street S. Traffic Way Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 0.54
20 El Camino Real Brisco Road Grand Avenue Class II Bicycle Lane 0.19
21 Stonecrest Drive/Linda Drive
Extension (Pedestrian Bridge)El Camino Real W. Branch Street Class I Multi-use Path 0.08
22 Linda Drive El Camino Real Halcyon Road Class III Bicycle Route 0.84
23 Orchard Street Fair Oaks Avenue Castillo Del Mar Class III Bicycle Route 0.45
24 Juniper/Popular/Aspen Grand Avenue Ash Street Class III Bicycle Route 0.55
25 Huasna Road Corbett Canyon
Road City Limit Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane* 0.80
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN142
RANK STREET FROM TO FACILITY TYPE LENGTH
(MILES)
26 Dodson Way/Alpine Street/
Cerro Vista Circle Alder Street Woodland Drive Class III Bicycle Route 0.39
27 Soto Park/School/Care Center Soto Park Farroll Avenue Class I Multi-use Path 0.14
28 Corbett Canyon Road City Limit Huasna Road Class I Multi-use Path/Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane/Class II
Bicycle Lane 1.24
29 Rodeo Drive James Way W. Branch Street Class II Bicycle Lane 1.05
30 Stanley Avenue Huasna Road Myrtle Street Class III Bicycle Route with Class I Multi-use Path 0.23
31 Station Way Traffic Way Fair Oaks Avenue Class III Bicycle Route 0.25
32 West Arroyo Grande Class I
Path Oak Park Plaza James Way Class I Multi-use Path 0.13
33 Mason Street Le Pointe Street Nelson Street Class III Bicycle Route 0.21
34 Montego Street Newport Avenue Linda Drive Class III Bicycle Route 0.20
35 Spruce Street Poplar Street Ash Street Class III Bicycle Route 0.29
36 Los Berros Creek Path Halcyon Road City Limit (east of
Valley Road)Class I Multi-use Path 0.72
37 Newport Avenue/Hillcrest
Drive Oak Park Road El Camino Real Class III Bicycle Route 0.58
38 Flora Road
(Alternative to Coach Road)Coach Road Strother Park Class III Bicycle Route/Class I Multi-use Path (Future study needed
to determine if feasible and preferable to Coach Road alternative)0.33
39 Branch Mill Road Cherry Avenue City Limit Class IV Separated Bikeway or Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*1.23
40 Crown Hill Street Branch Street Huasna Road/Corbett
Canyon Road Class III Bicycle Route 0.34
41 Arroyo Grande Library Class I
Path Rodeo Drive W. Branch Street Class I Multi-use Path 0.46
42 Woodland Drive Cerro Vista Circle Virginia Drive Class III Bicycle Route 0.46
43 Oro Drive Gularte Road Huasna Road Class III Bicycle Route 0.48
44 Le Point Street/Crown Terrace Crown Hill Street Corbett Canyon Road Class III Bicycle Route 0.33
45 Carpenter Canyon Road City Limit Printz Road Class II Bicycle Lane 0.36
46 Tally Ho Road James Way Mason Street Class II Bicycle Lane 0.41
47 Virginia Drive Halcyon Road Woodland Drive Class III Bicycle Route 0.17
48 Coach Road
(Alternative to Flora Road)Branch Mill Road Huasna Road Class I Multi-use Path (Future study needed to determine if
feasible and preferable to Flora Road alternative)0.47
49 Printz Road Noyes Road Carpenter Canyon
Road Class III Bicycle Route 1.41
Total Miles of Proposed Bicycle Facilities 33.28
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 143
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN144
PEDESTRIAN AND ADA
ENHANCEMENTS
The ATP proposes pedestrian enhancements to improve the safety,
comfort, and walkability of corridors leading to key activity centers,
such as schools, parks, the Village, and commercial destinations. Pe-
destrian recommendations were developed based on the 2021 Arroyo
Grande General Plan Circulation Element, 2023 SLOCOG Regional
Transportation Plan, the ATP’s existing conditions analysis (presented
in Chapter 2), community input (presented in Chapter 3), and profes-
sional evaluation. The planning team first reviewed previously pro-
posed pedestrian facilities from the 2021 Arroyo Grande General Plan
Circulation Element and 2023 SLOCOG Regional Transportation Plan
to assess, modify, and update pedestrian enhancements, where need-
ed. Then, the planning team developed additional recommendations
based on the findings of the ATP’s existing conditions analysis and
community engagement efforts.
The locations of proposed pedestrian enhancements, such as new or
upgraded crossings, curb extensions, sidewalk infill, and traffic calm-
ing measures, are displayed in Figure 5-2. Figure 5-2 highlights where
enhancements are proposed along corridors, intersections, and mid-
block locations throughout Arroyo Grande. While pedestrian enhance-
ments may be needed in other areas of Arroyo Grande, the ATP focus-
es on improving pedestrian facilities on streets along and connecting
to schools, parks, and commercial areas. To review the specific pedes-
trian enhancements at each location, see Table 5-3.
The pedestrian enhancements shown in Figure 5-2 and Table 5-3
are not ranked in order of priority. The City will consider proximity to
schools, parks, and commercial destinations; cost and available fund-
ing; planned and required maintenance; and safety needs when im-
plementing projects.
In addition to pedestrian enhancements at specific locations, the fol-
lowing overarching recommendations should be considered citywide:
»Install curb ramps, preferably directional curb ramps when feasible,
where missing (as identified in Figure 2-6) with curbs leading to
schools, parks, public buildings, and commercial destinations pri-
oritized.
»Retrofit existing curb ramps without detectable warnings (identified
in Figure 2-6) to have truncated domes, focusing on high-priority
areas, such as near schools, parks, and along commercial corridors.
»Ensure all new sidewalks are outfitted with curb ramps with detect-
able warnings to facilitate safe crossings and alert pedestrians with
vision impairments of an upcoming hazard, such as passing traffic.
»Infill sidewalk gaps identified in Figure 2-5 adjacent to schools,
parks, and commercial corridors, as funding becomes available.
»Install high-visibility crosswalk markings at crosswalks adjacent to
schools, parks, and commercial corridors.
»Install Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and Accessible Pedes-
trian Signals at every signalized intersection adjacent to schools,
parks, and commercial corridors.
»After evaluating need, consider installing wayfinding signage and
traffic calming measures (e.g., LED speed feedback signs) along
gateway corridors, such as Corbett Canyon Road, Elm Street, Grand
Avenue, Halcyon Road, Huasna Road, and Oak Park Boulevard. As
the City implements improvement projects along these corridors,
wayfinding signage and traffic calming measures will be integrated
where appropriate.
NOTE: FUTURE COORDINATION WITH CALTRANS IS NEEDED
The City will need to coordinate with a Caltrans project
development team for all proposed projects within the Caltrans
right-of-way, including along the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing,
East Grand Avenue overcrossing, Brisco Road undercrossing, and
Oak Park Boulevard overcrossing. Any proposed improvements
on the State Highway System are conceptual and will require a
safety, operational, and/or warrant analysis prior to any Caltrans
approval.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 145Figure 5-2: Proposed Pedestrian Enhancement Areas
66
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN146
Table 5-3: Pedestrian Enhancement Recommendations
MAP
#STREET AT RECOMMENDATION
1 Arroyo Grande Creek Stanley Avenue Install a pedestrian bridge.
2 Ash Street Courtland Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
3 Ash Street Oak Park Boulevard to Elm Street Implement traffic calming measures.
4 Ash Street Elm Street to Alder Street Infill sidewalk gaps.
5 Ash Street Spruce Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
6 Brisco Road U.S. 101 undercrossing Consider conducting a new traffic study to improve multi-modal safety at
Brisco Road undercrossing.
7 Brisco Road Southwest of El Camino Real Infill sidewalk gaps.
8 Castillo del Mar Place Valley Boulevard to Orchard Infill sidewalk gaps.
9 Cherry Avenue Leedham Place Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
10 Coach Road or Flora
Road Arroyo Grande Creek Consider installing a bicycle/pedestrian crossing at either Coach Road or Flora
Road. A future study is needed to determine feasibility.
11 Corbett Canyon Road Huasna Road
Conduct a traffic study at this intersection to determine if a roundabout or
other traffic control device is warranted. Install LED stop signs and traffic
calming measures in the interim.
12 Crown Hill McKinley Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
13 Crown Hill E. Branch Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
14 Crown Terrace Le Pointe Street to Crown Hill Street Implement traffic calming measures.
15 Dodson Way Alder Street to Alpine Street Infill sidewalk gaps.
16 East Branch Street Le Point Terrace Install pedestrian improvements.
Install an east-west high-visibility crosswalk.
17 East Branch Street Short Street Consider upgrading the existing RRFB to have head-level flashing beacons.
18 East Grand Avenue Oak Park Boulevard to El Camino Real Implement traffic signal and timing improvements consistent with
the City’s Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR).
19 East Grand Avenue Juniper Street Consider pedestrian crossing improvements to enhance visibility, safety, and
comfort.
20 East Grand Avenue Alder Street Consider pedestrian crossing improvements to enhance visibility, safety, and
comfort.
21 East Grand Avenue Bell Street Consider a new pedestrian crossing and other improvements at Bell Street
consistent with SSAR.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 147
MAP
#STREET AT RECOMMENDATION
22 East Grand Avenue U.S. 101 overcrossing
In partnership with Caltrans, conduct a traffic study at the U.S. 101 overcrossing
to determine if a road diet or other multi-modal improvements are warranted to
improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety.
23 El Camino Real Oak Park Boulevard to Halcyon Road Upgrade to pedestrian countdown timers and video detection to identify
bicycles at traffic signals and intersections.
24 Elm Street Ash Street Install curb extensions.
25 Elm Street Poplar Street to Sunset Drive Infill sidewalk gaps.
26 Elm Street Pacific Pointe Way to The Pike Infill sidewalk gaps.
27 Fair Oaks Avenue Alder Street Consider intersection improvements, such as curb extensions and/or crosswalk
art.
28 Fair Oaks Avenue Elm Street Install high-visibility crosswalks at the north leg of the intersection and brighten
the crosswalk markings on the east leg.
29 Fair Oaks Avenue Orchard Street
Enhance crossing safety by adding curb extensions and LED stop signs.
Depending on sidewalk infill, crossing enhancements at the U.S. 101 SB exit, and
future land development, consider installing a N/S crossing. The crossing type
will be dependent on future development and associated pedestrian/bicycle
volumes.
30 Fair Oaks Avenue Orchard Street to Traffic Way Conduct a traffic study along Fair Oaks Avenue between Orchard Street and
Traffic Way to explore options for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety.
31 Fair Oaks Avenue Woodland Drive Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
32 Fair Oaks Avenue Woodland Drive to Station Way Infill sidewalk gaps.
33 Fair Oaks Avenue Valley Boulevard Install curb extensions.
34 Farroll Avenue Bakeman Lane (eastern intersection)Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
35 Farroll Avenue Elm Street Install curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks. Ensure consistency with
the Halcyon Complete Streets Project.
36 Farroll Avenue Carmella Drive Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
37 Farroll Road Halcyon Road Conduct crosswalk and ADA improvements.
Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
38 Halcyon Road Bennett Avenue Infill sidewalk gaps and consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
39 Halcyon Road Sandalwood Conduct crosswalk and ADA improvements.
40 Halcyon Road Sycamore Drive Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
41 Halcyon Road The Pike Install a high-visibility east-west crossing.
42 Huasna Road Maydock Street to eastern City limit Infill sidewalk gaps from Branch Street to east City limits.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN148
MAP
#STREET AT RECOMMENDATION
43 Huasna Road Rosewood Lane Consider installing curb extensions and other improvements for safe pedestrian
crossing.
44 Huasna Road Stagecoach Road Install a pedestrian refuge island and/or curb extensions. Opportunity to make
intersection more perpendicular to improve visibility and safety.
45 U.S. 101 Near Town Center Drive (north);
Stonecrest Drive (south)
Install a pedestrian bridge. Coordination will be needed between jurisdictions
for implementation.
46 James Way Equestrian Way Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
47 James Way La Canada Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
48 James Way Salida Del Sol Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
49 James Way Oak Park Road to Tally Ho Road Infill sidewalk gaps where missing and implement traffic calming measures near
parks, trailheads, and proposed crossings.
50 Mason Street Poole Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
51 Nelson Street Bridge Street; Short Street; Mason
Street Install a high-visibility crosswalk.
52 Oak Park Boulevard Branch Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
53 Oak Park Boulevard Farroll Avenue Implement a protected intersection and high-visibility crosswalks.
54 Orchard Street Cherry Avenue Install high-visibility crosswalks at all intersection legs.
55 Rancho Parkway Via Vaquero Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
56 Rodeo Drive Grace Lane Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
57 Station Way Fair Oaks Avenue to Traffic Way Infill sidewalk gaps.
58 Tally Ho Road James Way Install high-visibility crosswalks at all intersection legs.
59 Tally Ho Road Le Pointe Avenue Install a pedestrian bridge.
60 Tally Ho Road Printz Road to Mason Street
Infill sidewalk gaps on the south side of the street and consider installing
improvements where sidewalk gaps occur on one side to allow safe pedestrian
crossing.
61 The Pike Del Sol Street Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing. Opportunity to upgrade to
a raised crossing to slow traffic.
62 The Pike Elm Street
Opportunity to redesign intersection to improve safety and comfort. Redesign
may include removal of right-turn slip lane and the addition of signage, green
striping, and high-visibility crosswalks.
63 The Pike Garfield Place Consider improvements for safe pedestrian crossing.
64 Traffic Way Bridge Street Relocate the bus stop to Station Way or Bridge Street to allow ADA access.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 149
MAP
#STREET AT RECOMMENDATION
65 Traffic Way Cherry Avenue Consider installing an enhanced pedestrian crossing, such as an RRFB, PHB, and/or
pedestrian refuge island. Conduct a traffic study to determine the best treatment.
66 Traffic Way Nelson Street
Consider upgrading crossing by installing an RRFB or creating a new signalized
intersection. Add curb extension if space allows. Conduct a traffic study to
determine the best treatment.
67 Traffic Way Station Way Remove the free right turn. Opportunity to make intersection more
perpendicular to improve visibility and safety.
68 Valley Road Fair Oaks Avenue to southern City
limit Infill sidewalk gaps.
69 Valley Road Castillo Del Mar
Conduct a traffic study to determine the best treatment.
Conduct a traffic study at this intersection to determine if a roundabout or
other traffic control device is warranted.
70 West Branch Street East Grand Avenue to Rodeo Drive Infill sidewalk gaps on the north side.
Rodeo Drive Conduct a traffic study to determine the best treatment.
71 West Branch Street Bridge Street/Nevada Street
Add curb extensions to the existing crossing and consider upgrading the
existing RRFB to have head-level flashing beacons. Ensure RRFB is consistent
with improvements at Short Street.
72 West Branch Street Traffic Way
Opportunity to make intersection more perpendicular to improve visibility and
safety where the free-right turn onto southbound Traffic Way exists to reduce
the distance pedestrians need to cross. Placemaking opportunity for an interim
creative crosswalk with painted art.
Tighten the eastbound free right turn by expanding the corner island width to
create more of a pedestrian refuge space. Add rubber humps on the north edge
of the crossing to further enhance protection.
Conduct a traffic study at this intersection to determine if a roundabout or
other traffic control device is warranted.
Consider adding a crosswalk at the 4th leg of the intersection.
Install curb extensions at the north corners of the intersection.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN150
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 151
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughout the community engagement process, participants fre-
quently expressed the need for safe walking and bicycling routes to
schools in Arroyo Grande. Making it safe for students and their families
to walk, ride a bicycle, or use a mobility aid device to get to school is
a top priority for the City. To support and encourage active transpor-
tation to schools, the ATP proposes several bicycle, pedestrian, ADA,
and traffic calming recommendations for the areas surrounding the
following schools:
»Harloe Elementary School
»Ocean View Elementary School
»Fairgrove Elementary School
»Paulding Middle School
»Arroyo Grande High School
The City can use these recommendations to pursue funding and im-
plement SRTS projects at Arroyo Grande schools.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN152
HARLOE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Harloe Elementary School is located in the southern part of Arroyo
Grande. Between 2012 and 2022, there were seven pedestrian
collisions and eight bicycle collisions within a half-mile radius of Harloe
Elementary. Figure 5-3 displays SRTS recommendations for the five-
minute (quarter-mile) walk zone around Harloe Elementary School,
which include Class III bicycle routes, Class II bicycle lanes, and Class
IV separated bikeways/Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes* on the streets
leading to the school. Figure 5-3 also shows recommendations for
installing curb ramps and high-visibility crosswalk markings where
missing and retrofitting existing curb ramps to have truncated domes.
The City may consider additional improvements, such as curb
extensions and/or crosswalk art at Fair Oaks Avenue and Alder Street.
GRADE LEVELS:
K-6
NUMBER OF STUDENTS:
581
STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR
FREE OR REDUCED MEALS:
52.5%
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-
RELATED COLLISIONS
(2012-2022):
15
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Search for Public Schools.;
California Department of Education. (2023). 2022-23 California Longitudinal Pupil
Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1; Transportation Injury Mapping System.
Safe Routes to School Crash Data. (2012-2022)
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 153Figure 5-3: SRTS Recommendations: Harloe Elementary School
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN154
OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Ocean View Elementary School is located in the central-western part of
Arroyo Grande. Between 2012 and 2022, there were nine pedestrian
collisions and 17 bicycle collisions within a half-mile radius of Ocean
View Elementary. Figure 5-4 displays SRTS recommendations for the
five-minute (quarter-mile) walk zone around Ocean View Elementary
School, which include Class III bicycle routes, Class II bicycle lanes, and
Class IV separated bikeways/Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes* on the
streets leading to the school. Figure 5-4 also shows recommendations
for installing sidewalks, curb ramps, and high-visibility crosswalk
markings where missing; retrofitting existing curb ramps to have
truncated domes; and installing new LED stop signs. Additionally, the
Brisco Road/U.S. 101 undercrossing has been identified as a barrier
for safe walking and bicycling to school. Due to the complexity of this
undercrossing, a future traffic study is recommended to determine
appropriate solutions.
GRADE LEVELS:
K-6
NUMBER OF STUDENTS:
525
STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR
FREE OR REDUCED MEALS:
33.3%
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-
RELATED COLLISIONS
(2012-2022):
26
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Search for Public
Schools.; California Department of Education. (2023). 2022-23 California Longi-
tudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1; Transportation Injury
Mapping System. Safe Routes to School Crash Data. (2012-2022)
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 155Figure 5-4: SRTS Recommendations: Ocean View Elementary School
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN156
FAIRGROVE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Fairgrove Elementary School is located just outside the western city
limit, however, a significant number of students reside in Arroyo Grande.
Between 2012 and 2022, there were five pedestrian collisions and
12 bicycle collisions within a half-mile radius of Fairgrove Elementary.
Though the school is outside city limits, part of the route students take
to get there is in Arroyo Grande. As a result, SRTS recommendations
were developed to improve the route for students traveling from
Arroyo Grande to Fairgrove Elementary. Figure 5-5 displays SRTS
recommendations for the five-minute (quarter-mile) walk zone around
Fairgrove Elementary School, which include installing improvements
for safe pedestrian crossing, such as high-visibility crosswalk markings,
an LED stop sign, and an RRFB, if warranted.
GRADE LEVELS:
K-6
NUMBER OF STUDENTS:
386
STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR
FREE OR REDUCED MEALS:
62.7%
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-
RELATED COLLISIONS
(2012-2022):
17
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Search for Public
Schools.; California Department of Education. (2023). 2022-23 California Longi-
tudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1; Transportation Injury
Mapping System. Safe Routes to School Crash Data. (2012-2022)
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 157Figure 5-5: SRTS Recommendations: Fairgrove Elementary School
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN158
PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL
Paulding Middle School is located in the northeastern part of Arroyo
Grande. Between 2012 to 2022, there were 12 pedestrian collisions
and five bicycle collisions within a half-mile radius of Paulding Middle.
Figure 5-6 displays SRTS recommendations for the five-minute (quarter-
mile) walk zone around Paulding Middle School, including Class III
bicycle routes, Class II bicycle lanes, Class IV separated bikeways/
Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes*, and Class I multi-use paths. Figure
5-6 also shows recommendations for installing curb ramps and high-
visibility crosswalk markings where missing; retrofitting existing curb
ramps to have truncated domes; installing an LED stop sign and speed
feedback sign; and considering improvements for safe pedestrian
crossing, such as an RRFB and PHB, if warranted. Additionally, a future
traffic study is recommended to explore options for improving multi-
modal safety at the Huasna Road/Corbett Canyon Road intersection.
GRADE LEVELS:
7-8
NUMBER OF STUDENTS:
536
STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR
FREE OR REDUCED MEALS:
46.6%
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-
RELATED COLLISIONS
(2012-2022):
17
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Search for Public
Schools.; California Department of Education. (2023). 2022-23 California Longi-
tudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1; Transportation Injury
Mapping System. Safe Routes to School Crash Data. (2012-2022)
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 159Figure 5-6: SRTS Recommendations: Paulding Middle School
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN160
ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL
Arroyo Grande High School is located in the central-eastern part of
Arroyo Grande. Between 2012 to 2022, there was one pedestrian
collision and four bicycle collisions within a half-mile radius of Arroyo
Grande High. Figure 5-7 displays SRTS recommendations for the five-
minute (quarter-mile) walk zone around Arroyo Grande High School,
including Class III bicycle routes, Class IV separated bikeways/Class
IIB buffered bicycle lanes*, and Class I multi-use paths. Figure 5-7 also
shows recommendations for installing curb ramps and high-visibility
crosswalk markings where missing; retrofitting existing curb ramps to
have truncated domes; and installing a new LED stop sign and speed
feedback sign. Additionally, a traffic study is recommended to explore
options for improving multi-modal safety between Orchard Street and
Traffic Way.
In addition to the infrastructure recommendations shown in Figure 5-7,
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements are needed along
Valley Road leading to Arroyo Grande High School from outside of the
southern city limit. While outside of city limits, some students travel
from the Arroyo Grande Mesa to Arroyo Grande High School and lack
safe active transportation facilities. As a result, this ATP recommends
that the City:
»Explore opportunities to partner with the County to improve bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure for people traveling to Arroyo Grande
High School from outside of the southern city limit.
»Explore opportunities to partner with the County to reconfigure the
existing S-curve along Valley Road to reduce vehicular speeding
and improve safety and visibility for bicyclists. In the interim,
advocate for the implementation of traffic calming measures.
GRADE LEVELS:
9-12
NUMBER OF STUDENTS:
1,991
STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR
FREE OR REDUCED MEALS:
47.5%
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-
RELATED COLLISIONS
(2012-2022):
5
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Search for Public
Schools.; California Department of Education. (2023). 2022-23 California Longi-
tudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) Fall 1; Transportation Injury
Mapping System. Safe Routes to School Crash Data. (2012-2022)
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 161Figure 5-7: SRTS Recommendations: Arroyo Grande High School
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN162
FUTURE TRAFFIC STUDIES
In addition to the proposed bicycle, pedestrian, ADA, and SRTS
improvements, there are several key areas in need of future traffic
studies due to their importance and complexity. The following
intersections (shown in Figure 5-8) will require individual traffic studies
to identify solutions that will facilitate safe multi-modal transportation:
»Brisco Road/U.S. 101 Undercrossing: Partner with Caltrans to iden-
tify options for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety.
