Loading...
RES-2017-081RESOLUTION NO. 2017-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO UPDATE THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2017-00513) (MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2017-0065 1) (DEV2017-00007) (2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN) WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2004-94 adopted on May 25, 2004, the City Council of the City of Anaheim ("City Council") certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330 ("FEIR No. 330"), adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith, and adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 112, which collectively constituted the environmental documentation under and pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA") and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA Guidelines") relating to a comprehensive update of the General Plan for the City of Anaheim ("2004 General Plan Update"), including the adoption of the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan ("2004 Plan") as Appendix B; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2009-171 adopted on November 17, 2009 and Resolution No. 2011-025 adopted on March 8, 2011, the City Council readopted the 2004 Plan in connection with the submittal of applications for California Department of Transportation funding of projects under the Bicycle Transportation Account; and, WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2013-064, the City Council approved and adopted the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan on April 30, 2013, and directed staff to initiate amendments to the General Plan and other related policy documents that would need to be amended to implement the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan including, but not limited to, the City's Bicycle Master Plan; and WHEREAS, in July 2014, the City was awarded a $200,000 grant from the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG") Sustainable Program funds to update the City's Bicycle Master Plan, consistent with the California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2, to incorporate all of the recommendations from the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan and reflect changes that have occurred since the Bicycle Master Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2004; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2013-150, adopted on September 24, 2013, the City Council certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No. 346 ("SEIR No. 346"), adopted a Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations in connection therewith, and Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 122A; relating to the Anaheim Housing Opportunities Sites Rezoning Project; and -1- PC2017-*** WHEREAS, in 2014, the City commenced an extensive public outreach effort to update the 2004 Plan, including presentations at several Neighborhood Council meetings in 2014 and 2016; an open house; an online survey; and, engagement with local bicycling stakeholders and interest groups, employers with commuter reduction programs and incentives for bicycling, and organizations that promote active transportation to obtain their input on the update of the 2004 Plan; and WHEREAS, on August 1, 2016, the City released the Public Review Draft of the update of the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan ("Draft Plan"). The community was invited to review and comment on the Draft Plan. The Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet was posted at all local libraries, community centers, and City facilities, and distributed by various e -blasts to the bicycling community; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public workshop on the Draft Plan at which time staff received input from the Planning Commission and the public. As a result, the Draft Plan was revised to include Appendix G — Implementation Toolbox, and descriptive text was added throughout the Plan to further discuss points of concern expressed by the Planning Commission and public; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2017, the City mailed and published in The Anaheim Bulletin a notice for the March 20, 2017 Planning Commission public hearing for Addendum No. 1 ("Addendum") to FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 343, the 2017 Bicycle Master Plan ("2017 Plan"), and General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513. The Addendum and the 2017 Plan were posted on the City's website for public review and comment. Staff presented highlights of the Plan at each of the six Neighborhood District meetings in February, 2017; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony concerning the contents and sufficiency of the Addendum and for and against the 2017 Plan and General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 and to investigate and make findings in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to April 17, 2017, and directed staff to incorporate a process by which a Class 1 Bike Path would be installed, particularly along flood control channels; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing on April 17, 2017, upon hearing and considering all the testimony and arguments (if any) of all persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission considered evidence and testimony concerning the contents and sufficiency of the Addendum and for and against the 2017 Plan and General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 and did adopt its Resolution No. PC2017-044 and finding and determining and also recommending that the City Council approve the 2017 Plan and General Plan Amendment 2017-00513, as shown on Exhibits A and B attached to this Resolution, contingent upon and subject to the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 343, as shown in Exhibit C attached to this Resolution; and -2- PC2017-*** WHEREAS, upon receipt of the Planning Commission's Resolutions No. PC2017-044, a summary of evidence, report of findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council did fix the 23`d day of May, 2017, as the time, and the City Council Chamber in the Civic Center, as the place, for a public hearing on the Addendum, the 2017 Plan and General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as "CEQA"), the State of California Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, based on a thorough review of the 2017 Plan, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513, and the Addendum, FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, and the comments received to date, and pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City Council finds and determines the following: That the Addendum, together with FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, collectively constitute the environmental documentation under and pursuant to CEQA relating to the Proposed Project; and 2. That the Addendum has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual and satisfy all of the requirements of CEQA and are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, the 2017 Plan, as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, would replace the 2004 Plan in its entirety; and, WHEREAS, this City Council, after due consideration, has found and determined that the 2017 Plan has been prepared to meet the requirements of Section 891.2 of the State and Highways Code, which requires the following elements in a bicycle transportation plan, as further described in Appendix A: Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist of the 2017 Plan: 1. The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. 2. A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. 3. A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 4. A map and description of existing and proposed end -of -trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. -3- PC2017-*** 5. A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. 6. A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. 7. A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists. 8. A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support. 9. A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting. 10. A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation. 11. A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area. ; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 proposes to amend the Anaheim General Plan as follows: ; and 1. Bicycle Master Plan: Replace "Appendix B — Bicycle Master Plan" of the General Plan with the 2017 Plan as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Circulation Element Figure: Replace "Figure C-5: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities" of the Circulation Element of the General Plan with the new Figure C-5 to reflect the bikeways network as shown on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Green Element Figure: Replace "Figure G-1: Green Plan" of the Green Element of the General Plan with the new Figure G-1 to reflect the bikeways network as shown on Exhibit B-2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. Text: Amend the text in the Circulation Element, Green Element, Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element to reflect the changes as shown in Appendix B: General Plan Amendments of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. -4- PC2017-*** WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration, inspection, investigation and study made by itself, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. That proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 maintains internal consistency with the General Plan. The proposed modifications to the Bicycle Master Plan in Appendix B, the figures in the Circulation Element and Green Element of the General Plan, and the text in the Circulation Element, Green Element, Community Design Element, and Economic Development Element of the General Plan are consistent with General Plan Goals to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility for the benefit of Anaheim residents, employees and visitors; 2. That proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because the existing and proposed bicycle facilities that are expected to improve connectivity and bicycling as a mode of transportation, especially for short trips, is consistent with the goals and policies of the Circulation Element of the General Plan encouraging bicycle travel; 3. That proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 continues to be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and would maintain the balance of land uses within the City; and 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment 2017-00513 is physically suitable to accommodate the proposed modifications, including but not limited to, access, physical constraints, topography, provision of utilities, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. ; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentation, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The City Council expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations and based upon a thorough review of the 2017 Plan, General Plan Amendment 2017-00513, the Addendum, FEIR No. 330 and SEIR No. 346, and the evidence received to date, the City Council approves the 2017 Plan and General Plan Amendment 2017-00513, as shown on Exhibits A and B attached to this Resolution, contingent upon and subject to (1) the mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 343, as shown in Exhibit C attached to this Resolution. -5- PC2017-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 23rd day of May, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Tait and Council Members Vanderbilt, Murray, Barnes., Moreno, and Faessel NOES: None ABSENT: Council Member Kring ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: CITY CLERK OF THE CITY Off ANAHEIM 122565 CITY OF ANAHEIM MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -6- PC2017-*** EXHIBIT "A" -7- PC2017-* * * 3icucle Master F r'] a _--- j AAA RIP., This page is intentionally blank. Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Setting................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan.................................................................................................... 9 Eligibilityfor Funding............................................................................................................................ 9 IdentifyPriority Projects........................................................................................................................ 9 CloseGaps in the Existing Network....................................................................................................... 