»Coach Road or Flora Road Connection: Evaluate the feasibility
of installing a publicly accessible bicycle/pedestrian route with a
crossing over Arroyo Grande Creek on Coach Road or Flora Road.
»Corbett Canyon Road/Huasna Road: Determine if a roundabout or
other traffic control device is warranted.
»East Cherry Path to Village: Explore opportunities to establish a
publicly accessible bicycle/pedestrian route to connect the Branch
Mill neighborhood to the Village.
»East Grand Avenue/U.S. 101 Overcrossing: Partner with Caltrans
to determine if a road diet or other multi-modal improvements are
warranted.
»Fair Oaks Avenue/U.S. 101 Overcrossing/Traffic Way: Partner with
Caltrans to identify options for improving bicycle and pedestrian
safety.
»Le Point Street to Larchmont Drive Bicycle Path: Explore oppor-
tunities to create a publicly accessible bicycle route to connect Le
Point Street to Larchmont Drive.
»West Branch Street/Traffic Way Intersection: Determine if a round-
about or other traffic control device is warranted.
Fair Oaks Avenue and Traffic Way Intersection
NOTE: FUTURE COORDINATION WITH CALTRANS IS NEEDED
The City will need to collaborate with a Caltrans project
development team for all proposed traffic studies within
the Caltrans right-of-way, including the Fair Oaks Avenue
overcrossing, East Grand Avenue overcrossing, and Brisco
Road undercrossing.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 163Figure 5-8: Future Traffic Study Areas
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN164
PRIORITY PROJECTS
Three planning-level conceptual drawings were developed for priority
projects to streamline future funding pursuits and project implemen-
tation. The three corridors shown in Figure 5-9 and Table 5-4 were
selected for several reasons, including their role in providing connec-
tions to schools, parks, and commercial destinations; their need for
safety improvements; their importance to the community; and more.
Conceptual drawings include proposed bicycle facilities, pedestrian
and ADA enhancements, and traffic calming measures to facilitate
safe and comfortable active transportation along key corridors. The
following section summarizes the infrastructure recommendations
proposed for three priority projects. The planning-level conceptual
drawings are provided in Appendix D.
STREET BETWEEN LENGTH
(MILES)FROM TO
E. Grand Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Branch Street 1.68
Elm Street Linda Drive City Limit 1.05
Fair Oaks Avenue Elm Street Traffic Way 1.59
Table 5-4: Priority Projects
East Grand Avenue
Elm Street
Fair Oaks Avenue
NOTE: FUTURE COORDINATION WITH CALTRANS IS NEEDED
The City will need to collaborate with a Caltrans project devel-
opment team for all proposed projects within the Caltrans right-
of-way, including along the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing and
East Grand Avenue overcrossing. Any proposed improvements
on the State Highway System are conceptual and will require a
safety, operational, and/or warrant analysis prior to any Caltrans
approval.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 165Figure 5-9: Priority Projects
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN166
PRIORITY PROJECT 1: E. GRAND AVENUE
START:
END:
LENGTH:
AT A GLANCE:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed Bicycle Facilities:
»Class IV separated bikeways/Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes are
recommended throughout the corridor.* In areas where Class IV
separated bikeways cannot be accommodated, such as along
driveways, Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes are recommended.
»Green conflict striping is proposed across intersections to alert driv-
ers that bicyclists may be crossing and encourage slower vehicular
speeds during merge conditions.
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities:
»Where missing:
»Install high-visibility crosswalks
»Retrofit existing curb ramps without detectable warnings to
have truncated domes
»Install new curb ramps with truncated domes
»Implement traffic signal and timing improvements consistent with
the City’s Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR).
»Consider pedestrian crossing improvements to enhance visibility,
safety, and comfort at Juniper Street and Alder Street.
»Consider a new pedestrian crossing and other improvements at
Bell Street consistent with SSAR.
»Consider implementing a protected intersection at the East Grand
Avenue/Elm Street intersection.
Other Recommendations:
»Conduct a traffic study to determine the feasibility of implementing
a road diet to create a bicycle-and-pedestrian-friendly commercial
corridor.
»Partner with Caltrans to conduct a traffic study at the U.S. 101 over-
crossing to determine if a road diet and/or other multi-modal im-
provements are warranted to improve bicyclist and pedestrian
safety.
Oak Park Boulevard
Branch Street
1.68 miles
EXISTING CONDITIONS
East Grand Avenue is a 4-lane arterial that runs east to west with a
posted speed limit of 35 mph. East Grand Avenue passes over U.S.
101, connects Arroyo Grande to Grover Beach, and contains a vari-
ety of retail, restaurant, office, service, and entertainment uses. The
corridor has ten bus stops, two vehicle travel lanes per direction, a
center turn lane, and is controlled by five signalized intersections. On-
street parallel parking is permitted intermittently throughout the corri-
dors with parking prohibited in many areas. Class II bicycle lanes exist
along portions of the corridor with gaps near Brisco Road and east of
Halcyon Road. Nine pedestrian and 21 bicyclist collisions were report-
ed on the corridor between 2012 and 2022.
0SCHOOLS
9PEDESTRIANCOLLISIONS
0PARKS
21BICYCLIST COLLISIONS
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 167
»Consider removing or restricting street parking in some segments
(where necessary and not heavily utilized) to accommodate bicycle
facilities. See Appendix D for proposed removal.
»Consider collaborating with SLO RTA to move bus stops where ad-
ditional curb space is available. See Appendix D for proposed re-
location.
»Explore bicycle and pedestrian improvements for streets parallel
to Grande Avenue as alternative corridors for active transportation.
»New curb cuts for driveways along East Grand Avenue should not
be installed where vehicular access is provided from side streets or
existing driveways. Where possible, driveways should be eliminat-
ed and replaced by City standard curb, gutter, and sidewalk.
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway/
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
Existing Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Proposed Pedestrian and ADA Enhancement
Install Curb Ramp
Install Truncated Domes
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Infill Sidewalk Gap
Install Curb Extensions
Install PHB or RRFB
Install LED Stop Sign
Install Speed Feedback Sign
Other
Traffic Study Needed
East Grand Avenue (Oak Park Boulevard to Elm Street)
E. GRAND AVE.E. GRAND AVE.OAK PARK BLVD.OAK PARK BLVD.COURTLAND ST.COURTLAND ST.JUNIPER ST.JUNIPER ST.ELM ST.ELM ST.Consider pedestrian crossing
improvements to enhance
visibility, safety, and comfort.
Modify traffic signal and timing (reflective back-
plates, push buttons, leading pedestrian intervals,
clearance values, etc.).
Consider protected intersection at Elm Street.
Widening and median reconstruction required.
Consider removing
street parking to
accommodate
bicycle facilities. See
Appendix D.
Consider removing
right turn lane
to accommodate
bicycle facilities.Consider restricting
northbound left turn
and replacing with a
pedestrian refuge island.
Notes:
»The Circulation Element identified East Grand Avenue from Oak
Park Boulevard to El Camino Real as a future Streetscape Project
and study area.
»The Circulation Element identified the East Grand Avenue/El Cami-
no Real intersection as a location for a new traffic signal or round-
about.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN168
East Grand Avenue (Halcyon Road to Branch Street)ALPINE ST.ALPINE ST.EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REALBELL ST.BELL ST.OAK ST.OAK ST.W. BR
A
N
C
H
S
T
.
W. BR
A
N
C
H
S
T
.
U.S. 101U.S. 101E. GRAND AVE.E. GRAND AVE.RENA ST.RENA ST.Proposed Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway/
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
Existing Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Proposed Pedestrian and ADA Enhancement
Install Curb Ramp
Install Truncated Domes
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Infill Sidewalk Gap
Install Curb Extensions
Install PHB or RRFB
Install LED Stop Sign
Install Speed Feedback Sign
Other
Traffic Study Needed
East Grand Avenue (Elm Street to Halcyon Road)
E. GRA
N
D
A
V
E
.
E. GRA
N
D
A
V
E
.HALCYON RD.HALCYON RD. Consider pedestrian crossing
improvements to enhance visibility,
safety, and comfort. Consider removing
right turn lane
to accommodate
bicycle facilities.
Consider
removing
eastbound
right turn
lane to
accommodate
bicycle
facilities.
Consider pedestrian
crossing and improvements
at Bell Street consistent
with SSAR.
Construct signal or roundabout
at East Grand Avenue/El Camino
Real consistent with Circulation
Element.
In coordination with the El Camino Real
intersection improvements, restrict left turns
from Rena Street to Oak Street with median
to accomodate Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes
or Class IV separated bikeways. Alternatively,
consider road diet from Rena Street to Oak Street.
Modify traffic signal and timing
(reflective backplates, push
buttons, clearance values, etc.).
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 169
PRIORITY PROJECT 2: ELM STREET
START:
END:
LENGTH:
AT A GLANCE:
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Elm Street runs north to south with posted speed limits between 25
and 35 mph. The corridor is classified as a local street (north of E.
Grand Avenue), a 4-lane arterial (from E. Grand Avenue to Ash Street),
and a 2-lane arterial (from Ash Street to the city limit). Land uses along
Elm Street include single and multi-family residential, mixed-use, and
community facilities. Key destinations along this corridor include Soto
Park, Elm Street Dog Park, and Ocean View Elementary School. Elm
Street ranges from one or two vehicle lanes per direction with a center
turn lane provided between Ash Street and Farroll Avenue. Elm Street
is controlled by one signalized intersection and four stop-controlled
intersections. On-street parallel parking is permitted along most of the
corridor. The corridor has Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes from Ash
Street to Farroll Avenue and six bus stops. Four pedestrian and three
bicyclist collisions were reported on this segment between 2012 and
2022.
1SCHOOL
4PEDESTRIANCOLLISIONS
2PARKS
3BICYCLIST COLLISIONS
Linda Drive
Branch Street
1.05 miles
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Proposed Bicycle Facilities:
»A Class III bicycle route is recommended between Linda Drive and
East Grand Avenue. Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes are recom-
mended from East Grand Avenue to Ash Street and from Farroll
Avenue to the southern city limit.
»Green conflict striping is proposed across intersections to alert driv-
ers that bicyclists may be crossing and encourage slower vehicular
speeds during merge conditions.
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities:
»Where missing:
»Install high-visibility crosswalks
»Retrofit existing curb ramps without detectable warnings to
have truncated domes.
»Install new curb ramps with truncated domes
»Infill sidewalk gaps near Sunset Drive and Lancaster Drive.
»Install curb extensions where Elm Street intersects with Ash Street
and Farroll Avenue.
»Consider redesigning Elm Street/The Pike intersection to improve
safety and comfort. Redesign may include removal of right-turn slip
lane and the addition of signage, green striping, and high-visibility
crosswalks.
»Implement traffic signal and timing improvements consistent with
the City’s SSAR at the Elm Street/East Grand Avenue intersection.
»Consider a protected intersection at the East Grand Avenue/Elm
Street intersection.
Other
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN170
Elm Street (Linda Drive to Poplar Street)
Elm Street (Poplar Street to Fair Oaks Avenue)
ELM ST.ELM ST.LINDA DR.LINDA DR.ELM ST.ELM ST.ELM ST.ELM ST.BRIGHTON AVE.BRIGHTON AVE.E. GRAND AVE.E. GRAND AVE.SUNSET DR.SUNSET DR.POPLAR ST.POPLAR ST.MAPLE ST.MAPLE ST.ASH ST.ASH ST.FAIR OAKS AVE.FAIR OAKS AVE.ASPEN ST.ASPEN ST.
ASPEN ST.ASPEN ST.
ELM ST.ELM ST.
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway/
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
Existing Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Proposed Pedestrian and ADA Enhancement
Install Curb Ramp
Install Truncated Domes
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Infill Sidewalk Gap
Install Curb Extensions
Install PHB or RRFB
Install LED Stop Sign
Install Speed Feedback Sign
Other
Traffic Study Needed
Consider protected intersection at
Elm Street. Widening and median
reconstruction required.
Consider a road diet from Grand Avenue
to Ash Street to increase space for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities while
maintaining on-street parking.
Consider a road diet from Grand Avenue
to Ash Street to increase space for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities while
maintaining on-street parking.
Modify traffic signal and timing
(reflective backplates, push
buttons, leading pedestrian
intervals, clearance values, etc.).
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 171
Elm Street (Fair Oaks Avenue to The Pike)
Elm Street (The Pike to City Limit)
ELM ST.ELM ST.
ELM ST.ELM ST.FARROLL AVE.FARROLL AVE.THE PIKETHE PIKEBRITTANY DR.BRITTANY DR.CAROL PL.CAROL PL.LA VISTA CT.LA VISTA CT.PACIFIC POINTE PACIFIC POINTE WAYWAYPAUL PL.PAUL PL.BASIN ST.BASIN ST.LANCASTER DR.LANCASTER DR.Opportunity to redesign intersection to
improve safety and comfort. Redesign may
include removal of right-turn slip lane and
the addition of signage, green striping, and
high-visibility crosswalks.
Other Proposed Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway/
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
Existing Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Proposed Pedestrian and ADA Enhancement
Install Curb Ramp
Install Truncated Domes
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Infill Sidewalk Gap
Install Curb Extensions
Install PHB or RRFB
Install LED Stop Sign
Install Speed Feedback Sign
Other
Traffic Study Needed
Consider a road diet from Farroll
Avenue to The Pike increase
space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities while maintaining on-
street parking.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN172
START:
END:
LENGTH:
AT A GLANCE:
PRIORITY PROJECT 3: FAIR OAKS AVENUE RECOMMENDATIONS:
Proposed Bicycle Facilities:
»Class IV separated bikeways/Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes are
recommended from Woodland Drive to Traffic Way.* In areas where
Class IV separated bikeways cannot be accommodated, such as
along driveways, Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes are recommended.
»Green conflict striping is proposed across intersections to alert driv-
ers that bicyclists may be crossing and encourage slower vehicular
speeds during merge conditions.
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities:
»Where missing:
»Install high-visibility crosswalks.
»Retrofit existing curb ramps without detectable warnings to
have truncated domes.
»Install new curb ramps with truncated domes.
»Infill sidewalk gaps between Woodland Drive and Station Way.
»Consider installing a safe pedestrian crossing at Woodland Drive.
»Install curb extensions at Valley Road and consider a roundabout or
protected intersection.
»Install curb extensions and LED stop signs at Orchard Street.
»Install a speed feedback sign to alert drivers heading eastbound
toward Arroyo Grande High School.
Other Recommendations:
»Conduct a traffic study between Valley Road and Traffic Way to ex-
plore options for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Notes:
»A roundabout will be installed at Halcyon Road as part of the Halcy-
on Complete Streets Project.
»The Circulation Element identified Fair Oaks Avenue (from Woodland
Drive and Traffic Way) as a future Complete Streets Project.
»Active transportation improvements may change pending future
development plans, road modifications, intersection improvements
at Fair Oaks Avenue and SB U.S. 101 off-ramp, and/or traffic studies.
2SCHOOLS
3PEDESTRIANCOLLISIONS
2PARKS
8BICYCLIST COLLISIONS
Elm Street
Traffic Way
1.59 miles
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Fair Oaks Avenue runs east to west with posted speed limits between
30 and 40 mph. The corridor is classified as a 2-lane arterial (from
Elm Street to Woodland Drive) and a 4-lane arterial (from Woodland
Drive to Traffic Way). Land uses along Fair Oaks Avenue include single
and multi-family residential, professional offices, agriculture, mixed-
use, and community facilities. Key destinations on this corridor include
Soto Park, Elm Street Dog Park, Harloe Elementary School, Arroyo
Grande High School, and the Arroyo Grande Community Hospital. Fair
Oaks Avenue ranges from one or two vehicle lanes per direction with
a center turn lane provided between Halcyon Road and Woodland
Drive. The corridor is controlled by four signalized intersections and
four stop-controlled intersections. On-street parallel parking is permit-
ted intermittently throughout the corridor. Fair Oaks Avenue contains
four bus stops and Class II bicycle lanes. Three pedestrian and eight
bicyclist collisions were reported between 2012 and 2022.
*Determination of whether a Class IV or Class IIB bicycle facility is installed will be based on considerations for cost, maintenance, and availability of adequate right-of-way to install the improvements.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 173
Fair Oaks Avenue (Elm Street to Alder Street)
Fair Oaks Avenue (Alder Street to Arroyo Grande Creek)
FAIR OAKS AVE.FAIR OAKS AVE.
FAIR OAKS AVE.FAIR OAKS AVE.ELM ST.ELM ST.WALNUT ST.WALNUT ST.ALDER ST.ALDER ST.PECAN ST.PECAN ST.BEECH ST.BEECH ST.HALCYON RD.HALCYON RD.WOODLAND DR.WOODLAND DR.ARROYO GRANDE ARROYO GRANDE CREEKCREEKTODD LN.TODD LN.Planned Roundabout
(Halcyon Complete Streets Project)
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway/
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
Existing Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Proposed Pedestrian and ADA Enhancement
Install Curb Ramp
Install Truncated Domes
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Infill Sidewalk Gap
Install Curb Extensions
Install PHB or RRFB
Install LED Stop Sign
Install Speed Feedback Sign
Other
Traffic Study Needed
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN174
Fair Oaks Avenue (Arroyo Grande Creek to Valley Road)
Fair Oaks Avenue (Valley Road to Traffic Way)FAIR OAKS AVE.FAIR OAKS AVE.VALLEY RD.VALLEY RD.CALIFORNIA ST.CALIFORNIA ST.TRAFFIC WAYTRAFFIC WAYSTATION STATION WAYWAYE. CHERRY AVE.E. CHERRY AVE.
FAIR OAKS AVE.FAIR OAKS AVE.ORCHARD ST.ORCHARD ST.Consider a road diet from
Woodland Drive to Valley Road
to increase space for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities while
maintaining on-street parking.
Note: The City is
exploring intersection
improvements at the
entrance of the school
parking lot.
Proposed Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway/
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane*
Existing Bicycle Facility
Class I Multi-use Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Proposed Pedestrian and ADA Enhancement
Install Curb Ramp
Install Truncated Domes
Install High-Visibility Crosswalk
Infill Sidewalk Gap
Install Curb Extensions
Install PHB or RRFB
Install LED Stop Sign
Install Speed Feedback Sign
Other
Traffic Study Needed
Consider a protected
intersection or a
roundabout.
Future development along Fair Oaks Avenue should integrate
active transportation facilities, including safe bicycle and
pedestrian connections to Arroyo Grande High School.
Coordinate improvements
along Fair Oaks Avenue with
any future modifications to
the U.S. 101 off-ramp.
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 175Photo Source: Namu Williams
Other
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN176
PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATIONS
While infrastructure projects represent the most visible and perhaps
most tangible evidence of a walkable and bikeable city, they are
brought to life by programs and events that encourage people to use
them. The proposed infrastructure improvements outlined at the be-
ginning of this chapter provide the foundation for a safe and conven-
ient active transportation system. However, encouraging proper and
widespread use of these facilities requires extra efforts in the way of
programs, design elements, education, and more. Bicycle and pedes-
trian infrastructure projects are increasingly paired with encourage-
ment and education programs to generate community excitement and
promote walking and bicycling as attractive travel options.
The following programs are organized as a menu of recommendations
for the City to consider throughout the implementation of this ATP.
The programmatic recommendations are organized by the “Six E’s”
of transportation planning developed by the Safe Routes Partnership:
Encouragement, Education, Equity, Enforcement, Engineering, and
Evaluation.
Photo Source: SLOCOG
COLLABORATION IS KEY
Creating a walkable and bikeable Arroyo Grande will require an
all-hands-on-deck approach that leverages partnerships with
local organizations, agencies, and businesses, such as:
»Arroyo Grande Police
Department
»Bike SLO County
»Caltrans, District 5
»City of Grover Beach
»City of Pismo Beach
»County of San Luis Obispo
»Lucia Mar School District
»SLOCOG
»SLO RTA
»SoCo Transit
»South County Chamber of
Commerce
...and more!
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 177
ENCOURAGEMENT
Vehicle usage can be decreased in part by actively encouraging resi-
dents and visitors to walk, ride a bicycle, and take transit for a variety
of trips and purposes. Encouragement is all about making walking, bi-
cycling, and transit more fun, healthy, and easy to do. To achieve this,
the City, along with local partners, can organize activities and events
that promote active transportation.
Participate in National Bike Month
Participate in National Bike Month by hosting a community activity,
such as a Bike Breakfast, Bike to Work Day, Bike Fridays, etc. During
May, cities across the country organize events and campaigns to ed-
ucate people about bicycling and to encourage them to ride a bicycle
more to their destinations.
Host Guided Walks, Hikes, and Bike Rides
Host guided walks, hikes, and bicycle rides to encourage trail, pedes-
trian, and bicycle facility usage in a safe and welcoming setting (e.g.,
Bike SLO County’s ‘Kidical Mass’ event). Events can be promoted as
tours to local destinations, such as parks, trailheads, or the Village.
Events should include helpful tips about road safety and trail use and
can be geared towards certain age groups (e.g., family-friendly, sen-
iors, etc.) or skill levels.
Hold a Ride and Walk of Lights
Hold a winter evening family-friendly walk and bike ride where partici-
pants use battery lights and/or bike lights to be more visible.
Host Walking Tours
Host family-friendly themed walks where participants have the oppor-
tunity to explore key locations including historical buildings, parks, mu-
rals, and businesses.
Host Food-Focused Bike Rides
Host food-focused bike ride events where participants get together
to enjoy food and patron local businesses while cruising through the
city’s streets. These events are an innovative way to bridge bike riding
with community building.
Continue to Host 5K Running/
Walking Events
Continue to host free five-kilo-
meter running and walking
events, such as the Turkey Trot
Fun Run. These events are an
excellent way to encourage
people to explore their city on
foot. Post-race refreshments and
healthy snacks can be provided to
participants.
Host Open Streets Events
Host an Open Streets Event by temporarily
closing a street to motorists and opening it for
active transportation. Open Streets Events allow for
the reclamation of public space for community gathering, play, and
movement. Open Streets Events encourages physical activity, increas-
es local business, and has a positive social impact on the community.
These events can include live music, public art installations, outdoor
games, food vendors, exercise classes, bicycle repair stations, etc.
Promote Walk and Bike to School Days
Partner with the Lucia Mar Unified School District and SLOCOG/
Rideshare to promote a ‘Walk to School Day’ and a ‘Bike to School
Day’ that gives students and families the opportunity to socialize, start
the day off with enthusiasm, and build connections with other mem-
bers of the community. Fairgrove Elementary and Harloe Elementary
both participated in 2024.
Encourage Schools to Create a ‘Bike Bus’
Encourage local schools to create a ‘Bike Bus’ to facilitate fun and safe
bicycling to school. Bike buses are led by a “bus driver”—an adult on a
bike— who guides a slowly moving group of bicyclists along a prede-
fined route to school. Kids and their families can join the group as they
pass by on their way to school.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN178
Create a Public Map of Bicycle
Facilities and Trails
Develop a public-facing map of bicy-
cle facilities and trails to help com-
munity members plan active trans-
portation routes throughout the city.
Run Creative Campaigns and
Challenges
Continue to run interactive campaigns and
challenges to encourage walking, bicycling,
and public transit in Arroyo Grande.
Encourage Bike-friendly Businesses
Encourage local businesses, such as coffee shops, restaurants, stores,
and hotels, to become bike-friendly businesses to encourage people
to ride and support the local economy. Bike-friendly elements include
but are not limited to bicycle parking or storage, bicycle maps or
information, bicycle repair or fix-it stations, and air pumps. Incentivize
local businesses to provide discounts to patrons who arrive at their
business by walking or bicycling.
Coordinate with SLO RTA and SoCo Transit to Improve First-
Last Mile Mobility
Coordinate with SLO RTA and SoCo Transit to improve active trans-
portation facilities along bus routes to help address the first-last mile
problem (i.e., the distance between a bus stop and the final destina-
tion) that often deters people from taking public transit. Examples of
improvements include installing safe and comfortable bicycle facilities
connecting bus stops to common destinations and other improve-
ments to the built environment, such as landscaping, pedestrian-scale
lighting, shade trees, and access to parks and recreation amenities.
Where feasible, improve bus stop conditions such as adding bus shel-
ters, lighting, and seating.
EDUCATION
Pedestrian and bicyclist safety can be improved through public edu-
cation campaigns and workshops. These education campaigns can
help teach motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists how to share the
road safely. Educational programs can be incorporated into regularly
scheduled programs, such as the City’s Recreation Services programs,
hosted as stand-alone events, or held as a multi-part series. The City is
encouraged to partner with local agencies and organizations, such as
Bike SLO County and SLOCOG, on public education programs.
Promote Motorist-targeted Messaging
Explore areas to install educational signage (temporary or permanent)
to inform motorists of pedestrian and bicycling safety. Such messag-
ing should encourage drivers to be more cognizant when sharing the
road with bicyclists.
Launch a Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Campaign
Conduct an ongoing pedestrian and bicycle safety education cam-
paign to increase community-wide awareness and knowledge of how
to safely share the road with users of different transportation modes.
A campaign may include tabling at community events, hosting edu-
cational workshops, posting educational messaging on social media,
installing informational signage, and more.
Provide Family Bicycling Education
Provide family-friendly interactive training and infrastructure tours to
increase the confidence of pedestrians and bicyclists. Participants can
receive free helmets and bike lights and are taught about the bicycle
rules of the road, and how to be visible and predictable when riding.
Host Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Workshops
Collaborate with Bike SLO County to host workshops that teach hab-
its, skills, and tips for walking, hiking, and bicycling safely and comfort-
ably. Workshops can cover lessons on street signs and infrastructure;
rules and responsibilities of the road; “on-bike” maneuvers; and more.
Giveaways, such as free helmets, bicycle lights, or reflective gear,
should be provided to support safe walking and bicycling.
Photo Source: Bike SLO County
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 179
Host Bicycle Maintenance Workshops
Collaborate with Bike SLO County to host bicycle maintenance and
ride workshops to teach riders how to fix and ride a bicycle as well as
how to navigate the rules of the road. Workshops can be geared to-
ward youth and/or adults. These workshops can offer giveaway items,
such as a bicycle, helmet, lights, or repair tools.
Host Safety Assemblies and On-Bike Education at Schools
Encourage the Lucia Mar School District to collaborate with Bike SLO
County to provide on-bike education programs for fourth and fifth
grade students during physical education and to host safety assem-
blies that teach students foundational safety information, including the
rules of the road and how to safely walk and ride a bicycle.
Host Pedestrian and Bike Traffic Safety Fairs
Collaborate with Bike SLO County to host an obstacle course to teach
pedestrians and bicyclists how to identify different street signs and
how to use street infrastructure to increase safety. Youth and children
navigate the obstacle course to win free helmets and lights.
EQUITY
The ATP seeks to address and remove barriers to the safe and easy
use of pedestrian, bicycle, and public transit facilities for recreation
and transportation. Projects should be prioritized in the areas with the
greatest need for multi-modal transportation solutions or recreational
resources. In addition to constructing projects in underserved areas, it
is important to integrate universal and accessible design features into
new projects, to the greatest extent possible. Efforts to advance eq-
uitable access to high-quality, well-maintained, and enjoyable pedes-
trian, bicycle, and public transit facilities are essential to a successful
multi-modal transportation system.
Consider the Transportation Needs of Traditionally Under-
served Populations
Recognize the importance of addressing the barriers that prevent trips
from being safe, especially for the youth, elderly, disabled, and low-
er-income populations who cannot afford, operate, or choose to forgo
vehicle ownership.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN180
Prioritize Projects in Underserved Areas
Implement improvements in areas that are disproportionately affected
by health and safety burdens, acknowledging that policies and de-
signs that improve conditions for vulnerable groups can benefit every-
one in the community.
Encourage Public Involvement
Continue to engage community members throughout ATP implemen-
tation and monitoring.
Distribute Walking, Hiking, and Bicycling Equipment
Secure funding to distribute free equipment to support safe and easy
walking, hiking, and bicycling in Arroyo Grande. Equipment can in-
clude free bicycles, helmets, lights, first aid kits, etc.
ENFORCEMENT
Pedestrian and bicycle-related collisions are often a result of road user
error, such as a vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle failing to follow the rules
of the road. While education is an essential first step towards improv-
ing collective understanding and awareness of how to properly share
the road and interact with new active transportation infrastructure,
enforcement can help reinforce the importance of pedestrian and bi-
cycle safety. City staff can collaborate with the Police Department to
ensure officers receive training on pedestrian and bicycle issues and
solutions, as well as best practices for enforcement.
Collaborate with Law Enforcement to Promote Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety
Partner with law enforcement to promote pedestrian and bicycle safe-
ty. Collaboration may include targeted enforcement to educate driv-
ers, bicyclists, and pedestrians about applicable traffic laws and the
need to share the road. This effort may include developing a brochure
or tip card explaining each road user’s rights and responsibilities and
selecting a designated law enforcement liaison to address pedestrian
and bicycle safety issues and concerns.
Launch a “Share the Road” Campaign
Educate motorists on how to share the road with non-motorists and
new bicycle and pedestrian or traffic calming infrastructure.
Hold Speed Enforcement Campaigns
Place speed feedback trailers at specific locations where pedestrians
and bicyclists are frequently present. Speed feedback trailers help to
reduce speeding by warning motorists of their current speed and in-
structing them to slow down if they are going above the speed limit.
Establish a Process for Schools to Report Safety Issues
Establish a communication process that encourages students and par-
ents to notify the school and law enforcement of the occurrence of a
crash or near-miss during school commute trips involving auto, bus,
pedestrian, or bicycle transportation.
Photo Source: SLOCOG
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 181
ENGINEERING
A variety of engineering tools can be used to make sure that the road-
ways in Arroyo Grande are designed to keep bicyclists and pedestri-
ans safe at all times while maintaining efficient travel throughout the
city. Some of these tools include street design techniques that are
meant to reduce traffic congestion, decrease vehicular speeds, and
enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety and comfort. Some examples
of engineering and traffic enhancements that provide a safer environ-
ment for pedestrians and bicyclists include:
»Traffic control signs
»Curb and high visibility pavement markings
»Signal timing
»Parking controls
»Traffic safety monitoring
Implement Quick-Build Demonstration Projects
Design and install quick-build active transportation infrastructure us-
ing temporary materials to test a new facility type in the community.
Quick-build projects can be used to educate residents about potential
bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic calming facilities and collect community
input before construction. Quick-build projects may include but are
not limited to curb extensions, sidewalks, midblock crossings, Class IV
separated bikeways, and parklets. For example, the City may choose
to pilot Class IV separated bikeways along East Grand Avenue as a
quick-build project before investing in more permanent construction.
Many grant programs provide funding specifically for quick-build
demonstration projects, such as the Road to Zero Community Traffic
Safety Grant Program, the Clean Mobility Options Grant Program, and
the Community Spark Grant Program. The City is encouraged to pur-
sue and leverage grant funding opportunities for quick-build projects
in Arroyo Grande.
EVALUATION
Regular evaluation is necessary to monitor, maintain, and improve
active transportation facilities in Arroyo Grande. Additionally, sharing
and addressing evaluation findings with the public can help promote
transparency and accountability for the City. The following examples
include ways the City can evaluate programs and infrastructure.
Establish an Active Transportation Advisory Committee
Consider creating an Active Transportation Advisory Committee to
provide oversight for the ongoing implementation of this ATP and
planning and promoting active transportation. Many municipalities
have developed similar advisory committees to address issues and
opportunities related to walking, bicycling, and transit. This group can
support City staff collaboration with residents and community partners
to address issues and monitor ATP implementation.
Conduct Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts
Conduct regular bicyclist and pedestrian counts throughout Arroyo
Grande to determine baseline mode share and subsequent changes
in travel behavior as the ATP is implemented. Conducting counts
would allow the City to understand active transportation trends
throughout Arroyo Grande and identify where walking and bicycling
are most frequent. In particular, conducting counts before and after
constructing active transportation projects is essential to monitoring
the impact of new improvements on travel patterns and behaviors.
Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian counts should be collected as
part of any existing traffic counts. Data from counts can be used to
prioritize and justify projects when funding is solicited and received.
Results should be regularly recorded for inclusion in a bicycle and
pedestrian report card.
Review Collision Data
Encourage the Police Department to collect, track, and report collision
data. Traffic collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians should
be regularly reviewed and analyzed to develop plans to reduce
their frequency and severity. Any such plans should include Police
Department involvement and should be monitored to determine their
effectiveness.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN182
Develop a Bicycle and Pedestrian Report Card
Develop a bicycle and pedestrian report card to measure the success
of the ATP implementation. The report card could be used to identify
the magnitude of accomplishments in the previous year and general
trends. The report card could include, but not be limited to, keeping
track of system completion, travel by bicycle or on foot (counts), num-
ber of collisions, etc.
Include Active Transportation on Community Priorities Survey
Enable community members to provide input on active transportation
satisfaction in the City’s community priorities survey. Every two years,
the City launches a community priorities survey, inviting residents,
businesses, and stakeholders to share their input on the City’s upcom-
ing two-year budget. Active transportation can be included to help the
City better understand the importance of active transportation to the
community and allocate resources accordingly.
Include ATP Implementation in Annual CIP Progress Report
Include ATP implementation in the City’s annual CIP progress report
and annual update to the Planning Commission and City Council. This
annual report presents an opportunity to identify proposed projects
from the ATP and report on construction progress.
Partner with Lucia Mar Unified School District
Develop a working partnership with the Lucia Mar Unified School Dis-
trict to evaluate bicycle and pedestrian safety around and leading to
Arroyo Grande schools. Forming a strong relationship with the Lucia
Mar Unified School District can help to identify and address major
SRTS needs and facilitate ongoing improvements.
Monitor and Maintain Active Transportation Facility Conditions
Conduct regular monitoring of pedestrian and bicycle facility condi-
tions to identify areas in need of maintenance, litter removal, beauti-
fication, or improvement. Address safety concerns and issues along
pedestrian and bicycle facilities promptly to maintain a safe and enjoy-
able active transportation experience for community members.
Photo Source: SLOCOG
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS 183Photo Source: Bike SLO County
A
Appendix
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN186
APPENDIX A - APPLICABLE
GUIDANCE AND LEGISLATION
PRIMARY GUIDANCE
AASHTO GUIDES FOR PEDESTRIAN AND BIKEWAY
FACILITIES
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi-
cials (AASHTO) bicycle and pedestrian design guides are important
national resources for planning, designing, and operating bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. In particular, the Guide for the Development of
Bicycle Facilities is especially useful for bike path design outside of
a typical road right of way. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Urban
Walkable Thoroughfares Guide build upon the flexibilities provided in
the AASHTO guides, which can help communities plan and design
safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists.
FHWA supports the use of these resources to further develop non-mo-
torized transportation networks, particularly in urban areas. Moreover,
in August of 2013, the FHWA issued a memo on Bicycle and Pedestri-
an Facility Design Flexibility issuing their support for taking a flexible
approach to bicycle and pedestrian facility design. Moving away from
standards and towards flexibility in design using the designer’s judg-
ment is an important step towards contextual design, implementing
the appropriate facility based on location and context.
CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES (UPDATED IN 2023)
In 2014, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) updated
the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)
to provide uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic
control devices in California. Since 2014, the CA MUTCD has been
updated eight times, most recently in December 2023. The purpose
of the CA MUTCD is to improve safety and mobility for all travelers by
setting minimum standards and providing guidance intended to bal-
ance safety and convenience for everyone in traffic, including drivers,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
The CA MUTCD contains the basic principles that govern the design
and use of traffic control devices to promote highway safety and ef-
ficiency through the orderly movement of all road users on streets,
highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. Multi-
modal policies for safer crossings, work zones, and intersections are
integrated into the CA MUTCD, with improvements including:
»Crosswalks Enhancements Policy
»Temporary Traffic Control Plans
»Work Zone and Higher Fines Signs and Plaques
»Traffic Control for School Areas
Additionally, NACTO guidance was analyzed to ensure flexibility and
innovation in the design and operations of streets and highways in
California. Much of the guidance provided in the CA MUTCD is con-
sistent with the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.
CALTRANS HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL, CHAPTER 1000:
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION DESIGN (UPDATED IN 2020)
Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual serves as the
official design standard for bikeways in California. This chapter defines
a “bikeway” as a facility that is provided primarily for bicycle travel and
recognizes its importance in improving bicycling safety and conveni-
ence. Chapter 1000 intends to help accommodate motor vehicle and
bicycle traffic on the roadway system, or as a complement to the road
system to meet the needs of bicyclists. This chapter classifies bikeway
facilities into five different types that include:
»Shared Roadway (No Bikeway Designation)
»Class I Bikeway (Bike Path)
»Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane)
»Class III Bikeway (Bike Route)
»Class IV Bikeways (Separated Bikeways)
APPENDIX 187
However, Chapter 1000 states that these designations should not be
construed as a hierarchy of bikeways since each bikeway type has
its appropriate application. Additionally, Chapter 1000 only provides
design guidance for Class I bike paths, Class III bike routes, and trails.
FHWA SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING AND DESIGN
GUIDE (2015)
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design Guide (2015) is the most recent national bike lane
design guide and for many, the primary national resource for plan-
ning and designing bicycle facilities. It captures the state of practice
of bicycle facility design within the street right of way. It provides a
menu of design options covering typical one and two-way cycle tracks
and provides detailed intersection design information covering topics
such as turning movement operations, signalization, signage, and on-
road markings.
FHWA BIKEWAY SELECTION GUIDE (2019)
The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019) is an important comple-
ment to the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. It
has a focus on designing for all ages and abilities. It gives the designer
additional tools such as matrices, flow charts, and graphs that facilitate
the design of the appropriate bikeway based both on roadway charac-
teristics and the intended type of bicyclist.
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(MASSDOT) SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING &
DESIGN GUIDE (2015)
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Separat-
ed Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide (2015) draws on research and
best practices from the United States and around the world to cover
topics not covered in other manuals, such as protected intersections
and cycle tracks within roundabouts. Although it is a state guide and
not a national guide, the up-to-date information and the easy-to-read
graphics make it an important reference guide for bicycle planners
and designers.
NACTO TRANSIT STREET DESIGN GUIDE (2016)
As transit gains a more prominent role in cities, more people are using
buses, streetcars, and light rail than ever before. As a result, street
design is shifting to give transit the space it deserves. The National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Transit Street De-
sign Guide (2016) provides design guidance for the development of
transit facilities on streets, as well as for prioritizing transit, improving
its service quality, and supporting other related goals.
The majority of design elements included in this guide are consistent
with MUTCD standards, including signage, markings, and signal ele-
ments that have received interim approval. These guidelines were de-
veloped using other design guidance as a basis, along with city case
studies, best practices, research and evaluation of existing designs,
and professional consensus.
NACTO URBAN BIKEWAY & STREET DESIGN GUIDES
The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (2012) and Urban Street
Design Guide (2013) represent the industry standard for innovative bi-
cycle and streetscape facilities and treatments in the United States.
In 2014, Caltrans officially endorsed the NACTO Urban Street Design
Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide as valuable toolkits for de-
signing and constructing safe, attractive local streets. At the time, Cal-
trans was only the third State Department of Transportation to officially
endorse the guides. It is also important to note that virtually all of the
Urban Bikeway Design Guide design treatments (with two exceptions)
are permitted under the Federal MUTCD.
NACTO URBAN STREET STORMWATER GUIDE (2017)
The NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide (2017) provides guidelines
on how to create streets that are resilient to climate impacts and also
provide quality public spaces with social and economic benefits. This
guide focuses on green infrastructure within urban streets, including
the design and engineering of stormwater management practices that
support and improve mobility. It also intends to reduce the impacts of
stormwater runoff and human activity on natural ecological processes.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN188
One of the main goals of this guide is to encourage interdepartmental
partnerships around sustainable infrastructure, which includes com-
municating the benefits of such projects. However, this guide does
not address stormwater management strategies on private property,
nor does it address drainage and infiltration around controlled-access
highways.
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
Several pieces of legislation support increased bicycling and walking
in the State of California. Much of the legislation addresses green-
house gas (GHG) reduction and employs bicycling and walking as a
means to achieve reduction targets. Other legislation highlights the
intrinsic worth of bicycling and walking and treats the safe and con-
venient accommodation of bicyclists and walkers as a matter of equity.
The most relevant legislation concerning bicycle and pedestrian poli-
cy, planning, infrastructure, and programs are described in the follow-
ing sections.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION
Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle
Box (IA-18)
Intersection bicycle boxes are designated areas at signalized inter-
sections that provide bicyclists with a space in which to wait in front of
stopped motor vehicles during the red signal phase so that they are
more visible to motorists. Since they are still considered experimental
traffic control devices, the FHWA issued an Interim Approval to allow
the provisional use of intersection bicycle boxes in October 2016. This
Interim Approval does not create a new mandate compelling the use
of intersection bicycle boxes but will allow agencies to install intersec-
tion bicycle boxes, pending official rulemaking revising the MUTCD, to
facilitate more efficient operations at intersections. Interim Approval of
a provisional device typically results in its inclusion in a future Notice
of Proposed Amendments to revise the MUTCD. However, this Interim
Approval does not guarantee the adoption of the provisional device,
either in whole or in part, in any future rulemaking that revises the
MUTCD.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)
In November 2021, Congress passed a new transportation bill, the In-
frastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, also known as the Bipar-
tisan Infrastructure Law. The law targets a wide variety of infrastruc-
ture investments aimed at reducing GHG emissions from the nation’s
transportation network and increasing the resilience of transportation
infrastructure to extreme weather and climate impacts. Among other
things, the law allocates $1.4 billion for the Transportation Alternatives
Program in FY 2022, which will support pedestrian and bicycle infra-
structure, recreational trails, safe routes to school, and more. Addi-
tionally, the law provides $1 billion in FY 2022 for the new Safe Streets
and Roads for All program, which will provide funding directly to local
and tribal governments to make streets safer with a particular focus on
those walking, biking, and rolling.
STATE LEGISLATION AND POLICIES
AB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)
AB-32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. AB-32 also directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
to develop specific early actions to reduce greenhouse gases while
also preparing a scoping plan to identify how best to reach the 2020
limit.
AB-43 Traffic Safety (2021)
AB-43 allows local jurisdictions to lower speed limits to make streets
safer for people who walk and ride a bicycle. In particular, AB-43 gives
local authorities more options for reducing speeding along high-injury
streets and commercial districts.
AB-98 Planning and Zoning: logistics use: truck routes (2024)
AB-98 establishes specific standards for truck routes and requires a
county or city, by January 1, 2028, except as provided, to update its
circulation element, as prescribed, including identifying and estab-
lishing specific travel routes for the transport of goods, materials, or
freight for storage, transfer, or redistribution to safely accommodate
additional truck traffic and avoid residential areas and concentrations
of sensitive receptors, including schools, parks, and homes.
APPENDIX 189
AB-285 California Transportation Plan (2019)
AB-285 requires the California Transportation Plan (CTP), produced
by Caltrans, to address how it will help meet state GHG emission and
clean air goals. Starting in 2025, the CTP will have to forecast the po-
tential impacts of future transportation technologies on infrastructure,
access, and the overall transportation system. It will also be required
to consider environmental justice in its planning for transportation and
freight movement.
AB-361 Vehicles: Photographs of Bicycle Lane Parking Viola-
tions (2023)
AB-361 allows local jurisdictions to install forward-facing parking con-
trol devices on city-owned parking enforcement vehicles and take
photographs of parking violations in bicycle lanes. AB-361 enables lo-
cal jurisdictions to review parking violations and issue citations to the
registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days.
AB-390 Pedestrian Crossing Signals (2017)
AB-390 authorizes a pedestrian facing a flashing “DON’T WALK” or
“WAIT” or approved “Upraised hand” symbol with a “countdown” sig-
nal to proceed, so long as the pedestrian completes the crossing be-
fore the display of the steady “DON’T WALK OR WALK” or “WAIT” or
approved “Upraised Hand” symbol.
AB-413 Vehicles: stopping, standing, and parking (2023)
AB-413, also known as the Daylighting to Save Lives Bill, changes the
California Vehicle Code to prohibit the stopping, standing, or park-
ing of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any
unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a
curb extension is present. AB-413 will improve visibility for vehicles
approaching crosswalks by giving them more time to see and yield to
a person approaching an intersection. Prior to January 1, 2025, AB-413
jurisdictions may only issue a warning for a violation unless the viola-
tion occurs in an area marked using paint or a sign.
AB-712 Tenancy: personal micromobility devices (2023)
AB-712 prohibits landlords from prohibiting a tenant from owning per-
sonal micromobility devices or from storing and recharging up to one
personal micromobility device in their dwelling unit for each person
occupying the unit.
AB-773 Street Closures and Designations (2021)
AB-773 authorizes local authorities to adopt a rule or regulation to
implement a slow streets program, which may include closures to ve-
hicular traffic or through vehicular traffic of neighborhood local streets
with connections to citywide bicycle networks, destinations that are
within walking distance, or green space.
AB-902 Traffic Violations and Diversion Programs (2015)
AB-902 allows any person of any age who commits an infraction not
involving a motor vehicle to participate in a diversion program sanc-
tioned by local law enforcement. The bill eliminates the requirement
that such a program charge no fee, as well as other technical changes.
Prior law provided that a local authority may not allow a person who
has committed a traffic violation under the Vehicle Code to participate
in a driver awareness or education program as an alternative to the
imposition of those penalties and procedures unless the program is a
diversion program for a minor who commits an infraction not involving
a motor vehicle and for which no fee is charged.
AB-1096 Electric Bicycles as Vehicles (2015)
AB-1096 defines an “electric bicycle” as a bicycle with fully operable
pedals and an electric motor of fewer than 750 watts and creates
three classes of electric bicycles. AB-1096 prohibits the operation of
the most powerful Class 3 electric bicycles on specified paths, lanes,
or trails unless that operation is authorized by a local ordinance. AB-
1096 also authorizes a local authority or governing body to prohibit,
by ordinance, the operation of Class 1 or Class 2 electric bicycles on
specified paths or trails. Prior law defined a “motorized bicycle” as a
device that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power
and has an electric motor that meets specified requirements.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN190
AB-1193 Bikeways (2014)
AB-1193 amends various code sections, all relating to bikeways in gen-
eral, specifically by recognizing a fourth class of bicycle facility, cycle
tracks. However, another component of AB-1193 may be even more
significant to future bikeway development.