9 Improve Safety and Comfort for All Cyclists.......................................................................................... 9 ImprovePublic Health........................................................................................................................... 9 2. Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies.......................................................................................10 3. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Existing Land Use.............................................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Bicycle Facility Types........................................................................................................................ 23 ClassI Bikeway: Bike Paths................................................................................................................. 24 ClassIl Bikeway: Bike Lanes................................................................................................................ 26 Class111 Bikeways: Bike Routes............................................................................................................ 28 ClassIV. Cycle Track............................................................................................................................ 29 3.3 Existing Bikeways.............................................................................................................................. 35 ClassI Bike Paths................................................................................................................................. 41 Class11 Bike Lanes................................................................................................................................ 42 Class111 Bike Routes............................................................................................................................. 42 3.4 Bicycle Parking and End -of -Trip Facilities......................................................................................... 43 3.5 Multi -Modal Connections................................................................................................................. 49 3.6 Education, Awareness and Enforcement Programs.........................................................................53 EmployerBased Programs..................................................................................................................53 AnaheimFire & Rescue....................................................................................................................... 54 AnaheimPolice Department............................................................................................................... 55 SafeRoutes to Schools........................................................................................................................ 57 3.7 Constraints and Opportunities......................................................................................................... 59 Topography......................................................................................................................................... 59 Freeways............................................................................................................................................. 59 SantaAna River Trail........................................................................................................................... 59 Grid Street System in the West/Central Areas.................................................................................... 60 FundingAvailability............................................................................................................................. 60 Street Improvement Projects and Roadway Maintenance................................................................. 60 VehicleTravel Lanes............................................................................................................................ 61 VehicleParking.................................................................................................................................... 61 Areasfor Future Study........................................................................................................................ 61 May 23, 2017 Page 13 www.anaheim.net/bike tlAfffl# Bi/re Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 3.8 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs.................................................................................. 63 2004 Bicycle Master Plan.................................................................................................................... 63 GreenElement..................................................................................................................................... 63 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan................................................................................. 63 Neighboring Local Jurisdictions........................................................................................................... 63 OCTABikeways Strategies.................................................................................................................. 65 OrangeCounty Loop........................................................................................................................... 66 OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan........................................................................ 66 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy ................................ 66 StateImplementation Plan................................................................................................................. 66 4. Needs Analysis............................................................................................................................... 71 4.1 Population and Employment Profile................................................................................................ 71 4.2 Types of Bicyclists............................................................................................................................. 71 4.3 Cyclist Comfort Level........................................................................................................................ 73 4.4 Public Outreach................................................................................................................................ 74 S. Bikeway Network Recommendations............................................................................................. 77 5.1 Proposed Bikeways........................................................................................................................... 77 5.2 Proposed Parking and End -of -Trip Facilities..................................................................................... 89 5.3 Proposed Multi -Modal Connections................................................................................................ 89 5.4 Proposed Education, Awareness, and Enforcement Programs........................................................ 89 5.5 Bicycle Signal Detection.................................................................................................................... 89 5.6 Implementation Toolbox.................................................................................................................. 89 6. Implementation and Funding......................................................................................................... 90 6.1 Project Prioritization......................................................................................................................... 90 DemandCriteria..................................................................................................................................90 utilityCriteria...................................................................................................................................... 90 ConnectivityCriteria............................................................................................................................ 90 ReadinessCriteria............................................................................................................................... 90 6.2 Bicycle Ridership Estimates and Forecasts..................................................................................... 101 6.3 Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network.................................................................................. 105 6.4 Proposed Bikeway Network Cost Estimates................................................................................... 109 6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities.................................................................................. 110 May 23, 2017 Page 14 www.anaheim.net/bike �ll�!/j� Bi/re �uAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan FIGURES Figure1— Regional Setting........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2 — Existing Land Use (West)............................................................................................................ 15 Figure3 — Existing Land Use (East).............................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4— General Plan Land Use Designations (West)..............................................................................19 73 Figure 5 — General Plan Land Use Designations (East)................................................................................ 21 Figure6 — Bikeway Network (West)............................................................................................................ 31 Figure7 — Bikeway Network (East)............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 8 — Existing Bikeways (West)............................................................................................................ 37 Figure9 — Existing Bikeways (East)............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 10 — Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End -Of -Trip Facilities.........................................47 Table 14—Active Transportation Program Awards..................................................................................107 Figure 11— Multi -Modal Connections........................................................................................................ 51 Figure12 — Four Types of Bicyclists............................................................................................................ 71 Figure 13 — Proposed Bikeway Network (West)......................................................................................... 85 Figure 14 — Proposed Bikeway Network (East)........................................................................................... 87 Figure 15 — Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West)..............................................................................97 Figure 16 — Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East)................................................................................. 99 TABLES Table 1 —Summary of Bikeway Network Mileage..................................................................................... 23 Table 2 — Reported Bicycle Thefts in Anaheim........................................................................................... 56 Table 3 — Bicycle Related Vehicle Code Sections....................................................................................... 56 Table 4 — Collisions and Citations Issued in Anaheim................................................................................. 56 Table 5 — Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions................................................................. 69 Table 6 — Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic........................................................................................ 73 Table7 — Proposed Bikeways...................................................................................................................... 79 Table 8 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 1.................................................................... 91 Table 9 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 2.................................................................... 93 Table 10 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 3.................................................................. 