Prior law required Caltrans, in cooperation with county and city gov-
ernments, to establish minimum safety design criteria for the planning
and construction of bikeways, and requires the department to estab-
lish uniform specifications and symbols regarding bicycle travel and
traffic-related matters. Prior law also required all city, county, regional,
and other local agencies responsible for the development or oper-
ation of bikeways or roadways to utilize all of those minimum safety
design criteria and uniform specifications and symbols.
AB-1193 revises these provisions to require Caltrans to establish mini-
mum safety design criteria for each type of bikeway and also authoriz-
es local agencies to utilize different minimum safety criteria if adopted
by resolution at a public meeting.
AB-1266 Bicycle Guidance Signs Through an Intersection (2019)
AB-1266 aims to make it safer for bicycle riding in California at busy
intersections. The bill requires Caltrans to develop standards for lane
striping, pavement markings, and appropriate regulatory signs that al-
low bicyclists to go straight from a right or left turn lane and to safely
cross outside of the high-traffic lanes.
AB-1358 Complete Streets Act (2008)
AB-1358 requires the legislative body of a city or county, upon revision
of the Circulation Element of their General Plan, to identify how the
jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all users of
the roadway including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, individuals with
disabilities, seniors, and public transit users. The bill also directs the
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend
guidelines for General Plan Circulation Element development so that
the building and operation of local transportation facilities safely and
conveniently accommodate everyone, regardless of their travel mode.
AB-1371 Passing Distance/Three Feet for Safety Act (2013)
AB-1371, widely referred to as the “Three Foot Passing Law,” requires
drivers to provide at least three feet of clearance when passing bicy-
clists. If traffic or roadway conditions prevent drivers from giving bi-
cyclists three feet of clearance, they must “slow to a speed that is
reasonable and prudent” and wait until they reach a point where pass-
ing can occur without endangering the bicyclists. Violations are pun-
ishable by a $35 base fine, but drivers who collide with bicyclists and
injure them in violation of the law are subject to a $220 fine.
AB-1774 E-Bike Modification (2024)
AB-1774 prohibits the sale of electric bicycle modification devices that
enable the electric motor to exceed 750 watts. This effectively en-
sures that electric bicyclists are complying with the maximum electric
bicycle speed limit of twenty-eight miles per hour under Class 3, the
fastest classification of electric bicycles.
AB-1778 E-Bike Pilot Age Restrictions (2024)
AB-1778 regulates the use of Class 2 electric bicycles by setting the
minimum age to operate a Class 2 electric bicycle to sixteen and re-
quiring all Class 2 electric bicycle riders to wear a helmet. Riders un-
der sixteen years of age are still legally allowed to ride Class I electric
bicycles.
AB-1909 Vehicles: Bicycle Omnibus Bill (2022)
AB-1909 included four changes to the California Vehicle Code aimed
at improving the rights of bicyclists to safely access public bikeways
and streets. AB-1909 (1) requires vehicles to change lanes when pass-
ing someone on a bike if a lane is available; (2) allows Class 3 electric
bicycles on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian
trail, or hiking or recreational trail unless specifically prohibited by a
local jurisdiction; (3) allows bicyclists to cross an intersection during a
pedestrian walk signal; and (4) prohibits a jurisdiction from requiring
bicycles operated within its jurisdiction to be licensed. Together, these
four changes will make it easier and safer to ride a bicycle in California.
APPENDIX 191
AB-2086 Transportation Accountability Act (2024)
AB-2086 brings transparency to Caltrans spending by requiring the
California Transportation Plan to contain a financial element that sum-
marizes the full cost of plan implementation. To further increase trans-
parency and accountability, information on how annual project invest-
ments advance the California Transportation Plan must be added to
the existing public online dashboard on or before January 1, 2027.
AB-2147 Pedestrians (2022)
AB-2147 prohibits a police officer from stopping a pedestrian for spec-
ified traffic infractions, such as jaywalking, unless the street crossing
is truly dangerous. AB-2147 legalizes safe street crossings and elimi-
nates an arbitrary traffic enforcement practice that disproportionately
targeted people of color.
AB-2669 Banning Bridge Tolls for People Walking and Biking
(2024)
AB-2669 allows pedestrians, bicyclists, or people using personal mi-
cromobility devices to cross existing toll bridges in California without
paying a fee.
AB-2863 Green Building Standards: Bicycle Parking (2022)
AB-2863 requires the Department of Housing and Community Devel-
opment, upon the next triennial update of the California Green Build-
ing Standards Code that occurs on or after January 1, 2023, to re-
search and develop mandatory building standards for short-term and
long-term bicycle parking in multifamily residential buildings, hotels,
and motels.
SB-1 Transportation Funding (2017)
SB-1 creates the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to ad-
dress deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the lo-
cal street and road system. A total of $5.4 billion will be invested annu-
ally over the next decade, which will address a backlog of repairs and
upgrades. Additionally, cleaner and more sustainable travel networks
will be ensured for the future, including upgrades to local roads, and
transit agencies, and an expansion of the state’s growing network of
pedestrians and bicycle routes.
SB-375 Redesigning Communities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas-
es (2008)
SB-375 seeks to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through land
use and planning incentives. Key provisions require the larger region-
al transportation planning agencies to develop more sophisticated
transportation planning models and to use them to create “preferred
growth scenarios” in their regional plans that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The bill also provides incentives for local governments to
incorporate these preferred growth scenarios into the transportation
elements of their general land use plans.
SB-400 Clean Cars 4 All Program (2019)
SB-400 expands the eligible modes of transportation for which the
Clean Cars 4 All (CC4A) program “mobility option” may include bike
sharing and electric bikes. CC4A aims to reduce car emissions by
increasing the turnover of existing vehicles and replacing them with
newer, cleaner, and more efficient vehicles. Reducing emissions from
existing vehicles is a component of California’s State Implementation
Plan for meeting air quality standards and also supports efforts to
meet the state’s 2030 climate change goals.
SB-672 Traffic-Actuated Signals: Motorcycles and Bicycles
(2017)
SB-672 indefinitely extends the requirement to install traffic-actuated
signals to detect lawful bicycle or motorcycle traffic on the roadway.
By indefinitely extending requirements regarding traffic-actuated sig-
nals applicable to local governments, SB-672 imposes a state-man-
dated local program. Existing law requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
SB-689 Bike Lanes in Coastal Areas (2024)
When local governments want to add dedicated transit lanes, pedes-
trian walkways, or bicycle lanes to coastal areas, Local Coastal Pro-
grams are required documents that must be approved by the Cali-
fornia Coastal Commission. SB-689 limits the ability of the Coastal
Commission to block the development of new bikeways on existing
roads in coastal areas by making it easier to amend Local Coastal Pro-
grams.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN192
SB-743 CEQA Reform (2013)
SB-743 changed the method of traffic analysis required through the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for publicly and private-
ly initiated projects. Before SB-743, transportation impacts were ana-
lyzed by quantifying traffic congestion as measured by the level of
service (LOS), which resulted in mitigation measures to reduce traffic,
such as building new roads or travel lanes, widening existing roads,
adding turn lanes, and installing traffic control devices. Now, under
SB-743, transportation impacts are assessed by quantifying how much
and how far people drive, using a measure called Vehicle Miles Trav-
eled (VMT). By measuring transportation impacts by VMT, mitigation
measures can include opportunities to improve non-vehicular travel
options, such as installing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, improving
public transit access, and more.
SB-922 California Environmental Quality Act Exemption: Trans-
portation-related Projects (2022)
SB-922 extends until 2030 statutory exemptions to the California
Environmental Quality Act for sustainable transportation projects, in-
cluding improvements for walking, biking, public transit efficiency and
wayfinding; rail stations; zero-emission transit refueling facilities; and
carpooling.
SB-932 General Plans: Circulation Element: Bicycle and Pedes-
trian Plans and Traffic Calming Plans (2022)
SB-932 requires cities and counties, upon any substantive revision of
a general plan circulation element, to develop bicycle plans, pedes-
trian plans, and traffic calming plans based on the policies and goals
in the circulation element. SB-932 also requires cities and counties to
begin implementation of a plan within two years of adoption; regularly
review implementation progress; and consider revising the circulation
element if the goals of the bicycle, pedestrian, or traffic calming plans
will not be met within 25 years of circulation element adoption.
SB-960 Complete Streets Bill (2024)
SB-960 requires Caltrans to set targets for active transportation and
public transit improvements in State Highway Operation and Protec-
tion Program (SHOPP) projects, such as building bikeways, sidewalks,
bus boarding islands, and more. SB-960 mandates that Caltrans con-
sider the needs of people walking, biking, and taking transit when re-
pairing state roadways.
SB-1000 Planning for Healthy Communities Act (2016)
Under SB 1000, cities and counties are required to adopt an Environ-
mental Justice Element or integrate environmental just-related poli-
cies, objectives, and goals throughout other elements of their Gener-
al Plan. The bill also includes a process for communities to become
meaningfully involved in the decision-making processes that govern
land use planning in their neighborhoods.
SB-1216 Limits on Class III Bikeways (2024)
SB-1216 prohibits the creation of Class III Bikeways on roads with a
posted speed limit greater than thirty miles per hour, except at or near
an intersection for the purpose of connecting a Class I, Class II, or
Class IV bikeway through the intersection. This new law will also limit
the use of State funding to create Class III bikeways on high-speed
corridors.
SB-1271 E-Bike Battery Safety Standards (2024)
Beginning on January 1, 2026, SB-1271 requires all electric bicycles
sold in California to have their batteries tested and certified for safety
standards. SB-1271 also clarifies rules for the advertisement and sale
of electric bicycles.
California Active Transportation Program
The California Active Transportation Program, created in 2013, con-
solidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including
the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation
Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SRTS), into a single
program with a focus to make California a national leader in active
transportation. SB-1 stipulates that $100 million of revenues from the
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account will be available annu-
ally to the program. An additional $122.5 million in State and Federal
funding is allocated to the program each year.
Program funding is distributed as follows: 50 percent to the State for a
statewide competitive program; 40 percent to Metropolitan Planning
APPENDIX 193
Organizations in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000;
and 10 percent to small urban and rural regions with populations of
200,000 or less. Additionally, State-designated Disadvtangaged Com-
munities (DACs) are guaranteed a minimum of 25 percent of the en-
tire program’s funding. Elibile projects include infrastructure projects
(capital improvement projects), non-infrastructure projects (education,
encouragement, and enforcement activities, combination projects (in-
frastructure and non-infrastructure), and communitywide planning pro-
jects in DACs.
California Transportation Plan 2050 (2021)
The California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP) is a long-range plan
completed in 2021 to provide a common framework for transportation
decisions and investments throughout the state. It aims to meet the
growing needs of California residents as it relates to travel accessibil-
ity, emissions, and economic impacts.
Caltrans’ Deputy Directive 64-R2 (2014)
Deputy Directive 64-R2 is a policy statement affecting Caltrans mobil-
ity planning and projects requiring the agency to:
“…provide for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities in all
planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and mainte-
nance activities and products on the State highway system. Caltrans
views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve
safety, access. and mobility for all travelers in California and recogniz-
es bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the
transportation system.”
The directive goes on to mention the environmental, health, and eco-
nomic benefits of more Complete Streets.
CEQA for Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
Based on Public Resources Code Section 15262 (Feasibility and Plan-
ning Studies) guidance, planning documents such as this ATP are ex-
empt from CEQA analysis since they are planning and conceptual rec-
ommendations:
“A project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible
future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not ap-
proved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an
EIR or Negative Declaration but does require consideration of envi-
ronmental factors.”
As individual recommendations move forward toward further design
and implementation, the City will then need to determine if there are
environmental impacts that may warrant an EIR.
Design Information Bulletin 89-02 (Updated in 2022)
The purpose of Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 89-02 is to provide
design criteria and guidance on best practices related to separated
bikeways to establish uniform guidance that will facilitate consistent
user expectations. DIB 89-02 allows designers to exercise sound
judgment when applying it while being consistent with the Caltrans
Highway Design Manual and the CA MUTCD. DIB 89-02 is written to
allow for flexibility in applying design criteria, taking into consideration
the context of the project’s location, enabling designers to tailor the
design and maximize safety and comfort.
Best practices from cities, states, and countries currently operating
separated bikeways were used to formulate DIB 89-02. This DIB will
be updated as necessary based on lessons learned from engineers
and practitioners as they gain more experience with the use of sepa-
rated bikeways. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publica-
tion Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA Guide)
should be used to design separated bikeways. Where DIB 89-02 is
inconsistent with the FHWA Guide, DIB 89-02 should govern.
Executive Order N-19-19 (2019)
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-19-19 on
September 20, 2019, to require the State to continue efforts to reduce
GHG emissions and mitigate climate change impacts while building a
sustainable economy. The California State Transportation Agency is
directed to leverage strategies toward lowering vehicle miles traveled
by supporting active modes of transportation such as biking and walk-
ing that also benefit public health.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN194
APPENDIX B - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
The community engagement results provided in Appendix B include public comments from community members as written. Public comments are
provided for reference and do not represent the views of the City.
POP-UP EVENTS
POP-UP #1: HARVEST FESTIVAL 2023
Date: September 30, 2023 Location: Village of Arroyo Grande
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Ash Street and S. Elm Street Missing sidewalk and curb Missing Sidewalk
Bennett Avenue and S. Halcyon Road High visibility crosswalk Pedestrian Concern
Christmas Tree Island Park Crosswalk with lights; dangerous Traffic Calming
East Branch Street Dangerous, people drive fast Traffic Calming
East Branch Street - Crown Terrace Area Sidewalk improvements Pedestrian Concern
East Branch Street - Huasana Rd Intersection
Middle school no sidewalk around Missing Sidewalk
Blindspot Driving Concern
Dedicated right turn?Driving Concern
Farroll Avenue HS traffic Driving Concern
Maple Street (S. Elm Street and Alder Street)Missing sidewalk and curb Missing Sidewalk
S. Elm Street (near Poplar Street intersection)No curb, gutter, sidewalk Missing Curb Ramp
South Mason Street and Poole Street 4-way stop? Dangerous Traffic Calming
The Village Road narrows. Pedestrian danger Traffic Calming
Unnamed Road - Leading to Arroyo High School
Build sidewalk Missing Sidewalk
Who owns this?Other
Turn around parking?Driving Concern
Valley Road - Leading to Arroyo High School Build sidewalk Missing Sidewalk
High speed Traffic Calming
General Comments
»Keep downtown chicken [rooster] friendly
Citywide Map
Table a-1: Pop-Up Event #1: Citywide Map Activity Comments
APPENDIX 195
POP-UP #2: ARROYO GRANDE FARMERS MARKET
Date: April 20, 2024 Location: Village of Arroyo Grande
General Comments
»Add charging stations for cars, scooters, e-bikes, etc.
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Ash Street & Soto Park General maintenance with sidewalk issues Pedestrian Concern
Brisco Road Smarter/better traffic light coordination to move traffic Driving Concern
Corbett Canyon Road gets torn up on Corbett Canyon Road due to poor drainage issues in wet years. Needs
asphalt maintenance. Other
Crown Terrace Speeding and no sidewalks on Crown Terrace. Need traffic calming.Traffic Calming
No lighting on Crown Terrace. Would be nice to have.Traffic Calming
Fair Oaks Avenue
Fair Oaks bike lanes are tight and near barbed wire Bicyclist Concern
Fair Oaks side streets near high school have missing sidewalks Missing Sidewalk
Add safe walking/biking to Fair Oaks Avenue Pedestrian Concern
Citywide Comment Add charging stations for cars, scooters, e-bikes, etc.Other
Grand Avenue
Grand Avenue Bike Lane from Elm to the Village Bicyclist Concern
Driveways and high speeds on Grand Avenue make biking uncomfortable Bicyclist Concern
Goal: Ride all the way to the beach along Grand Avenue Bicyclist Concern
People speed too much along Grand Avenue. Need traffic calming Traffic Calming
Reduce two signals to one signal going onto the freeway on Grand Avenue to avoid
confusion and reduce speeds Driving Concern
Huasna Road
Crossing bridge is awkward. Is there a way to go around school to make walking to Village Pedestrian Concern
Missing curb ramp on Rosewood and Huasna Missing Curb Ramp
Add RRFB to crossing on Rosewood and Huasna Pedestrian Concern
Sunrise Terrace Sunrise Terrace - Verizon wants to put in a cell tower and disguise it as a water tower Other
The Village Add safe walking/biking to the Village Pedestrian Concern
Keep the Village lower traffic/pedestrian friendly Pedestrian Concern
Valley Road Add safe walking/biking to Valley Road Pedestrian Concern
Citywide Map
Table a-2: Pop-Up Event #2: Citywide Map Activity Comments
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN196
POP-UP #3: HARVEST FESTIVAL 2024
Date: September 28, 2028 Location: Village of Arroyo Grande
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Branch Mill Road Pave Branch Mill road! It is dangerous for bicyclists.Bicyclist Concern
Brisco Road Add a 'Keep Clear' sign at Brisco underpass so cars don't block the intersection.Bicyclist Concern
El Camino Real El Camino Real is very high stress from Brisco Road east. Can we divert bicyclists to another route?Bicyclist Concern
Citywide Comment
Super! Bike Lanes!Bicyclist Concern
Clear fully painted, visible bike lanes would keep us all safe!Bicyclist Concern
Paint maintenance for lanes on road with reflective paint.Driving Concern
Materials imply Class IV is superior solution when it may not yet be determined. Buffered Class II could
have more benefits.Bicyclist Concern
Grand Avenue Great ideas! We want the separated bikeway!Bicyclist Concern
Yes, please to Class IV on Grand Avenue all the way from the Village to Oak Park would be amazing!!!Bicyclist Concern
Oak Park Road Oak Park Road speeding is a concern.Bicyclist Concern
Traffic Way Two-way bike lane from Traffic Way to Fair Oaks Bicyclist Concern
Valley Road
We need safer routes to Arroyo Grande High School, especially from the Mesa. Many kids walk and bike
to AGHS from outside of southern city limits, but have no safe way to get there. We have been asking the
City to make AGHS safer for bicyclists and pedestrians for years, but haven't seen any action from the
City.
Bicyclist Concern
W. Branch Street This Class IV [on W. Branch Street] would be so welcome!!!Bicyclist Concern
Draft Priority Corridors
Table a-3: Pop-Up Event #3: Draft Priority Corridor Comments
Draft Bicycle Recommendations
Table a-4: Pop-Up Event #3: Draft Bicycle Recommendations Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Grand Avenue City to consider maintenance for any Class 4s. Add language about pilot projects first.Bicyclist Concern
Fair Oaks Avenue I support the proposed crossing at Fair Oaks Avenue and Woodland.Pedestrian Concern
APPENDIX 197
Draft Pedestrian Recommendations
Table a-5: Pop-Up Event #3: Draft Pedestrian Recommendations Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Brisco Road Wider under-crossing needed at Brisco Road.Pedestrian Concern
Corbett Canyon Road Traffic calming is needed on Corbett Canyon Road.Traffic Calming
Fair Oaks Avenue
Dangerous intersection [at Woodland and Fair Oaks] - needs STOP signs.Pedestrian Concern
Stop sign on Fair Oaks Avenue and Orchard needs LED lights. Many students cross here and need better
visibility!Pedestrian Concern
Citywide Comment
Sidewalks need to be constructed - top priority.Missing Sidewalk
Signage blocking sidewalks - City policy should be enforced. Signage in front of City Hall Enforcement
Would be great to have a citywide map of bike lanes, trails, and paths for the public to use.Other
Steel/diamond clad plates where there are drainage channels - the edges are lifted and create trip
hazards.Maintenance
South County Sanitation leaves trash bins randomly on sidewalks, blocking pedestrians.Enforcement
Hausna Road
Retaining wall holding dirt - weep holes dump algae/moss and makes it slippery and unsafe.Maintenance
Huasna Road at Ralph Beck - West side, handicap ramp - water and dirt collects and causes issues for
curb ramps and truncated domes. People in neighborhood have wheelchairs.Maintenance
Traffic calming is needed along Huasna Road Traffic Calming
Trucks block sidewalks and force people and students into the street - needs enforcement.Enforcement
James Way Missing sidewalks on James Way.Missing Sidewalk
Traffic calming is needed on James Way.Traffic Calming
Nelson Street Make higher visibility and enforcement stop at Nelson Street and Mason Street.Pedestrian Concern
Paulding Middle
School
Paulding Middle School needs pedestrian improvements.Pedestrian Concern
I support the recommendations along Paulding Middle School as a walk/bike to school initiative.Pedestrian Concern
Printz Road Fix bike/ped bridge at Printz and Corbett Canyon Road.Maintenance
Tally Ho Road Tally Ho - 6' wall needs to be enforced.Enforcement
The Village
Trucks block pedestrian visibility.Enforcement
Sidewalks in the Village are often obstructed by outdoor dining. It is a safety/access issue.Enforcement
The sidewalk in front of Gina's Restaurant is constantly blocked and used by loading/unloading.Enforcement
Traffic Way Add crosswalk at 4th leg of Traffic Way and Branch intersection so pedestrians don't have to walk all
around to cross the road.Pedestrian Concern
W. Branch Street Would like sidewalks and potholes fixed on W. Branch.Missing Sidewalk
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN198
COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1: EXISTING CONDITIONS & NEEDS
Date: December 13, 2023 Location: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
General Comments
»Work with the sanitation district to allow trash cans on the street instead of on the sidewalk
»Traffic signal push button that cyclists can push from
Are there specific intersections or streets that you are concerned with?
»Huasna/227 is an ideal location for a roundabout
Voting Activity: Place a sticker next to the active transportation facilities you would like to see throughout Arroyo Grande
Table a-6: Workshop #1: Voting Activity Results
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NUMBER OF VOTES
Class 4 Separated Bikeways 2
Signage & Lighting 2
Traffic Calming Circle 1
Enhanced Crossings 1
Bus Shelters 1
Chicanes 0
Speed Cushions 0
Electronic Feedback Signs 0
Traffic Diverter 0
Truck Apron 0
Class 1 Multi-use Paths 0
Class 2 Bicycle Lanes 0
Class 3 Bicycle Routes 0
Colored Bicycle Striping 0
High-visibility Crosswalk 0
Paved Sidewalk 0
Curb Ramps 0
Curb Extension 0
APPENDIX 199
Citywide Map
Table a-7: Workshop #1: Citywide Map Activity Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Ash Street (near park)On-street parking along Ash St. can cause visibility issues for cycling Bicyclist Concern
Corbett Canyon Road Why only bike lanes northbound and not southbound?Bicyclist Concern
Corbett Canyon Road and Printz Road Bridge gets hit a lot Driving Concern
E. Branch Street (near Paulding Middle
School)Safer pedestrian facilities are needed along E. Branch St. near Paulding Middle School Pedestrian Concern
E. Branch Street and Huasna Road
Stop signs with solar lights Traffic Calming
Blinking beacon light?Traffic Calming
Roundabout opportunity?Traffic Calming
E. Branch Street and Short Street Branch St. versus Short St. side of the crosswalk. Pedestrian protection.Pedestrian Concern
E. Cherry Avenue Look at new improvements along E. Cherry Avenue between Traffic Way and Leedham Place. Seem to be working Other
Elm Street and Farroll Avenue Parking blocks sight distance Driving Concern
Fair Oaks Avenue bridge Striping Fair Oaks Avenue bridge east Other
Fair Oaks Avenue and Elm Street Stop sign compliance Driving Concern
Fair Oaks and Tahiti Street Dangerous and clogged at beginning and ending of school day or when big events happen. Lots of bikes - protected
bike lanes needed!Bicyclist Concern
James Way Varying speed signs on James Way Traffic Calming
James Way and Oak Park Road Bike detector on James Way and Oak Park needs to detect bikes Bicyclist Concern
Huasna Road (between Paulding Middle
School and city limits)
Traffic calming needed along Huasna Rd. between Paulding Middle School and city limits. People drive too fast here!
How to slow them before middle school going west and by residential areas going east.Traffic Calming
Speeding ongoing. Has the City considered speed reduction?Traffic Calming
"No parking bike lane" but resident and parking are dangerous for cars driving fast by bikes.Bicyclist Concern
Mobile home park with seniors. Any way to add ways to slow down drivers?Traffic Calming
Bridge to connect Coach Rd. to Huasna Rd.Other
Curb is consistently dangerous at the corner of Strother Park Pedestrian Concern
Unfinished sidewalk (Betterment Grant) near Strother Park Missing Sidewalk
Traffic calming needed along Huasna Rd. Traffic Calming
Trees to short for canopy (4 ft) and bushes constantly grow over sidewalk Pedestrian Concern
Rancho Parkway (near shopping centers)Left turn hatch doesn’t Other
Traffic Way and Station Way Right turn onto traffic yield instead of stop? Ded. lane exists. Tree obstruction. No view. Unsafe. Left turn looking
right.Driving Concern
Traffic Way and Nelson Street Dangerous crosswalk!Pedestrian Concern
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN200
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Date: September 26, 2024 Location: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
General Comments
Table a-8: Workshop #2: General Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Citywide Comment Have P.D. enforce bikes and cars 4 sale without us calling it in Other
Huasna Road
If you had a roundabout at Huasna how would the students cross?Traffic Calming
Round about 227/Huasna Traffic Calming
No roundabout at Huasna/227 Traffic Calming
Paulding Middle
School I walk the track at Paulding.Other
Traffic Way Traffic Way boxes weird intersection Other
Draft Priority Corridors
Table a-9: Workshop #2: Draft Priority Corridor Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
PRIORITY CORRIDOR: ELM STREET
Ash Street Opportunity for a roundabout.Traffic Calming
Between Linda Drive
and Grand Avenue Narrow road to 10 feet to slow traffic.Traffic Calming
Fair Oaks Avenue Consider raised crosswalk.Pedestrian Concern
General This [Class IV separated bike lanes] is great!Bicyclist Concern
Off of corridor -
Brisco Road Need safe route to Ocean View Elementary from other side of freeway at Brisco Hardware and Cemetery.Other
PRIORITY CORRIDOR: FAIR OAKS AVENUE
Alder Street Please consider intersection improvements at Alder and Fair Oaks Avenue.Pedestrian Concern
Elm Street to
Woodland
This [Fair Oaks between Elm Street and Woodland] is in the door zone of the street parking here. Consider
a parking protected bike lane configuration. Not safe for kids. Bicyclist Concern
General This [Class IV separated bike lanes] is great! Consider extending to Halcyon.Bicyclist Concern
Orchard Street Consider curb extensions to reduce crossing distance.Bicyclist Concern
APPENDIX 201
PRIORITY CORRIDOR: GRAND AVENUE
Alpine Street Wider sidewalks. See Fruitland on a Friday night. Most vibrant part of town next to 40 mph traffic.Pedestrian Concern
Alpine Street - El
Camino Real More crosswalks here.Pedestrian Concern
General Road diet!Other
General Grand Avenue redesign should be #1 priority for the City. Potentially huge positive transformation for ATP
and Grand Avenue businesses. The corridor is unusable right now.Traffic Calming
General Prohibit new driveways Pedestrian Concern
Halcyon Road Please consider bike and ped improvements at this skewed intersection. Maybe curb extensions?
Pedestrian islands? Painted intersections?Pedestrian Concern
Hwy 101 Overpass Very dangerous for peds and bikes.Pedestrian Concern
Mid-block crossing W. bound visibility of crosswalks Pedestrian Concern
Rena Street Please remove turn lanes!Other
Draft Bicycle Recommendations
Table a-10: Workshop #2: Draft Bicycle Recommendations Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Brisco Road Class III is not bike infrastructure. This is high speed to a school.Bicyclist Concern
Fair Oaks Avenue This [Fair Oaks between Elm Street and Woodland] is a door zone bike lane. Almost unusable. Needs more
space between lane and parking. Or no parking. Or reconfiguration.Bicyclist Concern
Oak Park Boulevard Hill! High Priority! [bike lane disappears when bicyclists are biking uphill at much slower speeds than
vehicles]Bicyclist Concern
Traffic Way Potential bike safety detour to direct bicyclists to crossing at Fair Oaks and Traffic Way instead of at
Nelson and Traffic Way.Bicyclist Concern
Valley Road S-curve on Valley should be straightened to avoid dangerous curve.Bicyclist Concern
Water Tank Easement Can we have a trail through to the Camp AG? There is the water tank easement.Bicyclist Concern
Bicycle Project Prioritization
Table a-11: Workshop #2: Bicycle Project Prioritization Comments
RANK CORRIDOR COMMENT
12 Arroyo Grande Creek Trail 12 should be lower than anything connecting to a school or Soto (13, 19, 27).
14 Nelson Street/Whitely Street/Ide Street/
Garden Street/Myrtle Street/Stillwell Drive Lower. Adding more stop signs in the neighborhood would help this.
15,16 Arroyo Grande High School Path These should be higher priority than the creek trail.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN202
Draft Pedestrian Recommendations
Table a-12: Workshop #2: Draft Pedestrian Recommendations Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Brisco Road
Safer route to school is needed for Ocean View kids along Brisco Road. No sidewalk for kids to walk on at
Brisco Hardware.Missing Sidewalk
When they do student walk day [at Ocean View ES] they walk along here [Brisco Road] and there are no
sidewalks and not safe at all. Missing Sidewalk
Safe route to school for Ocean View Elementary School.Other
E. Branch Street E. Branch needs another crosswalk between Traffic and Bridge. People cross all along that section.Pedestrian Concern
Fair Oaks Avenue Please consider improvements at this intersection [Halcyon and Fair Oaks] for peds and bikes.Pedestrian Concern
Grand Avenue W. Grand Avenue [in Grover Beach] is trying to be pedestrian-friendly already.Other
Huasna Road Light-up stop sign at Corbett Canyon and Huasna Pedestrian Concern
Traffic calming efforts on Huasna Road Traffic Calming
Nelson Street Intersection of Mason & Nelson - enhanced pedestrian crossing Pedestrian Concern
Strother Park Crosswalk Strother Park Pedestrian Concern
Traffic Way Consider improvements at this intersection [Traffic Way and Fair Oaks] for bikes and ped. On the way to
school.Pedestrian Concern
W. Branch Street
Pave sidewalk between B of A and AG Library to support the upcoming Library renovation.Missing Sidewalk
Path from the Village to the Library is really needed.Pedestrian Concern
Please pave the sidewalk along W. Branch between B of A and the AG Library to support the upcoming
Library renovation.Missing Sidewalk
APPENDIX 203
Draft SRTS Recommendations
Table a-13: Workshop #2: Draft SRTS Recommendations Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
ARROYO GRANDE HIGH SCHOOL
Fair Oaks Avenue Bus stops need improvements here.Bus Concern
General This area needs to be expanded in order to provide a safe route for most students.Other
OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Brisco Road Underpass is dangerous for bikes.Bicyclist Concern
Brisco Road Need sidewalk to school. This would either be on cemetery side or Brisco.Missing Sidewalk
Brisco Road Class III is not bike infrastructure.Bicyclist Concern
Brisco Road This is high speed to a school.Bicyclist Concern
PAULDING MIDDLE SCHOOL
Huasna Road Speeding issues Traffic Calming
Huasna Road Huasna Road at Clarence - Portuguese Hall events block the street.Other
General I don't think students will be riding their bike to Paulding.Bicyclist Concern
General Students will and do ride their bikes to/from Paulding. The area needs to be expanded. Students cross the
101 overpass everyday. The Jr. High has more students coming from father away.Other
General Roundabout Other
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN204
COMMUNITY SURVEY
Figure a-1: Survey Question 1: How would you best describe your rela-
tionship with Arroyo Grande? (Select all that apply)
»I live in SLO and am in AG often.
»I grew up here and visit often
»I visit often
»Visitor
»Visit Central Coast 6-10 times a year
»My parents live there
Figure a-2: Survey Question 2: Which age group are you in? (Select one)
80%
7%
14%
5%
17%
I live here I am a
student here
I work here I own a
business here
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other (Please specify):
»Own property
»I am in Arroyo Grande virtually every day
»I am looking for a business opportunity in town
»I volunteer here.
»Live in Grover Beach
»Live in Grover Beach
»Work in Grover Beach
»Live in Pismo but shop in AG
»County Public Works
»Transportation planning and funding (SLOCOG regional planner)
»I live in a neighboring city and shop and dine in AG often
8%4%
26%29%34%
17 & under 18-24 25-45 45-64 65+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
APPENDIX 205
Figure a-3: Survey Question 3: What form(s) of active transportation do
you mainly use? (Select all that apply)
Figure a-4: Survey Question 4: How often do you walk in Arroyo
Grande?
93%
1%
51%
5%2%9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other (Please specify):
»Car
»Driving
»Drive/Car
»Electric Bike
»ebike
»Running
»Run
»Use a stroller for children
»Walk with service dog
32%31%28%
10%
0%
Daily 2-4 days per
week
A few times a
month
A few times a
year
Never
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN206
Figure a-5: Survey Question 5: I walk in Arroyo Grande for (Check all that
apply):
»In the village
»Walk to village shops and restaurants daily
»Meeting up with friends at restaurant or coffee shop
»Work
»Work/field visits
Figure a-6: Survey Question 6: How often do you bike in Arroyo Grande?
Other (Please specify):
»Kids commute via bike
»Dog walk, starting to do beach soon with friend
»Dining at restaurants, going to Miners
»Dining, shopping.
»Dining out. Going to the library.
»Events
»Shopping and dining
»Shopping
»Shopping in Village
»Taking kids to school
»Dropping kids off to school
»My sons take the public bus and walk around the village after school
»Village farmers market
56%
85%
15%
1%
18%
Errands Recreation or
Exercise
Commuting Not
applicable
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
3%
15%
23%20%
40%
Daily 2-4 days per
week
A few times a
month
A few times a
year
Never
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
APPENDIX 207
Figure a-7: Survey Question 7: I bike in Arroyo Grande for (Check all that
apply):
Figure a-8: Survey Question 8: What are your reasons for using active
transportation? (Select all that apply)
28%
65%
12%
33%
4%
Errands Recreation or
Exercise
Commuting Not
Applicable
Other
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other (Please specify):
»Fun
»To see friends or attend meetings
»Dining, shopping.
»Social
56%
12%5%
82%
54%
3%11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other (Please specify):
»Easier at times to walk than drive, especially on the weekends.
»Walk the dog
»I need to start
»Support Active Transportation
»It’s much better than being in a car.
»Trying to maintain mobility
»To avoid traffic congestion in the Village.
»To take less cars off the road.
»I would use it more if it were safer to ride down 227 from our house
to AG - I also don’t let my kids ride to town either because 227 is
not great for biking or walking and there are no other roads to town.
»Usually for social events
»It’s safer for others on the road. It’s more enjoyable. It doesn’t re-
quire finding a parking space.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN208
Figure a-9: Survey Question 9: What time of day do you use active
transportation? (Select all that apply)
Other (Please specify):
»Branch Ave. from Bank of America up to Rancho Parkway
»Creeks or other natural resources
»Especially Grover Beach
»From BOA to the AG library
»From St. Patrick’s school to the A.G. library.
»Going to the AG Library
»Goldenwest Pl arroyo grande cul de sac
»Grand Ave/Branch st from Oak Park to the Village; from the Library
to both directions (to the underpass and to Branch st.)
»Grand Avenue and other roads with speed limit over 25 mph
»Library
»Library
»To the library! No sidewalks either direction
»The Arroyo Grande Library!
»The Village to the AG Library
»More cross walks from oak park to east of 101 on grand ave there
was a repaving project years ago and it seems like it wasn’t finished
lack of crosswalks
»Neighborhoods without sidewalks.
»Right in my own older neighborhood
»The hill on Halcyon up to the Mesa (by Poco Locos and JJ’s Market
»There needs to be a sidewalk on West Branch Street from the Bank
of America to Rodeo drive. Walking to the library can be treacher-
ous, especially by the Woman’s Club.
»We would love to be able to bike more around town and to pismo
and oceano
75%76%
42%
3%
Morning Afternoon Evening/Night I don't use active
transportation
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure a-10: Survey Question 10: Where would you like to see better
walking and bicycling routes to? (Select all that apply)
60%57%
36%
67%
39%
48%47%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
APPENDIX 209
Figure a-11: Survey Question 11: What would make it easier for you to
walk or roll more in your community? (Select all that apply)
»Sidewalk to the AG Library
»Aprons on every corner
»Paved sidewalk on W. Branch Steet going to the library.
»Good pavement, and wide, clean shoulders that cars do not use
»Stop signs in village at short/nelson and short/poole
»Need continuos sidewalk from neighborhood to school and library,
these are basic needs
»Faster transit
»Making the bike lane easier to see and more posted
»Continuous sidewalk segments and undamaged sidewalks
»fewer obstructions like mail boxes or vehicles sticking out in the
sidewalk.
43%
80%
47%42%
23%
53%
20%21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other (Please specify):
»Flat sidewalks! The constant hills and valleys to create driveways
makes the sidewalks extremely unfriendly for rolling.
»Stop signs
»Moving all obstacles: mailboxes, utility support lines, fire hydrants,
etc. out of the middle of the sidewalks. Or build the sidewalks out
around these pathway blockers.
»Sidewalk repair from tree root disruption
»Infilling sidewalks, sidewalk repair, removing unnecessary sign-
posts which create an obstruction
»Handicapped accessible corner sidewalks
»Protected bike lanes
»protected bike lanes so bikes aren’t in walking areas
»Slower speeds of cars and more visible crosswalks
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN210
Figure a-12: Survey Question 12: What would make it easier for you to
bike more in your community? (Select all that apply)
hoods that stay on side streets without turns every 500 ft.
»More safety infrastructure
»Protected bike lanes (striping should not be in the same category)
»Consistency of bike lanes
»bike parking facilities at Regional public transit stops
SurVeY QueSTiON 13: Do you avoid certain streets to walk or bike
on? If yes, please list locations and reasons why you avoid these
locations (ex. “Main Street due to lack of sidewalks”).
»227 and branch - too much traffic and no protected walking/biking
space
»3243 Daisy Ln
»4th Street in Grover Beach
»S. Oak Park Blvd & Farol Rd, Grover Beach
»13th Street, Grover Beach
»S Oak Park & Mentone, Grover Beach
»All the canyon roads, Prinz, Noyes, hwy. 227 due to lack of deline-
ated paths and the danger from traffic. It’s sad, because these are
such beautiful walking areas.
»Any street with heavy traffic that doesn’t have a well-defined, ob-
stacle-free bike lane, especially if there is poor lighting or signage.
»Apart from the Village, Grand is mostly unpleasant to walk on. Also,
some/most of the commercial areas are close to each other but
walking between them feels unsafe.
»at night can only go where there is lights either walking or driving
»avoid all streets with narrow lanes and larger exposure of bikes to
moving vehicles
»Avoid biking on Grand Ave, Carpenter Canyon, Halcyon Road due
to high speeds and lack of or frequently dropped bike lanes
»Biking in the village is more scary than driving in LA
»Branch St heading towards Huasna; road 227, Lopez Lake Dr.,
Prince Rd.
»Branch St. and Rodeo Dr.
»Branch Street through the village. Mason Street.
74%83%
14%
29%
39%
19%17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Other (Please specify):
»More and better bike lanes
»Continuous bike paths- especially over 101 freeway bridge and in
the village
»Your bike facilites are poor at best!!
»Studies have found that more people will bike if they have separat-
ed or protected bike ways.
»Protected bike lanes. Paint alone is not enough. Traffic calming
road designs.
»Continuous bike paths over the freeway bridges
»N/A - I can’t bike
»roads can be really narrow and people suck are sharing the road
»Info whether bus bike rack is full. Faster and more frequent bus
routes. Paths that avoid hills. Connecting paths through neighbor-
APPENDIX 211
»Brisco to branch to library, sidewalk is not continuous. From Alder
to Grand, missing continuos sidewalk on the northbound.
»Bristol underpass and El Camino Real
»Crossing 101 to get to the Village on a bicycle is a harrowing expe-
rience. Grand ave. in general doesn’t have enough room for bikes
on sidewalk or in a bike lane.
»Crossing grand due to lack of crosswalks please look at grand from
oak park to east of 101 and count the amount of crosswalks
»Crown terrace in village no side way very dangerous
»Crown hill sideways overgrown with scrubs
»Branch St instead of those park let’s make the sidewalks wider
»Danger zone for walking: Ash Street between Elm and Walnut. You
have to walk in the street because of all the sidewalk obstacles. Oh,
but that’s too dangerous because the 25 mph speed limit is not en-
forced. Help, help, please help this wonderful older neighborhood.
»I don’t ride bikes at all in AG. I’ve already been hit by a car once in
my life, with permanent, life-changing injuries. So long as the speed
limit is not enforced, it is not safe.
»East Branch street between Crown Hill Street and Huasna Road
next to Paulding School due to lack of sidewalks.
»East Branch street from Garden Street to Huasna Road. Also, Cor-
bett Canyon Road from Huasna to Tally Ho Road
»East branch/grand over freeway; to the library
»East side of Elm, south of Sunset - infill sidewalk
»West side of Elm north of the Pike - infill sidewalk
»Multiple areas where sidewalk is damaged or lifted
»Fair oaks ave by the high school - bike lanes are abysmal. Police
presence is disappointingly minimal for an area full of reckless driv-
ers and speeding.
»Fair oaks because of high school traffic, also Corbett canyon for
active transportation due to danger of vehicles
»Going around crown hill from Huasna to the village due to lack of
sidewalks. Also from Clarence Ave to Strother park because lack
of a safe crosswalk. I would love to see a safe way to get from the
bus barn to tally ho along Corbett canyon road, there is a stretch on
street without sidewalks where cars go fast.
»Grand Ave because of lack of continuous bike lanes and speed of
traffic
»Grand Ave from Oak Park to the Village. Too dangerous to bike. We
have to go down to Fair Oaks, then take Traffic Way/Bridge St to get
to and from the Village by bike.
»Grand ave, Halcyon, Oak park due to the excessive speed of cars
and uncontrolled right and left turns. I have had a number of near
misses crossing Grand ave on foot at night it is wide and well lit
car’s turning left just don’t see you
»Grand Ave, too dangerous
»Grand ave. Traffic noise
»Grand Ave. is a mess. High speeds, no bike infrastructure.
»Grand Ave. No protection. Traffic moves too fast.
»W. Branch. No protection. Traffic moves too fast
»E. Branch. No dedicated space. Traffic is impatient and makes dan-
gerous passes.
»Brisco to Ocean View Elemetary. No lane. Traffic is impatient and
makes dangerous passes.
»Fair Oaks near Harloe. The bike lane is in the door zone for all
parked cars.
»Fair Oaks near AGHS. Traffic moves too fast, is typically distracted.
»Grand Ave. Traffic is too fast and close to the sidewalk and bike
lanes
»Grand Avenue - too noisy and cars move too quickly.
»Grand Avenue. Valley Road.
»Grand Avenue and Halcyon Road because there are sections with-
out a bike lane and parking is next to bike lane so risk of someone
opening their car door into a cyclist’s path.
»Grand street has no to minimal bike lane from the village
»Grande Avenue and Branch - Too Dangerous
»Grand-too busy, too many traffic lights, no protected bike lane.
Branch Mill-too rough
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN212
»Halcyon - high car traffic
»Halcyon and highway 1 up to the Mesa
»Halcyon due to heavy traffic
»Hwy 1 to get from the mesa to anything off the mesa, or even just to
JJs. no sidewalk and no side stripe area to do anything safely. many
of us live diretly off hwy1 and no choice but to drive everywhere
...even just a short distance to JJs market.
»Hwy. 1 from Oceano to A.G.
»I do not bike Grand Avenue because it is dangerous. no bike lanes
»I’m typically a thru-rider and use Branch St. to travel to Pismo or
Grover, but volumes are pretty high and there isn’t much separation
from vehicles. I avoid Grand and El Camino Real for the same rea-
sons, even though they’re more direct links to certain places I bike.
»Most of the city south of 101. Village could be much better but the
slower traffic there helps a little bit.
»Mostly avoid the streets where there is no sidewalks.
»No
»No
»No
»No, but it can feel unsafe
»Oak Park between Grand & James Way. Through the Village. Grand
crossing 101. East on Grand crossing Elm
»The Bisco underpass is horrible for bikes. The light to go left from
the bottom of St Pats to under the freeway does not turn for bikes.
We use this route to bike to Ocean View school with our kids and it
is a dangerous spot.
»The crosswalk on Huasna to Strother Park. Tally Ho to Corbett Can-
yon Bridge. It would be nice if walking paths were extended and
connected throughout the east side of Arroyo Grande. For example,
sidewalks or walking paths should continue further east on Huasna
and along Corbett Canyon and Carpenter Canyon to at least Royal
Oaks Place.
»The turn between fair oaks ave and valley road where MY FRIEND
GOT HIT BY A CAR because the cars in that area at the end of a
school day aren’t very safe
»Traffic Way due to heavy traffic volume.
»W Branch/E Grand due to dangerous intersections. Corbett Canyon
due to high speeds and no bike lane
»Walking- Halcyon because it needs more protected crosswalks.
Biking- Grand because of the lack of protected bike lane
»West Branch Street in front of the Woman’s Club is rocky and full of
ruts. I use the bike path.
»West Branch, due to lack of sidewalks
»Where no sidewalks
»Yes - West Branch street has no sidewalks from the village to Bri-
scoe Road. The bike paths disappear when you go over the 101.
Need more crosswalks on Grand.
»Yes, Fair Oaks Avenue near the high school because of how fast
people drive and the lack of paint on the street to see the bike
lanes. People are also not very good and seeing where they are
going so there have been many close calls.
»Yes, numerous streets around Harloe Elementary because the
sidewalks are incomplete. Also hard to cross Fairoaks and Halcyon
without feeling like you will be killed by a car.
»Yes, right outside of AGHS I will walk my bike across streets due
to traffic congestion and lack of protected bike lanes. Additionally,
outside of Harloe, I’ll walk my bike across streets to avoid crossing
into main traffic. This is all when school first gets out, thus why it’s
so busy.
»Yes. Elm Street does not have continuous sidewalks. Riding a bike
on Grand is risky.
SurVeY QueSTiON 14: Is there anything else you would like to add?