95 Table 11— Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates ...................................................102 Table 12 — Bikeway Network Expenditures Since 2004............................................................................105 Table 13 — Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards..................................................................................... 106 Table 14—Active Transportation Program Awards..................................................................................107 Table 15 — Proposed Bikeway Network Estimated Cost...........................................................................109 Table 16 — Recently Funded Bikeways Project.........................................................................................111 APPENDICES Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist........................................................ Appendix A GeneralPlan Amendments................................................................................................. Appendix B Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network...................................................................... Appendix C Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results..........................................Appendix D Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet............................................................................... Appendix E Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores............................................................Appendix F ImplementationToolbox.................................................................................................... Appendix G May 23, 2017 Page 1 5 www.anaheim.net/bike XAAHfI,#Anaheim This page is intentionally blank May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 16 ANS IM Anaheim 1. Introduction Bicycle Master Plan The 2017 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan (the Proposed Project/the Plan) is a policy document that will guide the City of Anaheim in its implementation of citywide bicycle facilities. The Plan supersedes the 2004 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan and is intended to improve bicycling safety, comfort, and accessibility. The Plan identifies a network of existing and proposed bicycle facilities that will improve multi -modal connectivity and increase bicycle mode share, especially for short trips. This is achieved through a system of on -street bike lanes and routes and off-street bike paths to connect residents, visitors, and workers to their destinations. The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes. The Plan has been prepared to meet the California State requirements for a Bicycle Transportation Plan per Section 891.2 of the California Streets and Highways Codes. 1.1 Setting Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center The City of Anaheim, founded in 1857, is one of the nation's premier municipalities and is one of California's most populous cities (Figure 1, Regional Setting). Anaheim covers over 50 square miles with more than 358,000 residents, 124,000 private sector workers, and more than 3,000 City employees. The City provides public safety through the Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue, water and power service through Anaheim Public Utilities, parks, community centers, family services and May 23, 2017 Page 1 7 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAY IN'70 . ��Anahelm Bicycle Master Plan libraries through Anaheim Community Services, neighborhood improvements through Anaheim Public Works, and assistance for entrepreneurs, businesses and homeowners through the Anaheim Planning Department. The municipal corporation's annual budget is $1.7 billion. Successful sports franchises call Anaheim home, including the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Baseball, Anaheim Ducks, and the U.S. Men's and Women's National Volleyball Teams. Anaheim also boasts world-class meeting and entertainment venues with the Anaheim Convention Center (LEED-Certified and the largest on the West Coast), Disneyland Resort, Anaheim GardenWalk, Honda Center, Angel Stadium of Anaheim, and the City National Grove of Anaheim. In addition, Anaheim embraces its vibrant cultural arts community, including the world-renowned Anaheim Ballet. Annually, Anaheim welcomes 25 million visitors, making it a place where the world comes to live, work, and play. • • Los Angeles ® County Son • Bernardino County ®......... ..,...,�, ,,::® Riverside County • — • City Limits j p{� i County Linuts Cityof Anaheim Unincorporated County of Orange Orange County • e Figure 1 — Regional Setting May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 8 AN+1�lA/ �4 Anke aheim 1.2 Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle Master Plan The Bicycle Master Plan provides the vision for building out the bikeway network in the City of Anaheim over the next 20 years. The Plan identifies opportunities to close gaps in the existing network, connect to regional routes, parks, employment centers, and multi -modal transportation hubs, and to maximize the implementation of bike lanes within the planned roadway network without removing existing or planned vehicle travel lanes. The Plan is important for many reasons: Eligibility for Funding: A primary function of the Bicycle Master Plan is to meet the requirements of regional, state and federal grant programs that provide funding for bicycle projects. To be eligible for most grant programs, the Bicycle Master Plan must address the requirements of Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. A summary of how the Plan meets these requirements is provided in Appendix A, Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist. Once the Plan is approved by the City Council and the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), projects identified in the Plan will be eligible to compete for grant funding. The Plan is current for five years from City Council approval. Identify Priority Projects: The proposed bikeway network was evaluated on factors in the categories of demand, utility, connectivity, and readiness. Three scoring tiers were identified for high, medium, and low priority for implementation. Projects may be implemented out of scoring order as opportunities such as grant funding, development projects, capital improvement projects, or roadway resurfacing projects arise. Close Gaps in the Existing Network: The Plan identifies several routes that will serve to close gaps in the existing network to overcome physical barriers to cycling, such as crossing Interstate 5 and State Route (SR) 91, and connectivity to the regional bikeways network. Gap closures are considered in the project prioritization scoring and are reflected in their priority ranking. Improve Safety and Comfort for All Cyclists: The Plan proposes bikeways both on and off street to provide dedicated facilities for bicyclists to increase separation from motor vehicles. Additionally, the Plan identifies bicycle safety education programs provided by the City that are implemented through schools and community groups. Improve Public Health: Bicycling is an active transportation mode that provides health benefits to riders, as well as public health benefits such as reduced emissions, traffic congestion, and energy consumption. Providing a comprehensive bikeway network increases accessibility to key destinations and can help to reduce vehicle miles traveled as more commuters and recreational cyclists can reach their desired destinations by bicycle. May 23, 2017 Page 19 www.anaheim.net/bike AIce naheim 2. Anaheim General Plan Goals and Policies Bicycle Master Plan State law requires every city and county in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan. The General Plan represents the community's view of its future; it is a blueprint fora city's or county's growth and development. City councils, boards of supervisors, and planning commissions use the goals and policies of the General Plan as a basis on which to make their land use decisions. The General Plan is considered "comprehensive" since it covers the territory within the boundaries of the adopting jurisdiction and any areas outside of its boundaries that are within a jurisdiction's sphere -of - influence. It is also comprehensive in that it addresses a wide variety of issues that characterize a city or county. These issues range from the physical development of the jurisdiction, such as general locations, and extent of land uses and supporting infrastructure, to social concerns such as those identified in the Housing Element of a General Plan. The General Plan is considered "long-term" since it looks 20 years or further into the future. Individual jurisdictions determine a time horizon that serves their individual needs. The General Plan projects conditions and needs into the future as a basis for determining long-term objectives and policies for day-to- day decision making. Throughout this horizon period, new information often becomes available and the needs and values of a community may change. To adjust to these dynamics, General Plans are reviewed and revised periodically. The City of Anaheim General Plans contains goals and policies related to bicycle facilities. These goals and policies include modifications that were proposed in conjunction with the Plan. Redlines of these amended sections and maps showing the amendments to the bikeways network are provided in Appendix B - General Plan Amendment. 1 http://www.anaheim.net/712/General-Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 10 OADON �uAnaheim 3. Existing Conditions 3.1 Existing Land Use Bicycle Master Plan The City of Anaheim is geographically diverse, with the western and central portions of the City characterized by relatively flat ground that slopes gently to the southwest. This portion of the City is also characterized by a mix of suburban and urban development and is relatively built out. West Anaheim is undergoing a Specific Plan effort that is focusing on improving the Beach Boulevard corridor and surrounding neighborhoods. Central Anaheim is home to Downtown Anaheim (CtrCity) and the Anaheim Colony Historic District. The existing land use patterns in the City is included as Figure 2 — Existing Land Use (West) and Figure 3 - Existing Land Use (East). Anaheim Central Library The Anaheim Resort and the Platinum Triangle are located south of the downtown area, in the southern portion of the City on either side of Interstate 5 (1-5). The Anaheim Resort, generally located west of 1-5, includes the Disneyland Resort, the Anaheim Convention Center and a mix of hotels, restaurants and visitor -serving uses. The Platinum Triangle, located east of 1-5, is a former industrial area surrounding Angel Stadium that is transitioning into a vibrant mixed-use area. In addition to higher density residential, commercial and office development, the Platinum Triangle also includes Honda Center, City National Grove of Anaheim and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC). The Platinum Triangle is bound on the east by the Santa Ana River Trail, which directly connects cyclists to ARTIC and extends from the mountains to the beach. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 11 Bilre Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station Anaheim Canyon is a regional employment center consisting of office, industrial and commercial uses that generally span the north side of the SR -91 between the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Imperial Highway. The Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan was adopted in January 2016, and envisions transforming Anaheim Canyon into the leading center of the emerging Innovation Economy in Southern California. It also establishes a safe and accessible multimodal transportation network that accommodates vehicles, trucks, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists to provide greater options and healthier living for area residents and workers. The area is served by the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station. May 23, 2017 Page 1 12 www.anaheim.net/bike tufffiN Bi/re Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan The eastern portion of the City extends generally east along either side of the Santa Ana River to the Riverside County line. This part of the City includes primarily hillside terrain. Residential development in the eastern portion of Anaheim largely consists of the various hillside communities on the south side of the Riverside Freeway (SR -91) that extend to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR -241). Other relatively flat residential neighborhoods are located north of the Santa Ana River and east of Imperial Highway, and generally south of the Santa Ana River at the intersection of the SR -91 and Costa Mesa (SR - 55) Freeways. East Anaheim Branch Library and Police Department The City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element includes a Land Use Plan with land use designations for properties throughout the City. These designations indicate the City's preferred future land use for these properties. General Plan land use designations for the City are shown in Figure 4 — General Plan Land Use Designations (West) and Figure 5 —General Plan Land Use Designations (East). May 23, 2017 Page 1 13 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAU,f I,y 3�Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 14 �� IM Anaheim Figure 2 — Existing Land Use (West) rE�rrrt .iF FULLERTON �� ;� - oe•""" - - _ � a aa.as.