»101 is a major barrier for active transporation. Separated mult-use
paths are much needed across bridges and along frontage roads to
permit safe movement and access for bikes and peds.
»A designated or protected path from Huasna to the path at Shell
beach would be AMAZING.
»Active transportation infrastructure is most effective when com-
bined with efforts to slow down vehicle traffic. Bicycle Lanes should
APPENDIX 213
be located adjacent to the sidewalk, rather then between parking
spaces and vehicle lanes.
»AG could be the ultimate 15 minute city if there was better infra-
structure. We have a lot of good retail along with many local busi-
nesses. Citizens should not have to use a car to get everywhere to
run errands, or take their kids to soccer practice.
»AG is VERY inconsistent in striping and maintaining their bike lanes.
Lanes start and stop all over the city. Seems to be a very low pri-
ority. A complete evaluation of all roads with a speed limit over 25
is needed.
»AG may want to consider adopting a Vision Zero goal through the
AT plan.
»AG needs to step it up.
»Alternate routes like bike/ walk paths would be really helpful lead-
ing to schools. I bike with my son from Courtland and Grand all the
way to Trivium (near AG high school). We pass Harloe on the way.
Most of the commute is without any sort of bike lane protection.
There are no bike lanes or walking paths that lead to Elm St Park.
AG high school has no protected pedestrian/bike paths. It would
be wonderful to encourage more bike/walking. Currently the lack
of pathways/protection makes the whole thing very unattractive for
most people.
»Areas around schools MUST be prioritized for the sake of parents
and kids walking and encouraging active transportation. Our kids
need to know that they can walk in our community and get around
without a car.
»Bike lane protection or separation is important.
»Connecting important places in the city (schools, grocery stores)
through a fully connected and protected network should be the
main priority of a ATP. See SLO’s approach to their ATP.
»Frequently dropped bike lanes are sometimes worse than none
at all due to frequent merging. Even if I am capable of biking in
high stress roads as Enthused and Confident, it still shouldn’t be so
stressful.
»From St Patrick school to library, sidewalk must be added. There
are students that walk to the library weekly.
»I am concerned with our terrible roads, my kids are constantly get-
ting hurt Stagecoach road and Plomo court in particular. Kids can’t
play basketball or skate without badly hurting their knees
»I can’t bike, but better/more and continuous bike paths would be
nice.
»I think it’s great to accommodate bikers but not to the detriment of
drivers
»I used to walk from the Village to the library, however the lack of
sidewalks makes it more difficult as I get older
»I would like to see a sidewalk along Branch Street between the Vil-
lage and the Library and up to the Brisco Exchange.
»I would love to see safe bike lanes near schools.
»In the Village, pedestrians can cross at Nevada Street but there are
no longer blinking lights on the street. Drivers are not looking at the
blinking poles on the sidewalk. I have seen several near misses.
The blinking lights need to be placed visibly.
»Lighted crosswalks would be appreciated in the areas mentioned
»More biking and walking paths would draw more tourists which I
don’t like but then the city could stop raising our tax rates to live
here and then we could build a new preschool and get young fam-
ilies to move here instead of retirees from the Valley
»More traffic circles and lower speed limits on hwy 1 on the mesa
where there is a lot of housing directly off the street
»I was the student hit by a car outside of AGHS on December 4th.
Despite being extremely cautious (staying in the bike lanes, wear-
ing a helmet, etc.) I was still sent to the ER from the impact, and the
injuries will make for lifelong dentist appointments, scarring, and
medical bills. I strongly believe in the need for protected bike lanes
in school zones. There are many, many children just like me who
are vulnerable to lifelong injuries if the issue is not addressed.
»Organize more biking events through Parks & Rec, encourage com-
munity members to start biking clubs and support them through
access to resources and assistance. Switch parking to the newer
style: lane/parked car/bicycle lane/sidewalk
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN214
»Our street in particular is where we would like the cul de sac to
have handicapped accessible sidewalks at beginning of street so
that strollers are able to go over and seniors and families even
bikes. We are having to walk to nearest home in beginning of street
to be able to use their driveway to get our strollers off the sidewalk
or elders use it to get off and continue walking. Sometimes if cars
are parked out side of driveway it makes it hard for us and incoming
traffic into street to see each other. This has become a high safety
concern around the street
»Please add more continuous sidewalks, bike paths and crosswalks
»Please add paved sidewalk on W. Branch Street from Bank of Amer-
ica to the library.
»Please look at the amount of crosswalks on grand from oak park to
east of the 101 on grand
»Separated bike lanes
»Sidewalks could use repair along huasna road across from the bus
barn, lots of tree roots lifting up sidewalks.
»Sidewalks to the library
»Stop or protected crosswalk at Dodson and Halcyon
»Thank you for asking!
»Thank you for looking into this.
»Thanks for working on this!
»that MY FRIEND WAS HIT BY A CAR when she was on her bike, so
just please make stuff safer
»there needs to be more trails And the city needs to put side walks
in crown terrace and they need to clean up the over brown of plants
onto the sidewalks
»There seems to be too much focus on the village and not enough
to promote walking/biking west of the 101
»Too many traffic signals are not bike aware
»We are in desperate need of continuous sidewalks. Try walking
along Oak Park from Grande to Branch st and count how many
times you need to cross the street due to sidewalks ending.
»We need a sidewalk between the village and the library.
»We visit the region several times a year. We always travel by bike
once we’re there. We’ve opted to spend more time and money in
the cities that have focused on improving bike infrastructure. Be-
cause of that we’ve spent much more time and money in SLO rather
than in AG. AG would be more attractive if the streets were safer
for bikes.
»What bothers me the most is Halcyon Drive on way to hospital from
either end. It is a total mess. Never lived before in a town where
hospital streets were not given priority!!! if sick on way to ER some-
one could definitely have an accident.
»Would love to see some options of the free bikes or ebikes to travel
around the areas of the 5 cities.
»Yes! My neighborhood is a wonderful mix of single family homes,
apartments, condos, and flag lots. However, it is a very short block
with high density, for which the city has made no effort to address
or mitigate the street and parking problems. The number of peo-
ple using street parking instead of their own garages, carports, and
driveways causes safety issues for people trying to enter traffic, as
their vision of oncoming traffic, bicycles, walkers, skateboarders,
etc. is blocked. There’s no where to put out your trash cans each
week. Mail delivery is blocked by cars parked in front of mailboxes.
I’ve asked the city to provide me with information about the density
of my neighborhood, so I could start an informed discussion with
the city about the problems. The information was never provided.
»Yes, a sign for pedistians to look both ways before crossing on
Branch and Nevada. People cross the streets without looking and
they jay walk all areas of Branch.
APPENDIX 215
STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1
Date: March 7, 2024 Location: Virtual via Zoom
Attendees:
»Planning Team: Staff from City of Arroyo Grande, KTUA, and CCTC
»Stakeholders: Bike SLO County, Caltrans - District 5, City of Grov-
er Beach - Planning Department, City of Pismo Beach - Planning
Department, Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG), San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Author-
ity (RTA), South County Chambers of Commerce, and a local resi-
dent of Arroyo Grande.
Minutes
Introductions
The group introduced themselves, the organizations they represent,
and their connection to Arroyo Grande.
Project Overview
KTUA provided an introductory presentation that provided an over-
view of stakeholder roles, the ATP, and progress to date.
Discussion Notes
KTUA facilitated an open discussion related to active transportation
concerns and opportunities, as well as desired outcomes of the ATP.
Comments from the discussion are provided below.
»SLOCOG asked if the City has a Vision Zero plan or goal and a sec-
ond question about what types of infrastructure investments could
support a Vision Zero goal.
»The City responded there is no existing Vision Zero policy but
that could be a recommendation as a result of the ATP.
»SLOCOG received an ATP grant to do a regional Vision Zero
plan and mentioned that the outcome of the ATP will likely align
with Vision Zero efforts and can support the case for additional
funding sources.
»A local resident suggested that all signalized intersections be
checked for bike sensitivity (implement bike signals or signal tim-
ing) on a regular basis.
»RTA is interested in learning about what transit improvements are
desired in Arroyo Grande that RTA can support.
»The City responded that it received feedback on transit and
route improvements for first-mile-last-mile treatments.
»Bike SLO County shared numerous opportunities and resources.
»SLOCOG funds Bike SLO County for bicycle education pro-
gramming, which includes upcoming programs at Harloe Ele-
mentary. Bike SLO County offered to get feedback from 4th and
5th graders, many of whom have never ridden a bicycle, at up-
coming programs at Harloe Elementary and asked if the project
team is using Strava Metro data.
»Bike SLO County listed high-stress areas, such as James Way
and Halcyon.
»Bike SLO County suggested the consideration of the agricultur-
al access road from Fair Oaks to Highway 1 to become a class I
multi-use path as a safe route to school connection.
»South County Chambers of Commerce mentioned that hospitality
employees and visitors often use transit and other nonmotorized
forms of transportation.
»City of Pismo Beach asked about looking into existing conditions
and maintenance on Oak Park Road. There is an opportunity for
collaboration between the City of Pismo Beach and the City of Ar-
royo Grande on road improvements to Oak Park Road.
»Caltrans D5 mentioned the importance of bicycle lanes and offered
to respond to data requests and answer any project or grant-relat-
ed questions.
Desired Outcomes of the ATP
»SLOCOG shared the desire for the ATP to result in safe routes to
key destinations such as schools and parks.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN216
»South County Chambers of Commerce mentioned that tourism is a
big component to factor in to ensure that visitors feel comfortable
walking, renting a bicycle, and taking the bus from their hotel to
their destination.
»Bike SLO County would like to see recommended projects listed in
order of priority to help the City allocate resources and funding to
high-need projects.
»City of Grover Beach would like to see the slowing down of vehicle
traffic along commercial corridors and the provision of increased
priority for separated bicycle lanes.
»A local resident would like to see bicycle safety be a higher priority
in Arroyo Grande and would like there to be more bicycle racks
available to the public, particularly in front of businesses.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2
Date: May 2, 2024 Location: Virtual via Zoom
Attendees:
»Planning Team: Staff from City of Arroyo Grande, KTUA, and CCTC
»Stakeholders: Bike SLO County, Caltrans - District 5, City of Grov-
er Beach - Planning Department, City of Pismo Beach - Planning
Department, Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (RTA), South County Chambers of Commerce, and
a local resident of Arroyo Grande.
Minutes
Project Update & Discussion
KTUA presented a community engagement update, an overview of
active transportation infrastructure around Arroyo Grande schools,
and an introduction to project prioritization criteria.
Discussion Notes
KTUA facilitated open discussion related to active transportation in-
frastructure around schools, as well as the prioritization criteria used
to rank recommended bikeway projects. Comments from the discus-
sion are provided below.
Active Transportation Infrastructure Around Schools
»Bike SLO County asked how funding is captured in the ATP and if it
will align with previous planning efforts, such as the Halcyon Com-
plete Streets Plan, rather than starting from scratch.
»KTUA responded the team will review the HCSP to align efforts
and perhaps add things missing.
»RTA asked how prioritization differs from each school and if each
school will have a list of prioritized projects.
»KTUA responded that each school has different priorities, de-
mographics, land use, and road characteristics that can affect
the outcomes. This will be a collaboration with the City.
»Bike SLO County asked the team to address deficient striping
throughout the City, especially around schools.
»KTUA noted this and will discuss it with the planning team.
»City of Grover Beach asked if the ATP will look at routes to Fair-
grove Elementary because it is located in Grover Beach but
may have youth traveling from Arroyo Grande.
»The City responded that this is a great comment and that
the team will talk internally.
Prioritization Criteria
»Bike SLO County commented on the prioritization criteria and how
it is interesting that Households with No Vehicles (HNV) and Colli-
sions are weighted the highest. Bike SLO County asked if it is pos-
sible to have the police department provide enforcement statistics
for speeding, running stop signs, etc.
»The City responded that infrastructure may not be the reason
for collisions (rather causes could be DUIs or reckless driving)
and requested to lower it.
»City of Grover Beach shared that they would like to see the weight
for Transit stops/routes increased from 0.25 to 0.50 to help pro-
mote ridership..
»The City agreed with the City of Grover Beach as there is a
strong transit network, but people need to access transit safely.
»RTA mentioned that South County Transit is currently the health-
APPENDIX 217
iest transit system in SLO County and has recovered the best
post-covid.
»Bike SLO County also agreed with weighing transit higher.
»The City would like to see child density weighting increased to 0.5
because children cannot drive.
»Bike SLO County asked about the scoring rubric and if there is a
fixed number that the criteria should add up to or does changing
the weights affect the ratio. Bike SLO County also asked if the cri-
teria can be re-ranked from highest to lowest and shared with the
stakeholder group.
»RTA said senior density is ranked too low as there is a large senior
population and recommended increasing it to 0.5.
»South County Chambers of Commerce agreed as the popula-
tion is only growing.
»City of Grover Beach shared that there is a more localized, regional
DAC map for SLO County that could be added as a prioritization
criterion. to this table.
»KTUA responded that we typically focus on statewide tools and
we’d love to review the tool.
»South County Chambers of Commerce said Arroyo Grande is work-
ing on updating their General Plan and Development code and be-
lieves that East Grand Avenue is a significant part. South County
Chambers of Commerce asked if that been considered as well.
»KTUA answered that yes, East Grand Avenue will be a big part
of the ATP.
»A local resident asked if the position of the pedestrian crossing
buttons was part of the ATP because the magnetic sensor usually
doesn’t sense bicycles, which forces bicyclists to get off of their
bikes.
»KTUA mentioned this is slightly out of the scope of this ATP, but
it can be a recommendation in the report.
»City of Grover Beach shared additional regional resources, includ-
ing the SLOCOG Housing and Access Plan and the 2050 Regional
Growth Plan.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #3
Date: July 30, 2024 Location: Virtual via Zoom
Attendees:
»Planning Team: Staff from City of Arroyo Grande, KTUA, and CCTC
»Stakeholders: Bike SLO County, Caltrans - District 5, City of Grov-
er Beach - Planning Department, City of Pismo Beach - Planning
Department, Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG), San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authori-
ty (RTA), and South County Chambers of Commerce.
Minutes
Project Update
KTUA provided an overview of project progress and recently complet-
ed outreach events.
Draft Bikeway Network
KTUA presented the draft bikeway network, including an overview of
the methodology and considerations that went into developing bike-
way recommendations. Stakeholders were invited to ask questions
and provide feedback.
Discussion Notes
»SLOCOG asked about regional continuity and used Oak Park as an
example. KTUA responded that Grover added Class IIB and it made
sense to continue it. The proposed Class IV segments on Oak Park
can be substituted with a Class IIB as an interim treatment.
»SLOCOG also asked if traffic volumes were considered. KTUA re-
sponded they were considered and reviewed while bikeways were
being recommended.
»RTA asked about any community push back on the bicycle network.
KTUA expressed that so far, there has been support for bicycle fa-
cilities and mentioned the next outreach event will be held on Sep-
tember 27th where the team will share bikeway recommendations
and solicit feedback.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN218
»South County Chamber of Commerce asked about the existing
number of bicycle facilities. KTUA said there are 15.5 miles of ex-
isting bicycle facilities and the draft bikeway network proposes 33
miles of new bicycle facilities, for a total of 49 miles.
»Bike SLO County mentioned that according to City Ratings, Arroyo
Grande ranks below the state and national averages and suggest-
ing including this in the narrative. Bike SLO County also expressed
the enhanced mileage of bikeways is promising.
»Bike SLO County also mentioned that they feel the recent repaving
of Branch through the Village increases stress by pushing cyclists
towards cars.
»City of Grover Beach suggested adding icons for places people
might enjoy on a bike such as where to grab ice cream as a fun,
easy-to-understand revision for the public.
»SLOCOG mentioned that Branch Mill is a low volume, narrow road
and is surprised that it is receiving a Class IV. KTUA responded this
would require some regrading or road work to accommodate. SLO-
COG appreciated this route as a regional, scenic bikeway.
»CCTC noted that Branch Mill is not in County plans.
»SLOCOG asked if the SLOCOG Identified Projects layer came from
the Regional Transportation Plan, specifically noting the Branch Mill
project. KTUA responded yes and that Branch Mill is labeled as
“Unconstrained Projects.”
»City of Grover Beach asked if pedestrian amenities are considered
as part of this. KTUA responded that this will primarily come from
the Safe Routes to Schools plan.
»SLOCOG suggested looking at lower cost amenities implementa-
ble at a wider scale such as Lead Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs). KTUA
confirmed the team plans to do this alongside quick-build solutions.
»Bike SLO County asked if the team can share the slide deck and the
bikeway mileage statistics. KTUA confirmed this as an action item.
»SLOCOG suggested splitting the SLOCOG Identified Corridors lay-
ers by “Constrained” and “Unconstrained” projects to be clear.
»Bike SLO County asked what type of feedback is needed from
stakeholders and asked for a list of roads with treatments. KTUA
mentioned anything from a section of a corridor to sticky notes on
a PDF, or notes in excel format.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #4
Date: September 26, 2024
Location: Arroyo Grande City Council Chambers
Attendees: Bike SLO County, Caltrans - District 5, City of Grover Beach,
and local resident member.
In lieu of a standard stakeholder meeting, stakeholders were invited
to participate in Community Workshop #2. Stakeholder input was col-
lected along with input from members of the public and can be found
under Community Workshop #2.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #5
Date: November 25, 2024
Location: Virtual via Zoom
Attendees:
»Planning Team: Staff from City of Arroyo Grande, KTUA, and CCTC
»Stakeholders: Bike SLO County, Five Cities Fire Authority, and South
County Chambers of Commerce.
Minutes
Project Thank Yous
KTUA thanked the stakeholders for their continued participation and
consideration for the Arroyo Grande ATP.
Project Recap
»KTUA summarized the extensive community engagement conduct-
ed throughout the project and from the latest Fall events at the
Harvest Festival and final workshop.
»KTUA walked through the organization of the draft ATP. KTUA high-
lighted the three projects that received planning-level design rec-
ommendations and the Safe Routes to Schools cut sheets.
APPENDIX 219
Open Discussion
»South County Chambers of Commerce thanked the group and said
they learned a lot. They were part of this process for Grover Beach
which is paired with a class from Cal Poly SLO. South County Cham-
bers of Commerce plans to attend the Planning Commission meet-
ing for the ATP.
»Bike SLO County mentioned the while quick turnaround made it
difficult to finish the review at the time requested, that the ATP is
very impressive, and they like how community and stakeholder
feedback was incorporated showing that the team listened. Bike
SLO County shared that the priorities are outstanding, and the plan
is very comprehensive. Bike SLO County also shared constructive
feedback and general comments for the team listed below.
»A cost scale (such as under 1 million dollars or between 1-5 mil-
lion dollars) may help the City identify where to place priorities
with limited funding.
»They did not see raised crosswalks pinpointed, however, it was
in the toolkit, and is okay with this.
»There is debate about the effectiveness of Class IIIs and recent
literature calls for roadways 20-25mph or less so they recom-
mend more clearly defining this.
»They appreciate the collaboration with Bike SLO County.
»They would like to see recommendations about quick-builds or
the use of bollards as an interim step to implementation.
»The tone of the ATP should emphasize the shared responsibility
and involvement from all roadway users. It’s not taking the vehi-
cle world and making it safer for bikes, it’s that we’re all in this
together. This is a document for the future so they recommend
being bold and not writing as a vehicle-first community.
»KTUA mentioned there’s a placeholder in the beginning for a
message from the Planning Director and this could be a great
place to set the tone. Bike SLO County agreed.
»Other recommendations include replicating the San Balto bike
bus for the ‘Education & Encouragement’ for schools and driver
Education safety, specifically for young drivers.
»Page 177 – They like the ATP promotes Walk to School Days
partnering with Lucia Mar and recommends the Rideshare SRTS
program by SLOCOG which promotes walk and bike to school
days. The website shows Harloe ES and Fairgrove ES already
partake.
»Under the ‘Open Street Events’ section, they recommend adding
‘Kidical Mass’ bike rides.
»Oceanview, Harloe, and Fairgrove ES have had the Bike SLO
County on-bike program over the last five years.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN220
ONLINE COMMENT MAP
Table a-14: Online Map Comments
LOCATION COMMENT CATEGORY
Andre Drive Sidewalk has buckled up at 145 Andre Dr. A/G Missing Sidewalk
Arroyo Grande Creek
A formal way to cross the creek in this area would allow kids near the village, Stagecoach, and Tanner areas reach each other.Other
The idea for a bridge here is still a good idea. In general, AG could leverage cut throughs for bike/ped between developments
better.Other
Arroyo Grande High School A pedestrian walkway to school in this area instead of Other
Ash Street Bike lane exists in Grover, ends in AG Bicyclist Concern
Bakeman Lane There's a trail here useful for avoiding Elm and Oak Park Other
Corbett Canyon Road
Dangerous. People drive fast Traffic Calming needed
It would be nice to connect the Tally Ho bike lanes to Gularte with a short off-road path Bicyclist Concern
Roundabout opportunity?Traffic Calming needed
Dodson Way All along Dodson Missing Sidewalk
E. Branch Street
Add safe walking/biking to the Village Pedestrian Concern
Bikes are allowed on this trail, but you didn't create a curb ramp to access it, and you put up a sign saying "NO BIKING ON
SIDEWALK" directly in front of it.Other
Safe Routes still an issue here despite bike lane addition Bicyclist Concern
These parking spots at the steepest part of the hill are maddening for bike riders, even experienced ones.Bicyclist Concern
E. Cherry Avenue
This section uses a concrete apron instead of an inside bike lane stripe because of different water collection area, and the result
is that these trucks don't park close enough to the curb.Bicyclist Concern
No comment.Missing Curb Ramp /
ADA truncated domes
El Camino Real
Can you combine through/right or through/left (and change signal operation) to fit a bike lane (and widen the existing bike
lane)?Bicyclist Concern
It's important for bike access in this area to get better so people can reach the Park&Ride safely Bus concern
The are some places where the thermoplastic lasts. This seems like just paint because it has faded so many times, even on the
side without buses.Other
This bike lane ending is improperly signed to the right of a right turn lane with no protection or merge warning. You should have
enough ROW to create a protected corner instead of a long "sandwich" bike lane.Bicyclist Concern
This building was built in 2015 but the bike lane was not added on the whole frontage.Bicyclist Concern
APPENDIX 221
Elm Street
Parking blocks sight distance Other
The lack of bike lane in this segment is silly, and useless given the single travel lanes north and south of this segment.Bicyclist Concern
This section was repaved in the 2012 paving project but bike lanes were not provided. Need to make sure all opportunities are
used.Bicyclist Concern
No comment.Missing Sidewalk
No comment.ADA Concern
Fair Oaks Avenue Let bikes-only use this sidewalk instead of blocking it with gates Bicyclist Concern
Fair View Drive Sidewalk incomplete. In vicinity of elementary school Missing Sidewalk
Farroll Avenue
Bike lanes should still be able to fit up to here. Further down consider 1 side parking to allow lower traffic stress for kids going to
Harloe while still meeting parking needs.Bicyclist Concern
There are sections of Farroll near apartments where the parking is needed, but there are other sections without any homes
fronting the street where the parking is not used at all, contributing to speeding. Consider making adjustments to reduce
speeding and improve comfort and safety.
Bicyclist Concern
Garden Street No comment.Missing Sidewalk
Grand Avenue
Narrow sidewalks with no buffer between the traffic and pedestrians Pedestrian Concern
Taking a bus from central AG to SLO involves taking the local bus to Pismo instead of transferring here. Part of that has to do
with the lack of crosswalk and bus stop here. That could be improved.Bus concern
There are many of these right turn lanes that could be continuous bike lanes. Cars are supposed to merge into bike lanes
anyways but it at least gives a clue to drivers to look.Other
No bike lane despite all the red curbing just for these 3-4 parking spaces?Bicyclist Concern
No bike lanes on any 101 crossing (in both directions)Bicyclist Concern
This is signed as a bike route but has what looks like a bike lane, which causes confusion. Also there are signs that say "Bike
Route Ends" which don't really make sense.Bicyclist Concern
This shopping center is an example of a miss on bike parking. What bike parking exists is often just 1 per building, so people are
still locking to the Starbucks railing instead of the bike rack.Bicyclist Concern
Halcyon Road No comment.Missing Curb Ramp /
ADA truncated domes
No comment.Missing Sidewalk
Haven Court These driveway types are really nice for people in wheelchairs. If runoff concerns could be addressed, the driveway could be
extended into the street where people can't park anyways so the sidewalk is flat and the driveway isn't too sharp for drivers.Other
Huasna Road
Blinking beacon light?Traffic Calming needed
High vehicle speed, wide street, nearby park Pedestrian Concern
Need to install flashing beacons and traffic calming measures such as bulbouts Pedestrian Concern
Sidewalk missing Missing Sidewalk
Stop signs with solar lights Traffic Calming needed
No comment.Pedestrian Concern
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN222
James Way 1) Trail Access comment type doesn't work right, 2) Trails don't have curb ramps to easily access Other
Add curb ramp Other
Linda Drive Consider moving the barriers around to allow bikes to go both ways here, to avoid Grand Other
Nelson Street No ADA path to access this crosswalk ADA Concern
Oak Park Boulevard Probably the scariest place for bikes. Uphill, no lights so very fast traffic, no bike lanes Bicyclist Concern
Transition from Bike Lane to Bike Route (Bikes May Use Full Lane) is not well defined Bicyclist Concern
Oak Park Plaza
No curb ramp to use this perfectly good bridge Bicyclist Concern
No comment.Missing Curb Ramp /
ADA truncated domes
Other Is this a bike ped path or fire only?Other
Platino Lane If this section of path to Platino became public then the path on Corbet Canyon could be even shorter.Other
Printz Road Would be nice to route through for bikes to Printz Bicyclist Concern
Short Street Convert to pedestrian only Pedestrian Concern
Station Way
Even if this location doesn't meet warrants for a crosswalk, the stop line locations and corner radii contribute to confusion about
where pedestrians are supposed to be and where people are supposed to yield.Pedestrian Concern
No ADA ramp, if coming from south, must exist into parking aisle and wheelchair through rest of complex ADA Concern
No comment.Missing Sidewalk
Strother Park Strother Park Common destination
Tally Ho Road Similar, no access ramp or turn lane to access the trail, so the only alternative is using the driveway way up the street and riding
backwards on the sidewalk.Other
The Pike High speed traffic and small bike lanes Bicyclist Concern
Traffic Way
Bus stop not ADA accessible Bus concern
High travel speeds and very wide area to cross Pedestrian Concern
Just a note, you have a lot of "Bike Lane Ends" signs that are not actually true, such as here.Other
Lack of ADA path into commercial area except by using wheelchair in the street ADA Concern
This crosswalk and push button misses quite a few ADA features ADA Concern
Traffic way bridge replacement project as currently proposed makes no significant improvement to bike LTS. Consider
adjustments to lower LTS such as shared use path, raised bikeway, or otherwise.Bicyclist Concern
Vernon Street There is no safe way to travel by wheelchair from the Village to the Woman's Center ADA Concern
Via Bandolero Add curb ramp Other
APPENDIX 223
W. Branch Street
Bike lane ends on significant uphill grade without signage or sharrows Bicyclist Concern
Bus stop and curb ramp ADA Concern
Bus stop not ADA Bus concern
Can you fit an uphill bike lane? Downhill is usually OK Bicyclist Concern
Drive lane is 24', bike lane is 4'. This speaks to outdated engineering design guidelines that defaults to maximum car lane width
and minimum bike lane width. It should be the other way around.Bicyclist Concern
Even if the storm drain grate is designed correctly, the concrete seam is an issue, and the asphalt and concrete are usually at
different angles also.Bicyclist Concern
Missing sidewalk adjacent to non-ADA bus stop Missing Sidewalk
W. Branch Street The city standard design includes these concrete aprons which stick out into the bike lane. When the asphalt-concrete joint
wears out over time, this becomes a problem Bicyclist Concern
W. Branch Street The uphill bike lane isn't wide enough for how steep the hill is, to account for bike rocking.Bicyclist Concern
Waller Place Another example of the concrete apron / asphalt seam cracking. The thermoplastic also cracks at any seam. Bicyclist Concern
Mailboxes not ADA accessible Other
Woodland Drive This fire access gate is not accessible to bikes with trailers or trikes.Bicyclist Concern
Woodland would be a decent bike route if not for crossings at Grand and Fair Oaks.Bicyclist Concern
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN224
ARROYO GRANDE GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
Transportation-related input collected during the community engage-
ment process for the Arroyo Grande General Plan Update is summa-
rized below. The information below is from the document titled Com-
munity Engagement Summary Report: City of Arroyo Grande General
Plan Update prepared by Mintier Harnish for the City of Arroyo Grande.
The full report can be found at: https://planarroyogrande.com/
PROBLEMS
Active Transportation
Several participants identified a lack of safe pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure as a major problem in the community. The lack of side-
walks in certain areas make it dangerous for pedestrians, discouraging
people from walking. Some participants expressed their desire for en-
hanced active transportation infrastructure along school routes, advo-
cating for features like dedicated bike lanes and crosswalks equipped
with flashing light beacons to encourage reduced traffic speed near
educational institutions.
Additionally, some individuals expressed the view that Arroyo Grande
lacks sufficient bike lanes throughout the city. Specific areas identified
for active transportation improvements include the Brisco underpass
and W. Branch Street. The community also identified the lack of bike
routes to Paulding Middle School and the absence of sidewalks along
routes to Ocean View Elementary as areas for improvements.
Parking
Some respondents identified the shortage of parking in the central
part of town and challenges with parking enforcement as an issue
in Arroyo Grande. Multiple respondents commented on the general
lack of parking throughout the city, especially in the Village, includ-
ing handicap spaces. A few respondents commented on issues with
illegal parking, specifically on El Camino Real between Faeh Avenue
and Bennett Avenue, where motor homes, trailers, and cars park for
extended periods of time.
Traffic
The most commonly reported issue in Arroyo Grande is traffic and
congestion. Some of the comments in this category included referenc-
es to active transportation infrastructure including sidewalks and bike
lanes; however, vehicular traffic and roadway infrastructure was the
primary concern among these respondents. Many of the comments in
this category reported on traffic issues observed citywide, while oth-
ers reported specific roads or intersections that have daily congestion,
such as the Fair Oaks Avenue exit off Highway 101, and Highway 101
near the El Camino Real exit. Respondents also noted congestion at
the Cabrillo Highway and South Halcyon Road intersection, and al-
though it is located outside of city limits, serves as a main point of ve-
hicular entry from the south. The most reported location for frequent
high-volume traffic is the Brisco Road and West Branch Street exit off
of Highway 101. There were also numerous comments reporting road-
way safety issues and reckless driving. Branch Street running through
the Village was frequently cited for safety issues due to high vehicle
speeds and the presence of trucks traveling through an area with a
high concentration of pedestrians.
OPPORTUNITIES
Active Transportation
Respondents expressed a desire for enhanced active transportation
infrastructure in Arroyo Grande. They believe that improving bicycle
infrastructure could alleviate traffic congestion and enhance safety,
particularly on school routes. Specific suggestions for bicycle infra-
structure improvements were made for Corbett Canyon Road, Branch
Street through the Village, and Tally Ho Road. Pedestrian infrastructure
improvements were also recommended, with a focus on East Branch
Street, the Village, and walking paths. Additional suggestions included
improving signage along the Grace Lane Trail.
Parking
Respondents in Arroyo Grande highlighted the need for enhanced
parking infrastructure and design. Suggestions included the construc-
tion of a sizable parking garage in the Village, with a specific mention
APPENDIX 225
of the parcel near Klondike Pizza. Additionally, two comments advo-
cated for replacing street parking with parklets and enhancing pedes-
trian infrastructure. To address the potential loss of on-street parking,
there was a suggestion to expand the existing parking lots behind
businesses along West Branch Street. Another participant emphasized
the importance of maintaining free parking and improving directional
signage for existing parking lots.
Traffic and Roadway Infrastructure
Many participants suggested opportunities for improved traffic and
roadway infrastructure, especially for citywide roadway improve-
ments, traffic reduction, and improved street safety. Several comments
discussed Brisco Road between West Branch Street and El Camino
Real. There were also comments discussing opportunities to bypass
West Branch Street and reduce traffic through the Village. Addition-
al comments included the need for improved signage at the Huasna
Road and Corbett Canyon Road intersection and improvements to the
Bridge Street and Branch Street intersection.
VISION FOR THE FUTURE
“In the future, Arroyo Grande will… be easier to get around without a
car.”
Transportation
Community members in Arroyo Grande share a vision for the city’s
transportation system, emphasizing both active transportation and
general roadway improvements. They aspire to transform the city into
a more bicycle and pedestrian-friendly community, reducing depend-
ence on cars. This vision includes crucial enhancements to pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and trails,
promoting a healthier and sustainable urban lifestyle. Simultaneous-
ly, the community envisions safe, efficient, and well-maintained road-
ways. This involves addressing issues like potholes, and improving
freeway interchanges, high-volume intersections, and traffic signals to
alleviate congestion and enhance safety for all road users.
I LOVE ARROYO GRANDE BECAUSE…
Walkability
Residents appreciate the city’s walkable nature, recognizing it as one
of its most commendable features. This quality not only fosters a dy-
namic and active community but also contributes to the overall appeal
of Arroyo Grande. The emphasis on walkability signifies a commitment
to creating an environment where residents can easily navigate on
foot, fostering a sense of connection, vibrancy, and community en-
gagement.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN226
APPENDIX C - CALTRANS GUIDANCE
The ATP was funded by Caltrans and administered by Caltrans District 5. Caltrans District 5 staff reviewed the ATP and provided the following
guidance for the City to reference during the ATP implementation:
General
»Any proposed improvements on the State Highway System,
including ramp intersections and overcrossings/undercrossings,
are conceptual and will require a safety, operational, and/or warrant
analysis prior to any Caltrans approval.
»All active transportation network(s) that cross or tie into State
facilities (interchanges, ramps intersections, freeways, or highways)
need to be consistent with Caltrans Director Policy DP-36 (Safe
System Approach) and DP-37 (Active Transportation).
»The Cities of Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach, and Pismo Beach
should coordinate when planning, designing, and implementing
active transportation infrastructure to eliminate gaps in active
transportation networks and ensure facilities in the three cities
eventually connect to serve both tourists and residents.
Pedestrian Facilities
»Any pedestrian hybrid beacon planned will need to be warranted
per CA-MUTCD Chapter 4F.
»Recommendations regarding parking around/adjacent to crosswalk
facilities must be consistent with AB 413.
Bicycle Facilities & Use
»Bike detections must be provided in the bike lane design when the
lane approaches any signalized intersection per California Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 4D.105.
»Typical bike lane design shall be in accordance with Highway
Design Manual (HDM) Section 403.6.
»Contact Caltrans Traffic Safety for any questions about bike green
pavement markings, striping, and signing.
»Off-tracking of design vehicle must be checked with the bike lane
to ensure the vehicle off-tracking does not overlap the bicycle path.
All design vehicle checks shall be in accordance with HDM Topic
404.
»Per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) a bicycle is a non-motorized
vehicle and must obey all Streets and Highway Codes, California
Vehicles Codes, and share the road with other road users in a
safe and considerate manner like any other vehicles on the road.
Bicyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as other drivers.
Also see CA DMV Driver Handbook, Bicycles section.
»California Vehicle Codes pertaining to the operations of non-
electric bicycles and electric bicycles include: DIVISION 1. WORDS
AND PHRASES DEFINED [100 - 681] (Division 1 enacted by Stats.
1959, Ch. 3.) Section 312.5. Electric Bike Defined VEH ARTICLE
4. Operation of Bicycles [21200 - 21214] (Article 4 added by Stats.
1963, Ch. 479) Section 21201., Section 21206., and Section 21207.5.
Roadway & Intersection Modifications
»For any existing intersection that has a higher than Statewide
average pedestrian or bicyclist crash rate, an innovative and safer
intersection control type (ISOAP process would be required if the
intersection is a State-owned intersection) should be considered to
improve the safety performance and mobility of these intersections.
»If a roundabout is desired and becomes the preferred intersection
control type on the State-owned intersection, all roundabout design
standards shall follow HDM 405.10 and NCHRP 672.
»If a lane reduction is desired on a State-owned roadway, all lane
width designs shall be in accordance with HDM Index 301.1.
»If a turning lane width reduction is desired at a State-owned roadway
section or intersection, lane width reduction design should be in
accordance with HDM Section 405.2 & 405.3.
»Any reduction in an existing two-way left turn lane (TWLTL) shall be
in accordance with HDM 405.2(4). The minimum width shall not be
less than 12 feet per HDM Index 301.1.
»Physical traffic calming measures should factor in Truck (Medium
& Heavy Duty) Mobility (Turning, Width, & Height), especially along
corridors that have higher truck traffic, to avoid inhibiting the flow of
traffic (i.e., motorized vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc.) if they
were to get stuck.
APPENDIX 227
APPENDIX D - PRIORITY PROJECT CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS
Pages 228 through 247 contain planning-level conceptual drawings and cost estimates for the ATP’s three priority projects (Table A-15). The cont-
ceptual drawings can be used by the City to apply for and secure grant funding. All improvements shown in the conceptual drawings are subject
to further evaluation. The conceptual drawings should not be viewed as the ultimate solution, but are indicative of how active transportation princi-
ples can be implemented to create safer streets for bicyclists and pedestrians. As the City begins the construction design process, the conceptual
drawings presented in this ATP may be modified based on considerations for cost, maintenance, safety, feasibility, and availability of adequate
right-of-way to install the improvements.
Additionally, the City will need to coordinate with a Caltrans project development team for all proposed projects within the Caltrans right-of-way,
including along the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing and East Grand Avenue overcrossing. Any proposed improvements on the State Highway
System are conceptual and will require a safety, operational, and/or warrant analysis prior to any Caltrans approval.
Table a-15: Priority Projects
STREET BETWEEN LENGTH (MILES)FROM TO
E. Grand Avenue Oak Park Boulevard Branch Street 1.68
Elm Street Linda Drive City Limit 1.05
Fair Oaks Avenue Elm Street Traffic Way 1.59
COST ESTIMATES
Tables A-16 through A-18 provide planning-level cost estimates for the three conceptual drawings. Unit costs are based on expected labor and
material costs plus percent markups for the following: mobilization (5 percent), traffic control (8 percent), design (10 percent), contingency (30 per-
cent), and inflation to 2030 (3 to 4 percent per year). Costs are based on similar projects from agencies across the region and State. These costs
are to be used for planning purposes only and are subject to further evaluation.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN228
COUNTERMEASURE UNIT COST UM QTY LENGTH WIDTH ESTIMATED
COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction (low cost options use pavement markings)
Remove/Reconstruct Existing Medians $62,866.81 LS 1 $62,866.81
Install Landscaping $31,433.41 LS 1 $31,433.41
Widen Elm Street to Brisco $2,514.67 LF 250 $628,668.13
Install Median (Rena to El Camino Real) $251.47 LF 1,350 $339,480.79
Install Tactile Domes $628.67 EA 28 $17,602.71
Install Curb Ramps $12,573.36 EA 2 $25,146.73
Grinding $31,433.41 LS 1 $31,433.41
Slurry Seal $2.10 SF 8640 60 $1,086,338.54
Install Protected Intersection (Elm)$1,257,336 LS 1 $1,257,336.27
Bell Street Intersection Crosswalk $125,734 LS 1 $125,733.63
Install Landscaping $188,600 LS 1 $188,600.44
Pavement Markings
Install Class IV Separated Bikeway $314,334.07 MI 1.35 $424,350.99
Thermplastic Striping $50.29 LF 8,000 $402,347.61
Thermoplastic Arrows and Symbols $314.33 EA 200 $62,866.81
Green Bicycle Lane Markings $25.15 SF 667 6 $100,637.19
Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Install Lighting (Crosswalks) $18,860.04 EA 4 $75,440.18
Install RRFB $31,433.41 EA 2 $62,866.81
Install Roadside Signs $628.67 EA 75 $47,150.11
Traffic Signal Installation (El Camino Real) $1,257,336.27 LS 1 $1,257,336.27
Traffic Signal Upgrades $62,866.81 EA 4 $251,467.25
Traffic Signal Timing $31,433.41 LS 1 $31,433.41
Install Pedestrian Scale Lighting $1,257,336 LS 1 $1,257,336.27
Total $7,767,873.76
UM=Unit of Measure, EA=Each, SF=Square Feet, LF=Linear Feet, LS=Lump Sum
Note: Cost estimates are provided from Oak Park Boulevard to El Camino Real because a traffic study is needed east of El Camino Real.
Table a-16: Cost Estimate: East Grand Avenue (Oak Park Boulevard to El Camino Real)
APPENDIX 229
Table a-17: Cost Estimate: Elm Street (Linda Drive to Paul Place)
COUNTERMEASURE UNIT COST UM QTY LENGTH WIDTH ESTIMATED
COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction (low cost options use pavement markings)
Curb Ramp $11,760.00 EA 39 $458,640.00
Concrete Sidewalk $33.60 SF 1,601 10 $537,936.00
Pavement Markings
High Visibility Crosswalks $5,880.00 EA 25 $147,000.00
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane (2 lines-crosshatch-both sides of road) $42.00 LF 4,700 $197,400.00
Class III Bicycle Sharrows $504.00 LF 1,200 $6,048.00
Parallel Parking (2 white lines) $16.80 LF 4,700 $78,960.00
Bicycle/Vehicle Conflict Markings $201.60 LF 2,200 $443,520.00
Bicycle Green Box Segment $126.00 LF 250 $31,500.00
Vehicle Lane Striping (general lane solid or dashed) $16.80 LF 4,700 $78,960.00
Left Turn Lane (road marking line at intersection) $4,200.00 EA 6 $25,200.00
Total $2,005,164.00
UM=Unit of Measure, EA=Each, SF=Square Feet, LF=Linear Feet, LS=Lump Sum
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN230
COUNTERMEASURE UNIT COST UM QTY LENGTH WIDTH ESTIMATED
COST
Concrete or Pavement Construction (low cost options use pavement markings)
Modern Roundabout $840,000.00 EA 1 $840,000.00
Curb Ramp $11,760.00 EA 17 $199,920.00
Curb and Gutter pan (concrete) $117.60 LF 5,100 $599,760.00
Landscape Plant Irrigation $25.20 SF 5,000 4 $504,000.00
Pavement Markings
High Visibility Crosswalks $5,880.00 EA 10 $58,800.00
Class II Bicycle Lane (1 line - both sides of road) $16.80 LF 900 $15,120.00
Class IIB Buffered Bicycle Lane (2 lines - crosshatch - one side or road) $21.84 LF 2,500 $54,600.00
Class III Bicycle Sharrows $504.00 LF 500 $2,520.00
Class IV Separated Bikeway (3 lines - crosshatch - one side of road) $33.60 LF 2,500 $84,000.00
Parallel Parking (2 white lines) $16.80 LF 1,000 $16,800.00
Bicycle/Vehicle Conflict Markings $201.60 LF 1,000 $201,600.00
Bicycle Solid Green box segment $126.00 LF 50 $6,300.00
Vehicle Lane Striping (general lane solid or dashed) $16.80 LF 3,500 $58,800.00
Signs or Signal Infrastructure
Street Lighting $13,440.00 EA 15 $201,600.00
Total $2,843,820.00
UM=Unit of Measure, EA=Each, SF=Square Feet, LF=Linear Feet, LS=Lump Sum
Note: Cost estimates are provided from Elm Street to Valley Road because a traffic study is needed east of Valley Road.
Table a-18: Cost Estimate: Fair Oaks Avenue (Elm Street to Valley Road)
APPENDIX 231
Page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN232
APPENDIX 233
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN234
APPENDIX 235
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN236
APPENDIX 237
Modify traffic signal and timing (i.e., reflective backplates, push
buttons, leading pedestrian intervals, clearance values, etc.).
Consider protected intersection at Elm Street. Widening and
median reconstruction required.
Proposed bicycle sharrow markings and
regulatory signage for Class III bicycle route.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes.
Green striping and high-visibility crosswalks
to be added at major intersections.
Consider a road diet from Grand Avenue to Ash
Street to increase space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities while maintaining on-street parking.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN238
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes.
Green striping and high-visibility crosswalks
to be added at major intersections.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes.
Green striping and high-visibility crosswalks
to be added at major intersections.
Consider a road diet from Grand Avenue to Ash
Street to increase space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities while maintaining on-street parking.
Consider a road diet from Grand Avenue to Ash
Street to increase space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities while maintaining on-street parking.
APPENDIX 239
Proposed curb extensions, high-visibility
crosswalks, green striping, and wayfinding
signage.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
Install green striping along transit stops.Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
Proposed high-visibility crosswalks,
green striping, wayfinding signage,
and missing curb ramps.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN240
Proposed curb extensions, high-visibility
crosswalks, green striping, and wayfinding
signage.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes.
Green striping and high-visibility crosswalks
to be added at major intersections.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes.
Green striping and high-visibility crosswalks
to be added at major intersections.
Install missing sidewalks and
curb ramps along corridor.
Consider a road diet from Farroll Avenue to The
Pike to increase space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities while maintaining on-street parking.
Consider a road diet from Farroll Avenue to The
Pike to increase space for bicycle and pedestrian
facilities while maintaining on-street parking.
APPENDIX 241
Proposed redesign of intersection to improve
safety and comfort includes removal of right-
turn slip lane and the addition of signage,
green striping, and high-visibility crosswalks.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle lanes. Green
striping to be added at major intersections and
transit stops.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN242
Proposed high-visibility crosswalks,
green striping, wayfinding signage,
and missing curb ramps.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
Proposed high-visibility crosswalks,
green striping, and curb ramps at
intersections.
APPENDIX 243
A roundabout will be installed
at Halcyon Road as part of the
Halcyon Complete Streets Project.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
Existing Class II bicycle lanes.
City to coordinate with SLO RTA
to relocate existing transit stop to
accommodate proposed roundabout.
Install green striping along transit stops.
Proposed high-visibility crosswalks
and green striping at intersections.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN244
Consider installing
improvements for
safe pedestrian
crossing at
Woodland Drive.
Consider a road diet from Woodland Drive to Valley Road
to increase space for bicycle, pedestrian, and urban
greening facilities while maintaining on-street parking on
south/east side of Fair Oaks Avenue.
Proposed Class II bicycle lanes.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle
lanes or Class IV separated bikeways.
Green striping to be added at major
intersections and transit stops.
Proposed high-visibility
crosswalks, green striping, and
curb ramps at intersections.
APPENDIX 245
Consider a protected
intersection or a roundabout.
Install a speed feedback
sign to alert drivers heading
eastbound toward Arroyo
Grande High School.
Consider a road diet from Woodland Drive to Valley Road
to increase space for bicycle, pedestrian, and urban
greening facilities while maintaining on-street parking on
south/east side of Fair Oaks Avenue.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle
lanes or Class IV separated bikeways.
Green striping to be added at major
intersections and transit stops.
Consider a road diet from Woodland Drive to Valley Road
to increase space for bicycle, pedestrian, and urban
greening facilities while maintaining on-street parking on
south/east side of Fair Oaks Avenue.
Proposed Class IIB buffered bicycle
lanes or Class IV separated bikeways.
Green striping to be added at major
intersections and transit stops.
Install green striping along transit stops.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN246
Future development along Fair Oaks Avenue should integrate active transportation facilities, including safe bicycle and pedestrian connections to Arroyo Grande High School.
Note: The City is exploring intersection improvements
at the entrance of the school parking lot.
Future development along Fair Oaks Avenue should integrate active transportation facilities, including safe bicycle and pedestrian connections to Arroyo Grande High School.Coordinate improvements along Fair Oaks Avenue
with any future modifications to the U.S. 101 off-ramp.
Conduct a traffic study between Valley Road and Traffic Way to explore options for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. Coordinate with a Caltrans
project development team for any portions of the traffic study within the Caltrans right-of-way, including the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing.
Conduct a traffic study between Valley Road and Traffic Way to explore options for improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. Coordinate with a Caltrans
project development team for any portions of the traffic study within the Caltrans right-of-way, including the Fair Oaks Avenue overcrossing.
Install LED stop signs.
APPENDIX 247
Page intentionally left blank.
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN248
APPENDIX E - POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Each year, federal, state, and local government agencies invest millions of dollars in active transportation projects nationwide. Table A-19 contains
an extensive list of potential federal, state, and local funding opportunities that may be used for a wide range of active transportation projects.
Funding sources for active transportation projects vary in purpose and scope, but are intended to help the City plan, design, maintain, and imple-
ment ATP projects and programming. The City is encouraged to use Table A-19 to identify and pursue grant funding to implement this ATP. How -
ever, it is important to note that all funding sources are subject to change and further research will be necessary to apply for grant funding as not
all funding sources apply to the recommended projects.
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
Improvement
Program
Federal
Highway
Administration
The Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program provides
funding to State and local governments
for transportation projects and programs
to help meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act. The program supports
surface transportation projects and
other efforts that contribute to air quality
improvement and congestion relief.
Annual X X
• Travel Demand Management to
promote clean commutes
• Public Education and Outreach
• Bicycle amenities and facilities, such
as Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Federal
Highway
Administration /
Caltrans
The Highway Safety Improvement
Program funds work on any public road
or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian
pathway or trail, or on tribal lands for
general use of tribal members, that
improves the safety for its users.
Two year
cycle X
• Install hybrid pedestrian signals at
trail crossings
• Install RRFBs at locations adjacent to
parks, trails, and schools
• Improve pedestrian and bicycle
safety at locations with uncontrolled
crossings
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
Table a-19: Potential Funding Sources
APPENDIX 249
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Rebuilding
American
Infrastructure
with
Sustainability
and Equity
Discretionary
Grant Program
U.S.
Department of
Transportation
The Rebuilding America Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
Discretionary Grant Program funds
projects for planning or constructing
surface transportation infrastructure
projects that will improve safety;
environmental sustainability; quality
of life; mobility and community
connectivity; economic competitiveness
and opportunity including tourism;
state of good repair; partnership and
collaboration; and innovation.
Annual X X
• Trail and active transportation
construction projects
• Planning and engineering work for
bicycle, pedestrian, and trail planning
Reconnecting
Communities
and
Neighborhoods
Grant Program
U.S.
Department of
Transportation
The Reconnecting Communities and
Neighborhoods Program provides
grant opportunities to redress the
legacy of harm from transportation
infrastructure including: construction-
related displacement, environmental
degradation, limited access to goods
and services, degraded public health
due to air and noise pollution, limited
opportunities for physical activity, and
hampered economic vitality of the
surrounding community.
Annual
(through
2026)
X X
• Study for the removal, retrofit
or mitigation of a highway or
transportation facility that acts as a
barrier to community connectivity
• Replacement or mitigation of a
transportation barrier with a linear park
and trail
Safe Streets
and Road for
All
U.S.
Department of
Transportation
The Safe Streets and Road for All
program funds regional, local, and Tribal
initiatives through grants to prevent
roadway deaths and serious injuries.
The program offers two grant types:
Implementation Grants and Planning and
Demonstration Grants.
Annual X X X
• Eligible Implementation Grant
projects include developing bikeway
networks, safety treatments, creating
safe routes to school and public transit
services, installing pedestrian safety
enhancements, closing network gaps,
running an education campaign, and
more.
• Eligible Planning and Demonstration
Grants fund the development or
supplementation of a comprehensive
safety action plan.
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN250
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Transportation
Alternatives
Federal
Highway
Administration
The Transportation Alternatives Set-
Aside from the Surface Transportation
Block Grant Program provides funding
for a variety of generally smaller-scale
transportation projects.
Annual X X
• Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
• Construction of turnouts, overlooks,
and viewing areas
• Community improvements such as
historic preservation and vegetation
management
• Environmental mitigation related to
stormwater and habitat connectivity
• Recreational trails
• Safe Routes to School projects
• Vulnerable road user safety
assessments
Urban and
Community
Forestry
Program
U.S. Forest
Service
The Urban and Community Forestry
Program delivers nature-based
solutions to ensure a resilient and
equitable tree canopy in cities,
towns, and suburbs where more than
84 percent of Americans live. 40
percent of the program’s investments
are delivered through established
and new partnerships working to
support disadvantaged communities
experiencing low tree canopy and
environmental justice issues.
Varies X X
• Urban tree planting projects
• Urban forest planning and
management and related activities
(particularly in disadvantaged
communities)
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
APPENDIX 251
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
STATE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Active
Transportation
Program
Caltrans
The Active Transportation Program
provides funding to increase use of
active modes of transportation by
achieving the following goals: increase
the proportion of trips accomplished
by biking and walking, increase safety
and mobility for non-motorized users,
advance active transportation efforts
to achieve greenhouse gas reduction
goals, enhance public health, ensure
that disadvantaged communities fully
share in the benefits of the program,
and provide projects that benefit various
types of active transportation users.
Annual X X X
• Safe Routes to School Plan
• Active Transportation Plan
development
• Trail construction
• Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic
Growth Council
and Department
of Housing and
Community
Development
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities Program funds land
use, housing, transportation, and land
preservation projects to support infill
and compact development that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Annual X X
• Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes
• Active transportation projects to
encourage connectivity to transit
networks
• Bikeways and sidewalks to affordable
housing and transit center
• Install dedicated bicycle facilities
• Pedestrian facilities such as bulb-outs
Clean Mobility
Options Pilot
Program
California Air
Resources
Board
The Clean Mobility Options Pilot Program
provides funding for zero emissions
shared mobility projects (i.e., car sharing,
bike sharing, and on-demand sharing)
in disadvantaged and low-income
communities, including some tribal and
affordable housing communities.
Unknown X X
• Bikeshare programs
• “Quick build” right-of-way safety
improvements for bicycles and
scooters
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN252
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Coastal
Conservancy
Grants
State of
California
Coastal
Conservancy
The Coastal Conservancy funds a wide
variety of projects along the California
coast, San Francisco Bay, and in coastal
watersheds to increase availability of
beaches, parks and trails for the public,
protect and restore natural lands and
wildlife habitat, preserve working lands,
and increase community resilience to the
impacts of climate change.
Ongoing X X X
• Provide coastal experiences for
communities who face barriers to
coastal access
• Accessibility projects that reduce
barriers to coastal access for people
with disabilities
• Build regional trails
• Enhance coastal recreational
amenities, such as restrooms, parking,
picnic areas, interpretive centers,
shade structures, etc.
Habitat
Conservation
Fund Program
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
The Habitat Conservation Fund provides
funding to cities, counties, and districts
to protect fish, wildlife, and native plant
resources; to acquire or develop wildlife
corridors and trails; and to provide for
nature interpretation programs and other
programs which bring urban residents
into park and wildlife areas.
Annual X X
• Build new trails
• Rehabilitate existing trails
• Install interpretive trail elements
• Install seating or lighting along trails
• Develop educational or interpretive
activities or trips
Land and Water
Conservation
Fund
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation/
National Park
Service
The Land and Water Conservation Fund
provides funding for the acquisition
OR development of land to conserve
irreplaceable lands and to create new
outdoor recreation opportunities for the
health and wellness of Californians.
Annual X
• Land acquisition for a new park, an
existing park expansion, a wildlife
corridor with public viewing and
outdoor recreational use, and/or a
recreational/active transportation
corridor
• Development of recreation features
and amenities for outdoor recreation
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
APPENDIX 253
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Local
Partnership
Program
California
Transportation
Commission
The Local Partnership Program provides
funding to counties, cities, districts,
and regional transportation agencies
in which voters have approved fees or
taxes dedicated solely to transportation
improvements or that have imposed
fees, including uniform developer fees,
dedicated solely to transportation
improvements. Funding is intended
to improve aging Infrastructure, road
conditions, active transportation, transit
and rail, health and safety benefits.
Annual X X
• Close sidewalk gap, install Class
II bike lanes and cycle track, curb
extensions, pedestrian enhancements,
improvements to lighting and signage
• Construct 4 single-lane and 1 multi-
lane roundabouts, and improvements
to street, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities
• Expressway pedestrian overcrossing
Local Streets
and Roads
Program
California
Transportation
Commission
The Local Streets and Roads Program
provides funds to cities and counties for
basic road maintenance, rehabilitation,
and critical safety projects on the local
streets and roads system.
Annual X X
• Implement enhanced crosswalk
signing and striping
• Create safety separation between
motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians
• Design and construction of school
access and safety improvements to six
schools
Office of Traffic
Safety Grant
Program
CA Office of
Traffic Safety
The Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Program provides annual funds to
prevent serious injury and death
resulting from motor vehicle crashes
so that all roadway users arrive at their
destination safely. Funds can be used for
bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Annual X X
• Safety education and encouragement
• Campaigns to promote safety
• SRTS safety programs
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN254
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Outdoor
Equity Grants
Programs
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
The Outdoor Equity Grants Program
(OEP) provides funding to improve the
health and wellness of Californians
through new educational and
recreational activities, service learning,
career pathways, and leadership
opportunities that strengthen a
connection to the natural world. The
OEP funds the creation, operation, and
transportation costs of outdoor programs
in underserved communities. Outdoor
programs should include activities in the
community AND natural area trips. OEP
will not fund capital projects.
Annual X
Activities in the community can
include:
• Environmental education activities
• Educational nature discovery walks
• Preparation for natural area trips
Natural area trips can include traveling
to a regional, state, national park,
tribal land, river or lake, beach, forest,
mountain, or desert area for day or
overnight trips within California.
Outdoor
Recreation
Legacy
Partnership
Program
National Park
Service (NPS)/
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
The Outdoor Recreation Legacy
Partnership Program is a federal National
Park Service grant program administered
by the California Department of Parks
and Recreation. ORLP focuses on
communities with little to no access to
publicly available, close-by, outdoor
recreation opportunities in urban
areas. ORLP funds the acquisition or
development of new parks/outdoor
spaces, or substantial renovations to
parks/outdoor spaces in economically
disadvantaged cities or towns of at least
30,000 people.
Annual X X
• Land acquisition for outdoor
recreation
• Development of recreation features
and amenities for outdoor recreation
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
APPENDIX 255
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Recreational
Trails Program
U.S.
Department of
Transportation
Federal
Highway
Administration
/California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
The Recreational Trails Program
(RTP) is a federal U.S. Department
of Transportation grant program
administered by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation.
The RTP provides funding to develop
and maintain recreational trails and trail-
related facilities for both non-motorized
and motorized recreational trail uses.
Annual X
• Land acquisition
• Development/rehabilitation of trails,
trailheads, and trail amenities
• Construction of new trails
• Maintenance of existing trails
(motorized projects only)
State Highway
Operations
and Protection
Program
California
Transportation
Commission
The State Highway Operations and
Protection Program funds repairs and
preservation, emergency repairs, safety
improvements, and some highway
operational improvements on the State
Highway System.
Annual X
• Upgrade sidewalks to ADA
compliance
• Reconstruct damaged pavement
• Add bike lanes to updated corridors
• Upgrade pedestrian push buttons,
refresh striping, and improve
pedestrian and bicycle access
State
Transportation
Improvement
Program
California
Transportation
Commission
The State Transportation Improvement
Program provides funding for state
highway improvements, intercity rail,
and regional highway and transit
improvements.
Two year
cycle X X
• Bike/ped Overcrossing and Access
Improvements and bicycle and
pedestrian bridge
• Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes
• Shared-use paths
• Complete Streets improvements
Statewide Park
Development
and Community
Revitalization
Program
California
Department
of Parks and
Recreation
The Statewide Park Program provides
funding to create new parks and
recreation opportunities in critically
underserved communities across
California. Project selection is based
on several criteria, including need-
based criteria, such as critical lack
of park space, significant poverty,
community challenges, and more. A
project must involve either development
or a combination of acquisition AND
development to create a new park,
expand an existing park, or renovate an
existing park.
Annual X
• Land acquisition
• Rehabilitation of existing or
development of new recreation
features, such as, an aquatic
center, athletic fields, amphitheater,
community gardens, dog parks, open
space, trails, skate parks, public art,
picnic areas, etc.
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN256
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Sustainable
Communities
Planning Grants
Caltrans
Sustainable Communities Planning
Grants encourages local and regional
planning that advances state goals
and practices cited in the Regional
Transportation Plan Guidelines adopted
by the California Transportation
Commission.
Annual X
• Safe Routes to School Plan
• Active Transportation Plan
• Bike/ped Trail/Path Feasibility Study
• Complete Streets Plan
• Sustainable Communities Plan
• Transit-Oriented Development Plan
• First/Last Mile Connectivity Plan
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources
Board
The Sustainable Transportation
Equity Project funds a variety of clean
transportation and supporting projects,
such as public transit and shared
mobility services, active transportation
infrastructure, land use planning and
housing policy, workforce development,
and clean transportation planning
and education. Funded projects
work together within low-income and
disadvantaged communities to increase
transportation equity.
Annual X X
• New bike routes (Class I, Class II, or
Class IV) and supporting infrastructure
• Publicly-accessible bike parking,
storage, and repair infrastructure (e.g.,
bike racks, bike lockers, bike repair
kiosks)
• New walkways that improve
mobility/access/safety of pedestrians
(nonmotorized users)
• Street crossing enhancements,
including accessible pedestrian signals
• Plan development
Sustainable
Transportation
Planning Grant
Program
Caltrans
The Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grant Program was created to support
the Caltrans Mission: Provide a safe
and reliable transportation network
that serves all people and respects the
environment. Grant programs include
Sustainable Communities Grants,
Climate Adaptation Planning Grants, and
Strategic Partnership Grants.
Annual X
• Safe Routes to School Plan
• Active Transportation Plan
• Bike/ped Trail/Path Feasibility Study
• Complete Streets Plan
• Sustainable Communities Plan
• Transit-Oriented Development Plan
• First/Last Mile Connectivity Plan
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Program
Strategic Growth
Council and
Department of
Conservation
The Transformative Climate Communities
Program funds community-led
development and infrastructure projects
that achieve major environmental, health,
and economic benefits in California’s
most disadvantaged communities.
Annual X X X
• Bike share program
• Creating and considering active
transportation corridors for better non-
motorized connections
• Shared-use paths
• Urban greening for pedestrian
facilities
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
APPENDIX 257
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Transit and
Intercity
Rail Capital
Program
Caltrans
The Transit and Intercity Rail Capital
Program provides grants from the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to fund
transformative capital improvements
that will modernize California’s intercity,
commuter, and urban rail systems,
and bus and ferry transit systems,
to significantly reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases, vehicle miles
traveled, and congestion.
Annual X
• Pedestrian and bike trail
• First/last mile connections via bike
lanes and separated paths
• Bike share programs
• Bike parking facilities
• Plan development
Urban
Greening
Program
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
The Urban Greening Program supports
the development of green infrastructure
projects that reduce GHG emissions and
provide multiple benefits. Must include at
least one of the following: sequester and
store carbon by planting trees; reduce
building energy use by strategically
planting trees to shade buildings; or
reduce commute vehicle miles traveled
by constructing bicycle paths, bicycle
lanes or pedestrian facilities that
provide safe routes for travel between
residences, workplaces, commercial
centers, and schools.
Annual X X
• Non-motorized urban trails that
provide safe routes for both recreation
and travel between residences,
workplaces, commercial centers, and
schools
• Projects that expand or improve
the usability of existing active
transportation routes (e.g., walking or
bicycle paths) or create new active
transportation routes that are publicly
accessible by walking
• Complete Green Streets
Wildlife
Conservation
Board Grants
Wildlife
Conservation
Board
The Wildlife Conservation Board
provides funding for fish and wildlife
habitat acquisition, conservation, and
restoration, as well as development
of compatible public access facilities.
Project benefits should include one
or more of the following: protected
biodiversity, increased climate resilience,
enhanced public access, conserved/
enhanced working landscapes,
conserved/enhanced water-related
projects, and/or support of the State
Wildlife Action Plan.
Ongoing X X
• Open-space corridors or trail linkages
• Publicly accessible hunting, fishing,
wildlife viewing, and other wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities
• Climate adaptation and resilience
projects
• Habitat restoration
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN258
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Community
Betterments
Grant Program
SLOCOG
SLOCOG provides grant funding
for smaller-scale community level
infrastructure improvements that support
sustainable transportation goals set by
SLOCOG and its member agencies.
X X X
• Projects that encourage, enhance,
and improve facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorists.
• Transportation enhancement
activities such as pedestrian and
bicycle facilities and wayfinding
PHILANTHROPIC PROGRAMS
Asphalt Art
Initiative
Bloomberg
Philanthropies
The Asphalt Art Initiative grant program
is designed to fund visual art on
roadways, pedestrian spaces, and public
infrastructure.
Annual X X
• Painted curb extensions, pedestrian
plazas, and crosswalks.
• Public space activations
• Traffic safety improvements
Community
Change Grants America Walks
The Community Change Grants program
supports the growing network of
advocates, organizations, and agencies
working to advance walkability. Grants
are awarded to innovative and inclusive
programs and projects that create
change and opportunity for walking and
movement at the community level.
Annual X X
• Trail or walking path development
• Guided or self-guided walking, hiking,
or cycling tours
• Design and installation of public art
Community
Spark Grant
Program
League of
American
Bicyclists
The Community Spark Grant program
supports the growing number of
local grassroots changemakers and
organizations nationwide working to
improve their communities through
better bicycling with $2,000 mini-grants.
Annual X
• Community event or class (one time
or series)
• Giveaways for bike equipment
• Temporary demonstration project
• End-of-trip facilities such as bike
racks, bike parking, bike repair stations
and bike storage
• Bike audit/count
Energize the
Environment
Grant Program
Quadratec
Quadratec offers small one-time grants
for projects that promote environmental
connection, responsibility, and/or
stewardship.
Annual X
• Trail building or restoration projects
• Park beautification events
• Environmental education projects
• Youth educational engagement
events
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
APPENDIX 259
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Outdoor
Access
Initiative
Yamaha
Yamaha provides funding to non-profit or
tax exempt groups (clubs & associations),
public riding areas (local, state and
federal), outdoor enthusiast associations
and land conservation organizations,
and communities with an interest in
protecting, improving, expanding and/or
maintaining access for safe, responsible
and sustainable use by motorized off-
road vehicles.
Quarterly X
• Trail development
• Trail signage
• Trail mapping/map production
• wildlife and habitat management
• Establishing public access to land
for outdoor recreation (including
motorized recreation)
PeopleForBikes
Community
Grant Program
PeopleForBikes
The PeopleForBikes Community Grant
Program supports bicycle infrastructure
projects and targeted initiatives that
make it easier and safer for people of all
ages and abilities to ride.
Annual X
• Bike paths, lanes, trails and bridges
• Mountain bike facilities
• Bike parks and pump tracks
• BMX facilities
• End-of-trip facilities such as bike
racks, bike parking, bike repair stations
and bike storage
Placemaking
Grant Program
National
Association of
Realtors
Placemaking means many things to
different people, but the National
Association of Realtors (NAR) looks
as placemaking as a way to make
communities better places to live by
transforming unused and underused
sites and “eyesores” into welcoming
destinations accessible to everyone in a
community.
Annual X X
• Amenities (street furniture, paint,
signage, materials, landscaping,
murals, etc.)
• Site preparation
• Artist fees
Rails to Trails
Grant Program Rails to Trails
Rails to Trails provides funding to
organizations and local agencies that
are working to develop and connect
equitable trail network.
Annual X X
• Rail-trail
• Greenway
• Multi-use trail
• Shared-use path
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN260
FUNDING
PROGRAM
FUNDING
SOURCE PROGRAM DESCRIPTION FUNDING
CYCLE
PROJECT TYPE PROJECT EXAMPLESINFPLNPGM
Riding for
Focus Grant
Program
Outride
The Riding for Focus grant promotes
cycling as an outlet for students to
improve their cognitive, physical, and
socio-emotional well-being. Schools are
provided with everything they need to
get their 6th-8th grade students riding,
including bikes, helmets, curriculum,
teacher training, and an opportunity
to attend our annual instructor training
event at a Specialized bikes office.
Annual X
• Bikes and helmets
• Student curriculum
• Teacher training
Road to Zero
Community
Traffic Safety
Grant Program
National Safety
Council / U.S.
Department of
Transportation
National
Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
(NHTSA)
The Road to Zero Community Traffic
Safety Grant Program is focused on
supporting innovative and promising
approaches for implementing evidence-
based countermeasures, supporting a
Safe System approach, and performing
necessary research to address traffic
fatalities and serious injuries, and
disparities in mobility safety and access.
Annual X
• Community outreach tools/
campaigns
• Driver education curriculum
• Guide for quick-build
countermeasures
• Demonstration projects for traffic
calming
• E-bike education and safety training
• Data analysis and reporting
Smart Growth
Grant Program
National
Association of
Realtors
Smart Growth Grants support state and
local REALTOR® Associations’ efforts
to advance programs, policies and
initiatives aligned with one or more of
the 10 Smart Growth Principles.
Annually X
• Community planning and visioning
charrettes
• Studies and assessments
• Walkability workshops or audits
• Comprehensive plan and zoning
analysis
• Transportation policy
• Marketing materials
* INF - Infrastructure PLN - Planning and Design PGM - Programming
APPENDIX 261
OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION
I, JESSICA MATSON, City Clerk of the City of Arroyo Grande, County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury, that the attached
Resolution No. 2025-007 was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Arroyo Grande on the 28th day of January, 2025.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of Arroyo Grande affixed this 30th day of
January, 2025.
J SICA MATSON, CITY CLERK