�nww •» .t PARK �. ��. �'r a� � � 3 �� � �i�tf �a�! ,� s�`�` yea• `� _ � - ! {yfs1v�`r sq a int �� 4 a,ri b' €� ` t q�4 ct 4� y�sx°��eIT , r iY PL 1 l $I4i_i ��t_ ORANGE p - sr .rox i RDE...... J Y 1 •N f. Existing Land Use O anabmae«,« wnn«OAamnnb �p':IItLr{/t P .< ,•\ . �Ren,Oen,m A[in+Ges -ACWAes AsxealGE xih UAlNeslWx«. 5-x«. Pow«I Wwv, A.e m \ T... - Reial Drtre.aa X«e, Acu.,os � L eAa..irc. . I T - ruabn Mbmrfalu,iy.sM Sbrage PWwYen - Na IRnaw,an-Reia,atl Anrvi,w � .'�..• •'. '••, -s«m. anwaf. ara wwm,msa:.eas Owen«w�a+.. eo�sn.mm _ .,. Axa —.. Bicycle Master Plan MW�23n2017 w .a aheim.net)bike Page 1 15 uff Anaheim This page intentionally left blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim net/bike Page 1 16 juAnaheim Figure 3 — Existing Land Use (East) (O R 6 A _.. - INDA PLACENTIA &kill it t< _( RA— _ - Existing Land Use O 'eaib ^..w''+�^bkT'^b•+ �N.�ll�l� OR.adawn -R..". 011 end N A Bicycle Master Plan May 23 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 17 H G I�j Anaheim This page intentionally left blank. Bicycle Master Plan Ma�23an 2017 w aheim.net/bike Page 1 18 In�i1L�/� Bike Anaheim Figure 4 - General Plan Land Use Designations (West) FULLERTON i Y 91 s tia a.�F.maca�ya, A a h g < -� a a 3 _ � � -..� _.• � of i even �Ai�'" � � +g• e+"^.. PARK v a14 Pehi A R �..'_ )7 mil RI; �}}t� tR.t� ��■ X11 _��F'�$ z >• I sly T ,` .G q ', _ fTF c _ - RM,.+- se'S.d d i'.:��r �K 1 iN�I�ti'� ��kl � =� . ;• App �V ■1.-w•.,�-..� Ili tll,�rl)sf. - ra ory t:l ............... "ji ': ORANGE i "171 7 GARDEN GROPE General Plan Oommerdal teMd.�x 6 1 -'=4 RaaldaMlN Negnpaigoe Gaup �a1ue0.Uu •, ••_ ,A�T®IM i ', • � ,...... .,\._... ,:,: •_.. Epee Densry _Geie,eiGamne:rbl ":'.-alm-Rr+dsgal MdMUse IndusVlal aWrcnnre ... _ \ i �. Lov Oerwry _Rf9iony Gw,nwcN Pubtic anO Oua—bft IMiunul \ Low Medum N O N Go-mna,da Reveat.m FaoYYHs Open Span and R --tion N _Low Medium DensM olRn Shod �0Mn S— j .j• - MCA,m Densry ORxLRx ♦' auC.sYnal _Pads - ---9" � 111 j �Co'fifo.RnWonlul -C)a('pHyr1 -RaMvad _N41erUwf i_..�. ,... i. ... Bicycle Master Plan �Rt cPNr ' MaY23,2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 19 �N Icy Anaheim This page intentionally left blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23. 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 20 OA Ihj Anaheim Figure 5 – General Plan Land Use Designations (East) Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 21 1 PLACENTIA � 41 �iiz= 1 , 4� v f{' PA—General ,.. .�• ,. �_ � '>; � j♦' Plan asieeDna�l .n Dea:.n' Commercial rkgroanooa caner � ceaea cemme.aa MIaMLae Y///, �,�� ., - .'�N�gEIAI :; -.- Ro,.wewe„�uu�we o-wua �i 'a . i Law D—N L.Mae um Ndi—De Y - _ R.a— —L mmuca Reoe _ Fapilitke Open Sgce aaa RecreaCm N � A Low Mepium DmsiH 011ke Sc,pd Opm Space _ ..i � Congor ReciOenuY - OHico-Hgn _ RaiFoae _ nae fries � _.._. �.-i. .. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 21 OA U f 1uAnaheim This page intentionally left blank. May 23, 2017 _ www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 22 pN+1� IAl9 Anaheim 3.2 Bicycle Facility Types Bicycle Master Plan The Plan refers to the four classes of bikeways as defined in Streets and Highways Code 890.4: Classes I, II, III and IV. Until 2014, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) used three categories for bikeways. Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 1193, The Protected Bikeways Act of 20142, which recognized cycle tracks as a fourth bikeway classification to promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way adjacent to, and protected from, vehicular traffic. Due to the potential right-of-way impacts for implementation, the City does not have and does not propose any Class IV cycle tracks at this time. The bikeways described below will be implemented according to the latest design guidelines in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, 3 as further described in Appendix G, Implementation Toolbox. Table 1 provides a summary of the centerline miles of bikeways in the network. A complete inventory of existing bikeways is included in Appendix C — Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network and is shown in Figure 6 —Bikeway Network (West) and Figure 7 — Bikeway Network (East). Table 1 — Summary of Bikewav Network Mileaae Class Existing Centerline Miles Proposed Total Class I: Bike Path 14.78 30.05 44.83 Class II: Bike Lane 43.80 71.13 114.93 Class III: Bike Route 1.28 19.13 20.41 Class IV: Cycle Track 0 1 0 1 0 Total 59.86 1 120.31 1 180.17 2 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/biliNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB1193 3 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm May 23, 2017 Page 1 23 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAfffI Anaheim Class I Bikeway: Bike Paths Bicycle Master Plan Anaheim Coves Bike Path (Bike ID 1) 890.4 (a): Class I bike paths, also referred to as "Class I Bikeways", or shared use paths, provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized. Class I bike paths provide critical connections to destinations not served by roadways for recreation and as direct high-speed commute routes. The most common applications are along rivers, ocean fronts, canals, utility right-of-ways, abandoned railroad right-of-ways, or within and between parks. A common application of a Class I bike path is to close gaps to bicycle travel caused by freeways or natural barriers such as a river.4 The City is coordinating with the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) to allow the City to access maintenance roads for OCFCD facilities for utilization as Class I bike paths. This agreement would be the first step in the process to implement these proposed Class I bike paths through the life of the Plan. Certain facilities exist in usable condition as a Class I bike path, such as the south side of the Santa Ana River Trail east of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 177), and simply require access agreements to open them. Other OCFCD facilities, such as those on the Carbon Creek Channel (Bike IDs 6, 7, 8, and 165), would require improvements to make them usable as a Class I bike path. The City will conduct additional outreach to the 4 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/pdf/chp1000.pdf May 23, 2017 Page 124 www.anaheim.net/bike �uAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan local communities neighboring these facilities prior to implementing each proposed Bike ID in order to address any safety or access concerns of the local residents and potential bicycle facility users. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path is outlined in Section 6.5, Implementation and Funding Opportunities. Bike paths can also serve as parallel routes to roadways with high vehicle volume and speed that also have high potential bicycle demand. For example, La Palma Avenue from Blue Gum Street to Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 19) was proposed as a Class II bike lane in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The proposed route was extended eastward to e/o Brasher Street in the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan. However, as part of that analysis, this route has been changed in the Plan to reflect a Class I bike path on both sides of the street to serve bicyclists and pedestrians with origins and/or destinations on La Palma Avenue. The prevailing speed of 45-50 mph and relatively high traffic volume of over 35,000 ADT could deter the potentially high bicycle travel demand, even with a Class II bike lane. A shared use Class I Bike Path is proposed, however, with further study, Bike ID 19 could be implemented with a Class IV Cycle Track if sufficient space is available within the public right-of-way. There are 14.78 miles of existing Class I bike paths in the City and 30.05 new miles are proposed as part of the Plan. May 23, 2017 Page 1 25 www.anaheim.net/bike tlAfffg/� Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Class 11 Bikeway: Bike Lanes Canyon Rim Road (Bike ID 52B) 890.4(b) Class II bike lanes, also referred to as "Class II bikeways", provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Bike lanes are a space on the road for bicyclists adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and flow in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic, and are designated with pavement markings and signage. Bike lanes enable bicyclists to ride at their preferred speed without interference from prevailing traffic conditions and facilitate predictable behavior and movements between bicyclists and motorists. Buffered Bike Lane: Class II bike lanes that provide a painted buffer for lateral separation between motor vehicle travel and/or parking lanes and bicycles are designed to visually reinforce Section 21760 of the California Vehicle Code that requires Three Feet for Safety when vehicles pass bicyclists. 74% of survey respondents polled for the 2017 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan preferred buffered bike lanes. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Typically, this treatment can be implemented where there are wide curb lanes or bike lanes. Areas that could be considered for future study include Brookhurst Street (Bike IDs 48 and 49), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121), and Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 133). May 23, 2017 Page 1 26 www.anaheim.net/bike Bike 70 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Lane Reconfiguration: Often referred to as a "Road Diet", lane reconfiguration is the removal of one or more vehicle travel lanes to provide sufficient right-of-way for Class II Bike Lanes. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for this type of retrofit project, and under these conditions, the right-of-way for the excess vehicle capacity could be reallocated to bike lanes. Depending on a street's existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations exist. For instance, a four -lane street (with a center line and two travel lanes in each direction) could be modified to include onetravel lane in each direction, a centerturn lane, and bike lanes. Miller Street, from La Palma Avenue to Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 95), was recently implemented as a road diet in the Anaheim Canyon. Miller Street was a four lane, undivided arterial with a forecasted ADT of less than 15,000. As part of the traffic analysis for the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Miller Street was analyzed for the conversion to a two lane divided street to ensure that the reduction in vehicle travel lanes would not cause a significant adverse impact to adjacent streets and intersections. The findings were favorable, and the proposed reduction in vehicle travel lanes required a General Plan Amendment to reclassify the street in the Circulation Element, as well as an amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH), which is administered by OCTA. The approval of the reclassification by OCTA finalized the change in the General Plan Circulation Element, which allowed for the road diet to be implemented without conditions. Similarly proposed Class II Bike Lanes identified in the Plan that meet the criteria for a road diet may be implemented as such upon the completion of additional, site specific traffic analysis to identify overall transportation impacts, including analysis of peak hour volumes. Studies from around the country indicate that streets with high-end traffic volumes ranging from 22,000 — 30,000 ADT are candidates for a road diet. In several locations, Class II Bike Lanes do not continue through intersections, which reflect the engineering standard details for the design of roadways in the City. All intersections shall be designed to City Standards with the engineering design details addressing MUTCD and Caltrans Highway Design Manual standards for bikeways through intersections. Examples of intersection treatments are included in Appendix G - Implementation Toolbox. There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes, and 71.13 new miles are proposed in the Plan. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 27 tIAHEI# .Anaheim Class 111 Bikeways: Bike Routes Bicycle Master Plan 890.4(c) Class III bike routes, also referred to as "Class III bikeways", provide a right-of-way on -street or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists. Class III bike routes provide shared use with motor vehicle traffic in the same travel lane. Sharrows: Class III bike routes can be enhanced with signage and on -street pavement markings which help reinforce that the travel lane is shared with motor vehicles and bicycles. Bicycle Boulevard: Class III bike routes on local roads or residential streets designed to facilitate safe and convenient bicycle travel are called bicycle boulevards. Treatments area intended to increase motorists' awareness of bicycle activity through the use of traffic calming devices such as signs, pavement markings, and speed and volume management measures. The City may implement proposed Class III bikeways as either a Sharrow or a Bicycle Boulevard, which will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Design guidelines for sharrows and bicycle boulevards are further described in Appendix G. There are 1.28 miles of existing and 19.13 miles of planned Class III bike routes in the City. May 23, 2017 Page 1 28 www.anaheim.net/bike tlAffflM Class IV. Cycle Track �Bi/re �Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/cycle-tracks/two-way-cycle-tracks/ 890.4(d) Class IV Cycle tracks or separated bikeways, also referred to as "Class IV bikeways", promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on -street parking. In situations where on -street parking is allowed, cycle tracks are located to the curb -side of the parking.s A two-way cycle track may be configured as a protected cycle track at street level with a parking lane or other barrier between the cycle track and the motor vehicle travel lane and/or as a raised cycle track to provide vertical separation from the adjacent motor vehicle lane. Due to potential right-of-way impacts, the City is not proposing Class IV Cycle Tracks as part of this Plan. However, Cycle Tracks are not precluded and may be considered on a case-by-case basis. 5 http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/design-guide/cycle-tracks/ May 23, 2017 Page 29 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAH IN Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 30 �IA� IM Anaheim Figure 6 — Bikeway Network (West) Bicycle Master Plan pmn H Cf NT)A � FULLER tON j �-��-�• � - < � .^1..-•'S - - .. _A }s �.. J � ' ,� •• �' •'� :• Par;: ;; .Y BUEM F.1 A'.:-2:.....• ....... BomvN O, QU s ._..� �� •.QC•.•.. PARK _ .«i::2::tre ..L.. »•»i........•....•. .»».• �e oMr�u •A.n_ - io e....t. � .s'�. »ow aa;�A..»..�,' ..»«,i..»..... .p � ^�..e.... •tha�„a..: •• _ ....».,_. ........ .....»......... . a.... ° ®© s. ;. ................ s • r...4•@r•• ••� a _ B G _ _ y'"L�arAr � Q . i•'.. wka<� $a; oRAr.GE Gil tea••_ _ ........... ... ;.WEQ. ki— �� SiAIlTON v. t.......mak..... »../....... .»{ : Cr•w u„ _ •"�--�-`tet-` - - .....�r'�"�....».yr. »•O.E7• 92 } • i i _a.._. .._.._.._.._. ___.• K' Exlclhlg BikaWayc ebalSae Pete �' eke to f•.. _ _i b Claw II &Fv Larc� ID'o— 5v ; vgw,_mC Aw GARDEN GROVE 1 cnrID'oa, i '� o" ....» Prop—d Bikawkyc y •_ _ ; t _ .aaa Cbw lake Data .... ew. II aka urc ..... Geu In ake Bpae N '\ ... Regi—T.0 flaae lBae Petn SANTA "• AN MWy 23, 2017 ww.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 31 M iNuAnaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan Mayy23 2017 Page 32 w anahe m.net/bike �N 1 Anaheim Figure 7— Bikeway Network (East) Bicycle Master Plan RE61OXAL 1\'�)F-t a m ® l v m CD 9 m— m o •�i�® � ILI ® . ,• i 0 PAR K S pIr"A : team' I : .m M5 I/ 3 tel' 1 ® " l MW�23n2017 w .a aheim.net/bike Page 1 33 Anaheim This pnye is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23 2017 www.anahe m.net/bike Page 1 34 XNAHE141✓Anaheim 3.3 Existing Bikeways Bicycle Master Plan The City of Anaheim has approximately 59.86 miles of existing bikeways in the City. The bikeways network was inventoried with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software, and an interactive map is available at www.anaheim.net/bikemap. 31.92 miles have been added to the City's network in the last 12 years as part of street rehabilitation, private development, and/or park and recreation facility projects and are detailed in Appendix B. The existing bikeways network is shown in Figure 8 — Existing Bikeways (West) and Figure 9 — Existing Bikeways (East). It is important to note that bicycles are permitted on all roads in the State of California and in Anaheim (with the exception of access -controlled freeways). As such, Anaheim's entire street network is effectively the city's bikeway network, regardless of whether or not a bikeway stripe, stencil, or sign is present on a given street. The designation of certain roads as Class II or III bicycle facilities is not intended to imply that these are the only roadways intended for bicycle use, or that bicyclists should not be riding on other streets. Rather, the designation of a network of Class II and III on -street bikeways recognizes that certain roadways are optimal bicycle routes, for reasons such as directness or access to significant destinations, and allows the City of Anaheim to then focus resources on building out this primary network. Additionally, existing bikeways built to their bikeway classification can be improved or upgraded. Existing Class II bicycle lanes can be upgraded to buffered bike lanes where there is sufficient room. Existing Class III bike routes could be upgraded to Class II bike lanes if needed. Also, Class II bike lanes could be rebuilt as Class IV cycle tracks where there is sufficient room and adequate spacing between driveways. Existing facilities should be reviewed as maintenance activities are performed or street improvement projects are planned and implemented. May 23, 2017 Page 135 www.anaheim.net/bike May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike • Bi/re Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan Page 136 Anaheim Figure 8 — Existing Bikeways (West) Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 37 _.. _' ^ ,wM CENTIA 1. £ULLERTGN i Aw q e I ,••t. �..� g BUEN DARK ma w �_ i y _ _iQ.0 x i uW.0 Aww�w�- - � I e r� 1 c � BaX RO ORANGE /i/ STANTON W Y cmess, . .._.._..-_...=_�.._F_. _..I E�Iwo g 8 {jl i I GARDEN GROVE I a.or,�ea� �Lna9 elx.w,ys . ..._.._.._} _ Gwnry OI Ownpe Gow nl &Aenow Raglollal mu ��7 GydAraneYn N ..4..., .. —. cm w+a .. ...... 1.... / �� Cleu Bible Petr SANTA - May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 37 O G I�j Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 138 tu I IV Anaheim Figure 9 — Existing Bikeways (East) YORBA � cOWL L".A 1 _ i } PLACENTIA 0 — � ORANGE t" — .--- VILLA PARK , ' E[Istlng Bikeways _ � - - _ Cb,xlBikePaM o axeln .�A�Bily 1 Cbu IB eR° e 2 Cuy°I— N Reg ... I T,.11 •'— Cttv Lia A "� _ M1 Lmr I &ke Pa91 Bicycle Master Plan MW�23 2017 w anahelm.net/bike Page 1 39 �N l Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan Mayy23 2017 w .anaheim net/hike Page 140 B%/fG�' u�Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Santa Ana River Trail at ARTIC (Bike ID 27C) Class I Bike Paths: The regional backbone of the bikeway network is the Class I Santa Ana River Trail (SART), which extends along the Santa Ana River from the ocean to the mountains in the Inland Empire. 8.79 miles of the SART are located in the City of Anaheim along the SR -91, from east of Yorba Linda Boulevard in the east to just west of Tustin Avenue in the west (Bike IDs 27A, 28, and 177). The trail crosses the City boundary into Orange and re-enters Anaheim near Katella Avenue (Bike ID 27C), where it connects to ARTIC, and then crosses back into the City of Orange. The Class I side path on Fairmont Boulevard between La Palma Avenue and the Yorba Linda city limit (Bike ID 17) serves as a Class I connection to the OC Loop, a 66 -mile continuous facilityfor bicycles and pedestrians that will link important existing regional facilities throughout the west and north portion of Orange County. The Anaheim Coves Trail (Bike ID 1) was completed in 2011 as part of a 14 acre nature park on the west side of the Santa Ana River between Lincoln Avenue and Ball Road. Portions of the Carbon Creek Bike Path exist in the vicinity of Schweitzer Park (Bike ID 164) and Dad Miller Golf Course (Bike ID 5) in west Anaheim, as well as on the SoCal Edison ROW west of Magnolia Street (Bike ID 22). The Walnut Canyon Reservoir (Bike ID 176) is surrounded by a Class I bike path that serves as a recreational facility in the Anaheim Hills. May 23, 2017 Page 1 41 www.anaheim.net/bike Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Class II Bike Lanes: There are 43.80 miles of existing Class II bike lanes in the City along segments of major and primary arterials such as Anaheim Boulevard (Bike IDs 34 and 36), Ball Road (Bike ID 42A and 42C), Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48), Euclid Street (Bike ID 65), Imperial Highway (Bike ID 76), Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 155), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121). 27.54 of these miles were implemented since 2004 as part of planned road widening and maintenance projects, which are detailed in Appendix B. Class II bike lanes may also be implemented as buffered bike lanes with a painted separation between vehicle and bicycle traffic, as right-of-way allows, as was done on Santa Ana Canyon Road between Festival Drive and Eucalyptus Drive (Bike ID 121A). Santa Ana Canyon Road Buffered Bike Lane (Bike ID 121A) Class III Bike Routes: There are two Class III bike routes in the City, which are located on Dutch and Park Vista Avenues from Rio Vista Street to Frontera Street (Bike ID 146) and a segment of Ball Road (Bike ID 42B). Bike ID 146 connects the Class II bike lanes on Rio Vista Street and Frontera Street, and serves Rio Vista Park and Elementary School, and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Bike ID 42B is a Class III route that connects Class II Bike Lanes on Ball Road at either end. This route is proposed to be upgraded to a Class II bike lane to close this gap on Ball Road. May 23, 2017 Page 142 www.anaheim.net/bike tIAHUN Anaheim 3.4 Bicycle Parking and End -of -Trip Facilities Bicycle Master Plan Secure bicycle parking is a key factor in encouraging bicycle use for both long and short trips. Various forms of bicycle parking serve different users and types of trips. Bicycle parking is commonly located in visible and convenient areas at key destinations such as schools, commercial centers, parks, libraries, shopping centers, government buildings, office parks, tourist destinations, and multi -family housing. Bicycle racks best serve destinations where users are expected to park for less than two hours, such as at retail centers and activity centers like parks, libraries, and other civic locations. Bike racks are typically installed in highly visible areas where users can use their own lock to secure the frame of the bicycle at two points to the rack. The City standard is a loop rack, however, bicycle racks can artistically reflect a design element of its location, such as the dog -shaped rack installation at the Olive Hills Dog Park. Standard Bicycle Racks at the Festival May 23, 2017 Page 1 43 www.anaheim.net/bike 9 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Artistic Bicycle Racks at Olive Hills Dog Park Bicycle lockers serve users who are expected to park at a destination for more than two hours, such as transit centers, office parks and other employment centers, schools, and multi -family housing. Lockers should provide secure and weather protected storage for bicycles and their accessories. Bicycle lockers are provided at the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, ARTIC, Anaheim City Hall, and Angel Stadium of Anaheim. Many employees prefer to park their bicycles inside the building, such as in their office or a nearby storage room, if space is available. Similarly, residents of multi -family housing may prefer to park in their units or garage/storage space. May 23, 2017 Page 144 www.anaheim.net/bike NUHUN Bi/re Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle Lockers at ARTIC The City does not have a complete inventory of bicycle parking currently in the City. However, bicycle parking is a mitigation measure for new development projects in the Platinum Triangle and The Anaheim Resort, and is required for new non-residential developments and schools subject to the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle parking, which also addresses the provision of bicycle parking, especiallyfor projects that cannot provide the required vehicle parking on-site. The code amendment includes an incentive program that allows developers to provide bicycle parking and other amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s). The parking code amendment is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in March, 2017. In addition to secure bicycle parking, amenities at a bicycle rider's destination, such as shower and locker facilities, contribute to the viability of bicycling as a commute option for local employees. There are locker facilities at ARTIC and Anaheim City Hall West Tower that are available for use by City of Anaheim employees. Several large employers in the City also provide shower and locker facilities for use by their employees who bicycle to work. Employees desiring to bicycle to work should check with their employer for facilities that may be available to them. Figure 10 - Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End -Of -Trip Facilities, shows the destinations most likely to provide bicycle parking, as well as proposed projects in the City that would be required to install bicycle parking as a required by the City. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 45 Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 146 tlAUEAnaheim B&4? 1W 055heim Figure 10 - Probable and Proposed Bicycle Parking and End -Of -Trip Facilities . . ... . .. F .............. ....... L El t 17. 1. V - - - - ------- -- 7--e Bicycle Master Plan May23,2017 w—anaheim.net/bike Page 147 �N 1uAnaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan MaV23 2017 w—anaheim.net/bike .anaheim.net/bike Page 1 48 XlAfffB ��Anaheim 3.5 Multi -Modal Connections Bicycle Master Plan Improving the bicycle -transit link to provide the "first mile/last mile" connection is an important part of making bicycling a part of daily life in Anaheim. Linking bicycles with mass transit (bus and commuter rail) overcomes such barriers as lengthy trips, personal security concerns, and riding at night, in poor weather, or up hills. Park-and-ride locations provide for intermodal travel by bicyclists to carpools and vanpools. Bicycle parking facilities at these locations facilitate links to ride -sharing activities. Additionally, by bicycling to transit instead of driving, communities benefit from reduced air pollution, greenhouse gases, demand for park-and-ride land, energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and traffic congestion. The inter -modal network for bicycles is shown in Figure 11— Multi -Modal Connections. Metrolink Bicycle Car at Anaheim Canyon Station The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station is located near the intersection of Tustin Avenue and La Palma Avenue, just north of the SR -91. The Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station serves commuter destinations in the Anaheim Canyon, which is an area of concentrated employment in the City. Bicycles are allowed on all Metrolink trains, on a space available basis, for up to three bicycles per car. Special bike cars are available on select trains, and have space to accommodate up to 18 bicycles on the lower level. May 23, 2017 Page 149 www.anaheim.net/bike 0AHON 9WIfe Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan The ARTIC is located on Katella Avenue in the Platinum Triangle, and is near popular destinations such as Angel Stadium of Anaheim, Honda Center, the Disneyland Resort, and the Santa Ana River Trail. ARTIC is served by the SR -57 freeway, Amtrak, Metrolink, OCTA buses, Anaheim Resort Transit, Greyhound and other private bus operators, taxis, and short and long term parking for transit users. ARTIC has bicycle lockers and racks on-site to serve bicycle commuters connecting to the various modes serving ARTIC. Recreational riders have direct access to the Santa Ana River Trail. For example, organized groups of cyclists take rides to distant destinations, such as San Diego, and return to ARTIC on the Amtrak while their bicycles are driven back in a cargo truck. Multi -Modal Connections at ARTIC OCTA operates bus service in Anaheim and throughout Orange County with connections to neighboring counties. All buses are equipped with bicycle racks that can accommodate up to two bicycles on the front of the bus. Additional information about how to extend a bicycle trip by bus is available at www.octa.net. A High Quality Transit Corridor (HQTC) is an existing corridor with fixed bus service at intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute hours. The current HQTCs in Anaheim are on Beach Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Boulevard, State College Boulevard, and La Palma Avenue between the west city limits and Tustin Avenue. Typically, HQTCs serve areas with high pedestrian and bicycle demand. The Beach Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and State College Boulevard corridors also carry high volumes of vehicle traffic. For longer distance riders, parallel routes on slower streets are an alternative, however they are not feasible for short distance trips or to serve origins and destinations on the corridor. Therefore, HQTC transit service should be promoted as a link between bicycle facilities that connect to HQTC streets. May 23, 2017 Page 150 www.anaheim.net/bike XIAAIN Una 19 Bilre Jheim Figure 11 — Multi -Modal Connections Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 51 lM'Unaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 152 tlAfffl# gpnaheim 3.6 Education, Awareness and Enforcement Programs Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle education and awareness programs in the City include employer -based programs through the Anaheim Transportation Network, as well as those implemented by Anaheim Police and Anaheim Fire & Rescue through schools and various community events. Enforcement of bicycle related vehicle codes is provided by the Anaheim Police Department. Employer Based Programs: Large employers (over 250 employees) in the City of Anaheim are subject to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM)6 Chapter 14.60 of the City of Anaheim Municipal Code, as well as the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 22027 On -Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options. Employers subject to these regulations have a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, designed to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. As of April, 2016, there are 28 large employers in the City subject to Rule 2202 and the TDM Ordinance, and nine of them participate in the Employee Commute Reduction Program (ECRP). The Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)8 was created in 1995 as a local non-profit Transportation Management Association. ATN offers rideshare services to all employers and employees in Anaheim, including those subject to Rule 2202 and the TDM Ordinance. Employers in the City pay an annual fee to participate in ATN, which includes access to professional staff to help write and implement annual rideshare plans. About half of participating employers fully embrace bicycling and incorporate it into their programs, which include the annual Bike Week in May with community events featuring music, snacks, prizes, and raffles. ATN partners with the Orange County Bicycle Coalition to provide educational sessions to employers. ATN occasionally has resources to provide safety items to employees it serves, such as helmets and lights, or security items such as locks. Many employees prefer to keep their bicycles in their offices if space is available. 6 http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/titlel8zoning?f=templates$fn=default. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:an aheim_ca$anc= 7 http://www.agmd.gov/home/programs/business/business-detail?title=rule-2202-on-road-motor-vehicle-mitigation-options 8 http://rideart.org/rideshare/ May 23, 2017 Page 1 53 www.anaheim.net/bike NIAHEIN Ire gAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan Anaheim Fire & Rescue: The Anaheim Fire & Rescue Department's "Wear Your Helmet Like A Pro" program9 is part of their mission to "ensure the safety and welfare of the public we serve". Similar to wearing a seat belt when driving in an automobile, wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, scooter or skateboard is critical for one's safety and to help prevent a traumatic brain injury in the event of a collision. The program focuses on helmet safety education for children ages five to 14, working closely with the seven school districts and non-profit organizations serving Anaheim. As of June 2016, the agency has provided approximately 4,500 safety helmets to Anaheim youth. Helmets are also available at each of the City's 11 fire stations. Anaheim Fire and Rescue — Wear Your Helmet Like A Pro Poster 9 http://www.anaheim.net/1924/Wear-Your-Helmet-Like-A-Pro May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 154 NNAUfl# glei Ice Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Anaheim Police Department: The Anaheim Police Department Traffic Bureau - Traffic Safety Program conducts an educational program in partnership with the City's Community Services and Public Works Divisions, and in cooperation with seven school districts and a non-profit partner Coast to Coast. The goal of the Traffic Safety Program is to reduce serious injury and fatal traffic collisions through traffic safety and awareness. The program emphasizes bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile safety to help members of the community of all ages to safely navigate throughout the City. The educational program is presented in five basic traffic safety modules with age appropriate curriculum for the following audiences: Kindergarten -6th Grade, Junior High School, High School, Adults and Seniors, and Homeless Outreach. The Traffic Safety Program is often presented at schools, neighborhood or community events, Coffee with a Cop, and PTA meetings. The Traffic Safety Program was launched in January, 2015 and has been presented at 76 locations and reached 28,745 students and 1,853 adults in its first two years. The program is partially funded through a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety. Anaheim Police Department — Traffic Safety Program In August, 2016, the Anaheim Police Department launched a voluntary bicycle registration program as part of National Night Out. The goal of the program is to help the citizens of Anaheim record their bicycle information so that it is easily available in the event of a bicycle theft and a police report is generated. There is no cost to the bicycle owner to register their bicycle, which can be done at any local police station. Since its inception, 32 bicycles have been voluntarily registered in the City. Table 2 below presents a summary of bicycle thefts reported since 2013. May 23, 2017 Page 1 55 www.anaheim.net/bike Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 2 — Reported Bicycle Thefts in Anaheim Year Number of Thefts Reported 2013 438 2014 339 2015 456 2016 387 In 2016, the City Council approved the State of California - Office of Traffic Safety S.T.E.P. Grant that includes $86,260 to purchase bicycle helmets. The Anaheim Police Department has partnered with the Anaheim Fire Department's Wear a Helmet Like a Pro campaign, described above, to also distribute helmets at traffic safety presentations. In addition to providing educational and safety resources to Anaheim residents, the Anaheim Police Department enforces the California Vehicle Code, including violations involving bicyclists. Common bicycle related violations and their corresponding fines and violations issued in the City are included in Table 3 below. Table 3 — Bicycle Related Vehicle Code Sections Vehicle Code Section Description Fine 21208(a) Riding outside of a bicycle lane $197 21650.1 Bicycle riding the wrong way $197 21760(b) Passing a bicycle less than 3 feet away $238 21200.5 Riding a bicycle under the influence of alcohol or drugs $690 21201(d) Safety equipment while riding in the dark $197 21212(a) Helmets required for persons under 18 years of age $197 The Anaheim Police Department and the Anaheim Fire & Rescue respond to collisions involving bicyclists. The Anaheim Police Department has reported the following data for collisions and citations issued, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 — Collisions and Citations Issued in Anaheim Year # of Collisions with Bicyclists # Citations Issued 2013 224 85 2014 220 180 2015 181 150 2016 168 123 The City has experienced a trend of a reduced number of collisions involving bicyclists annually in the last four years reported. Citations more than doubled from 2013-2014, indicating an increased level of enforcement of bicycle violations. Additionally, both collisions and citations decreased when Traffic Safety Program was introduced in 2015. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 56 NMUfI If �uBi/re Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Safe Routes to Schools: The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a national and international movement to engage community members to improve the walkability and bike -ability to and from schools for children. SRTS involves parents, teachers, students, local agencies, public health agencies, law enforcement, engineering professionals, and the public to reach a comprehensive and integrated solution for improved street safety. Prior to 2013, State and Federal funding grants were available to implement infrastructure projects to improve routes to schools. After the passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -21) in 2012, SRTS projects were eligible for grant applications through various sources at the Federal level, and through the Active Transportation Program (ATP) at the State level. A list of projects implemented in the City of Anaheim through these programs is provided in Section 6.3 (Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network). Community engagement for programs like the SRTS Program has also been conducted in Anaheim. In 2015, the Orange County Health Care Agency SRTS Program worked with students at Anaheim High School and Benjamin Franklin Elementary School to conduct walkability audits and collect data on the accessibility and safety of routes to school. As part of the program, the students reviewed their findings to identity areas that could be improved and suggested potential solutions. The students also organized an interactive presentation with the City, giving the students an opportunity to engage directly with representatives from the City's Public Works Department and Code Enforcement staff and the respective School Boards, to understand the opportunities and constraints for making changes. As a result of this effort, changes were implemented to improve the safety of routes to school as follows: • Anaheim High School — Student surveys and the Walkability Audit conducted in April 2015 identified a number of observations including the condition of sidewalks, speed of traffic and that it was not always easy to cross streets on the route to school. Students advocated for a crosswalk and stop sign installation at North Citron Street and West Cypress Street to slow traffic and improve safety. The City subsequently conducted a traffic study and installed a crosswalk and stop sign at that intersection. • Benjamin Franklin Elementary School — Student surveys and the Walkability Audit conducted in November 2015 identified a number of observations including the condition of sidewalks, areas where it was not easy to cross streets and speed of traffic on the route to school. The City subsequently prepared a signage and striping plan and implemented improvements to slow traffic around the school. May 23, 2017 Page 1 57 www.anaheim.net/bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Changes made surrounding Anaheim High School — Safe Routes to School Anaheim High Report. In addition, in 2016, the Alliance for a Healthy Orange County (AHOC) launched an Active Transportation Leadership Program that was funded through grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the California Endowment. The purpose of this program was to engage students at Anaheim High School on a better understanding of the local, regional, and statewide active transportation policies. A series of workshops were held to educate how students could get involved in their community from the Active Transportation standpoint. May 23, 2017 Page 158 www.anaheim.net/bike NlAfffl# jpnaheim 3.7 Constraints and Opportunities Bicycle Master Plan There are several factors that present both constraints and opportunities that influence the implementation of bicycle facilities in the City, including topography, freeways, the Santa Ana River Trail, condition of the circulation network, funding availability, and competition between street uses (vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian, and parking). Topography: The City's topography presents both constraints and opportunities for bicyclists. The majority of the City west of the Santa Ana River, and east of the SR -57 freeway and north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, is relatively flat, which is ideal for cyclists of all levels. In the Anaheim Hills area south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of the SR -55 freeway, the topography is hilly, which can be a hindrance to commuting and recreational cyclists, but a welcomed challenge for enthusiasts. Freeways: Anaheim is intersected by several freeways. The limited crossing points and increased traffic at freeway interchanges serve as major constraints. 1-5 and SR -57 have several crossings without interchanges that are opportunities to cross the freeways, such as at Santa Ana Street, Broadway, Crescent Avenue, and La Palma Avenue on the 1-5, and Cerritos Avenue, Wagner Avenue, South Street, and La Palma Avenue on the SR -57. To the west of the SR -55, there are limited areas to cross the SR -91 freeway without also traversing an interchange on a major arterial. Four opportunities have been identified in coordination with the City of Fullerton, two of which traverse interchanges: Brookhurst Street, Lemon Street, Acacia Avenue, and Sunkist Street. To the east of the SR -55, bikeways not only need to cross the SR -91, but also the Santa Ana River. There are several proposed projects that will help to serve this north/south connection, such as the options to connect the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station with the Santa Ana River Trail (Bike IDs 20, 31, and /or 75), and proposed crossings at Tustin Avenue (Bike IDs 12 and 133A), the Santa Ana River west of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 29), Peralta Canyon Park (Bike ID 178), and at Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 15). Santa Ana River Trail. The Santa Ana River Trail is a regional assetfor recreational and commuter bicyclists in the City, as one can ride the trail from the mountains to the ocean. The trail also directly connects to the ARTIC, which provides intermodal connections to destinations in Anaheim, across the state of California, and beyond. While the trail along the river is an opportunity, accessing the river trail from adjacent neighborhoods and crossing the river are both constraints. There are several proposed projects that will address this issue, such as proposed crossings at Tustin Avenue (Bike IDs 133 and 12), west of Imperial Highway (Bike ID 29), and at Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 15). There are also several jurisdictions that must coordinate on projects along the Santa Ana River Trail, such as the cities of Yorba Linda and Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, Orange County Water District, and the County of Orange. The proposed connection to Anaheim Canyon Metrolink station across the SR-91/SR-55 and Santa Ana River that will serve different types of users (i.e. recreational, commuter to the train, commuter on the bike system) is very complex and costly. The City is pursuing grant funding to implement the most feasible of the options in this area (Bike IDs 20, 31, and /or 75). May 23, 2017 Page ( 59 www.anaheim.net/bike XlAfffl #Hilte j�Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Grid Street System in the West/Central Areas: The existing grid system prevalent in central and west Anaheim present opportunities to expand the current bikeway system. Some areas of the city have several bikeway facilities and others have very few. Generally, older sections of the city have less bikeway infrastructure than newer areas. One reason for the lack of facilities in older areas of the city is the narrow curb -to -curb street widths that would require re-engineering to include bike lanes or to provide adequate room for bicycles in a wide curb lane. There are several existing bikeways where a travel lane was removed to provide bicycle facilities on low volume streets, such as on Gilbert Street (Bike ID 72). The Plan does not recommend the removal of travel lanes, but individual corridors can be evaluated for specific scenarios on a case-by-case basis as discussed below in the Vehicle Travel Lanes section. Many streets in these areas have on -street parking, which can be an obstacle to the implementation of bikeways, as discussed in the Vehicle Parking section below. The proposed on -street bikeway network is constrained to the General Plan build -out of the City's circulation network. State College Boulevard: Between La Palma Avenue to the north and Ball Road to the south, the grid street system shifts directions at State College Boulevard between the original Anaheim Colony area and the neighborhoods to the east. Therefore, east/west streets are staggered as they cross State College Boulevard, making direct connections on these streets difficult. Proposed east/west connections across State College Boulevard exist at Sycamore Street (Bike IDs 170 and 30), South Street (Bike IDs 160 and 126) and Vermont Avenue (Bike ID 134) and Wagner Avenue (Bike ID 136) via a Class I connection through Boysen Park (Bike ID 4). Segments on Broadway Avenue (Bike ID 47) and Santa Ana Street (Bike ID 159) both end at State College Boulevard because direct east/west connections would require the use of privately owned property. State College Boulevard itself is a heavily utilized north/south vehicle route as an alternative to the SR -57 during heavy congestion. As a High Quality Transit Corridor, extended north/south trips could be encouraged to use transit or use lower volume parallel routes like Sunkist Street (Bike IDs 128 and 130) or East Street (Bike ID 64). Funding Availability. Limited financial resources to implement the proposed bikeway network is a universal challenge. By adopting the Plan, the City will be eligible to compete for various regional, state, and federal grant funds with which to implement proposed bikeways. While the Plan identifies a priority ranking for the proposed projects, they may be implemented in any order as the parameters for certain grants are usually specific and only apply to a handful of projects. Additionally, while the priority ranking combines several segments into a corridor, any segment within that corridor can be implemented independently of the others. Funding for an entire corridor doesn't need to be secured in order to implement any part of the corridor. Street Improvement Projects and Roadway Maintenance: By identifying the proposed bikeway network, especially Class II bike lanes, the City can more readily coordinate the implementation or improvement of bike lanes in conjunction with routine street and/or underground utility maintenance. Improvement of bike lanes includes widening of bike lanes and/or buffered bike lanes. Many of the bikeways that have been implemented in the City since 2004 were done as part of pavement projects, which result in a relatively low implementation cost. Additionally, some bikeways may be implemented or improved as part of private development projects that may require improvements to adjacent streets. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 60 XNAHON Hike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Vehicle Travel Lanes: The Plan does not propose to remove any vehicle travel lanes in favor of bicycle lanes. However, lane reconfiguration, also referred to as a "road diet"io may be an option in specific locations in which the street is carrying less volume than for which it was designed. Examples of successful implementation of a "road diet" in the City are on Broadway from East Street to State College Boulevard (Bike ID 47) and on Miller Street between La Palma Avenue and Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 95). Any project for which a vehicle lane would be removed will be subject to further feasibility studies, traffic impact analysis, public outreach, and environmental review, and are not included in the scope of the Plan. Such a study was done for the road diet that was implemented on Miller Street (Bike ID 95), as discussed on page 27. The width of the median and/or vehicle travel lanes could also be reduced in order to allow for bike lanes within existing right of way. Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are wider than those prescribed in City standards. For most streets, City standards allow for the use of 11 foot lanes. Industry standards allow for the use of 10 foot lanes as needed. Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before 10 foot wide travel lanes are installed to create space for bike lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes. Vehicle Parking: There are several areas in the City that have limited on -street parking capacity in relation to surrounding land uses. There are many residential permit parking areas in the City. The removal of on - street parking in favor of bicycle lanes could negatively impact permit parking neighborhoods immediately adjacent to proposed bike lanes. This was a factor in the prioritization process, with segments that required the removal of on -street parking scoring lower than those that do not. Any bikeways that would require the removal of on -street parking would require further outreach to the surrounding community. When developments are not able to accommodate their code required vehicle parking on-site, they may request a variance from the Planning Commission. On December 12, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of a comprehensive municipal code amendment for vehicle parking, which also addresses the provision of bicycle parking, especially for projects that cannot provide the required vehicle parking on-site. The code amendment includes an incentive program that allows developers to provide bicycle parking and other amenities in lieu of a vehicle parking space(s). The parking code amendment is anticipated to be considered by the City Council in March, 2017. Areas for Future Study: The scope of the Plan is limited to updating the existing condition and proposing bikeways that do not require the removal of vehicle travel lanes. Staff has identified areas for future study 10 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf May 23, 2017 Page 1 61 www.anaheim.net/bike XjAy I Hike -7 '_# j�Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan that focus on specific geographic areas or types of bikeways facilities that may have additional impacts to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These areas for future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking trails, and a comprehensive Active Transportation Plan that includes pedestrian facilities. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment to reflect the Plan will require amendments to the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan, Platinum Triangle Specific Plan, and Anaheim Resort Specific Plan in order to bring them into consistency with the General Plan, including the development of street typical cross-sections, as required by State law. These amendments will follow the adoption of the Plan. Most areas of the city could benefit from an increase in bikeway mileage, and there are numerous gaps in the existing system. Although there are significant amounts of bicycle facilities in Anaheim, more is needed in underserved areas and where there are obvious gaps in the network. Recommendations in this Plan address bicycle facility gap issues. May 23, 2017 Page 162 www.anaheim.net/bike tlAffflMAnaheim 3.8 Coordination with Other Plans and Programs Bicycle Master Plan The Plan was prepared in coordination with several other local and regional bikeways planning efforts. The project team researched other planning documents to determine what bikeways have been planned that will link to Anaheim. Where overlapping plans exist, the most recent documents were used where there were inconsistencies in planned facilities. The Plan was developed in coordination with the following plans and programs: 2004 Bicycle Master Plan The Plan supersedes the 2004 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan. Amendments to the Anaheim General Plan Circulation, Economic Development, Community Design, and Green Elements will be reviewed for approval by City Council concurrent with is review of the Plan, as described in detail in Appendix B. Green Element The Plan incorporates Goals and Policies of the Green Element of the City's General Plan to protect and enhance natural and recreational resources. For example, the Plan proposes connections to enhance access to the Santa Ana River Trail as called for in the Green Element. It also utilizes other rights-of-way to create new trails. The Green Element strives to reduce commute trips in single -occupant vehicles. Implementation of the Plan will provide options for more people to commute by bicycle. It will also enhance recreational opportunities will more attractive options for bicycling as well as expand access to parks. Lastly, the Plan will increase the number of trails and access to existing trails. The Plan also proposes General Plan Amendments that reinforce the integration of bicycle facilities into development in the City. 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan The 2009 OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP)il is a compilation of bikeway projects planned by Orange County Cities and the County of Orange. OCTA plans to update the CBSP beginning in early 2017. Assuming the Plan is adopted by the City Council before OCTA completes the update to the CBSP, bikeways identified in the Plan will be incorporated into the OCTA updated CBSP for Anaheim. Neighboring Local Jurisdictions Neighboring Local Jurisdictions were researched regarding the status of their bike master plans and routes on connecting streets. In the event a City does not have a specific Bicycle Master Plan, its General Plan Circulation Element will reflect its bikeway network. A city without a Bicycle Master Plan may use the OCTA CBSP to apply for funding for bicycle facilities. Table 5 - Bikeway Connections with Neighboring Jurisdictions summarizes bikeway connections between Anaheim and surrounding jurisdictions. Buena Park — The City of Buena Park does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Segments connecting to Anaheim were identified as part of the Fourth District Bikeways Strategy12, such as the extension of the Class 1 bike path on the SoCal Edison ROW (Bike ID 23), and connections across Buena Park between Cypress and Anaheim on Orange Avenue (Bike ID 107), Ball Road (Bike ID 41), and the Carbon Creek Channel (Bike ID 6). Cypress — The City of Cypress does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. A Class II bike lane (Bike ID 53) exists on Cerritos Avenue, where the boundary of Anaheim and Cypress is in the center of the 11 http://www.octa.net/pdf/bikewayso9.pdf 12 http://octa.net/pdf/4thDistrictBikewaysReport.pdf May 23, 2017 Page 163 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAfffill��r Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan street. However, the City of Anaheim maintains both sides of the street. The bike lane continues west into Cypress past the City limit, which is maintained by Cypress. Fullerton —The City of Fullerton completed its Bicycle Master Plan in 2011, which was adopted as part of its General Plan update. Connections are made on Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 49), Lemon Street (Bike ID 38), Acacia Avenue (Bike ID 33), and Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike IDs 26 and 108). These segments are bicycle connections that are also identified in the Fourth District Bikeways Strategy. Garden Grove — The City of Garden Grove released their Active Streets Master Plan in June 2016. The cities of Anaheim and Garden Grove have a reciprocal agreement for Anaheim to maintain the bikeway on both sides of Chapman Avenue (Bike ID 56). Connections exist on Ninth Street (Bike ID 98), Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48), Anaheim Bou levard/Haster Street (Bike ID 37), and Euclid Street (Bike ID 66). A segment of Orangewood Avenue is within Garden Grove and connects to Bike ID 111B in the west and Bike ID 112 to the east. Orange — The City of Orange most recently updated their Bicycle Master Plan in 2001. There are several existing and proposed bikeway connections with Anaheim, including all crossings of the Santa Ana River: East-West SoCal Edison right-of-way/Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way (Bike ID 14B); Ball Road (Bike ID 44); Lincoln Avenue (Bike ID 91); Glassell Street (Bike ID 73); and the Metrolink Side Trail (Bike ID 20). Street connections include Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 132), Orangewood Avenue (Bike ID 114); Lewis Street (Bike ID 88), Santa Ana Canyon Road (Bike ID 121A), Serrano Avenue (Bike ID 123), and Imperial Highway/Cannon Street (Bike ID 76). Placentia — The City of Placentia does not have a Bicycle Master Plan, but does have a bikeways path map. The City is in the process of updating their General Plan, which will address the bikeways network. Connections are made on Lakeview Avenue (Bike ID 85), Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike IDs 108, 110, and 155), Blue Gum Street (Bike ID 45), Tustin Avenue (Bike ID 133), Van Buren Street (Bike ID 162), and Richfield Road (Bike ID 116). Several of these segments are shared jurisdiction where the cities coordinate on street maintenance. Stanton — The City of Stanton does not have a Bicycle Master Plan. Anaheim coordinated with Stanton to complete the Anaheim portion of the SoCal Edison ROW (Bike ID 22). Existing and proposed Class II bike lanes connections to Stanton include: Cerritos Avenue (Bike ID 54); Magnolia Street (Bike ID 93); Dale Street (Bike ID 62); Western Avenue (Bike ID 163); and Knott Avenue (Bike ID 79). Anaheim will also coordinate with Stanton on the implementation of the proposed Class I bike path on the Union Pacific Railroad ROW (Bike ID 32). Yorba Linda — The City of Yorba Linda does not have a Bicycle Master Plan, but does have a bikeways map. Connections are made on Lakeview Avenue (Bike ID 85), Orangethorpe Avenue (Bike ID 109), Kellogg Drive (Bike ID 78), Fairmont Boulevard (Bike ID 17), Gypsum Canyon Road (Bike ID 75), and the Santa Ana River Trail (Bike ID 28). County of Orange — The County of Orange uses the Major Riding and Hiking Trails and Off -Road Paved Bikeways to guide the development of trails and bikeways in the County. The County maintains the Santa Ana River Trail, of which over 10 miles are located in Anaheim. Anaheim May 23, 2017 Page 1 64 www.anaheim.net/bike Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan regularly coordinates with the County in relation to the Santa Ana Regional Bike Trail, including the proposed project to improve the trail through Yorba Linda to the Riverside County Line13 and with proposed projects connecting to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and Anaheim Coves. The City also coordinates with the County regarding bicycle facilities in the unincorporated areas in West Anaheim, such as the recently constructed Class II bikeway on Gilbert Street from the south city limits to Ball Road (Bike ID 72), and sections of the Class II bikeways on Ball Road (Bike ID 42), and Brookhurst Street (Bike ID 48C). Orange County Water District — Anaheim regularly coordinates with the Orange County Water District regarding bikeways that affect their jurisdiction along the Santa Ana River Trail. Anaheim Coves and North Extension — In an effort to expand the City of Anaheim's natural, transportation and recreational resources for the community, the City has been working to enter into a partnership with three public agencies that own the land north of Lincoln Avenue for the purpose of extending Anaheim Coves. This project was identified as a key opportunity in the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. The project scope of work includes developing 14 acres of native landscape and constructing a 0.9 miles of a Class I, 10 -foot -wide paved bicycle trail by using a porous asphalt paving, constructing a sub -base aggregate and concrete curb at porous asphalt; two-way striping; installing a bike rack; distance markers; benches; trash receptacles; recycle containers; pet waste dispensers; appropriate safety signage; two -cable guardrail at Carbon Canyon Channel; and a drinking fountain at Frontera Street. The project will span from Lincoln Avenue to Frontera Street along the west side of the Santa Ana River. Based on the sense of shared support for the project by the parties, the City has received authorization from the Orange County Water District (OCWD), Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and Southern California Edison (SCE) to move forward with design and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council approved the Anaheim Coves North Extension project at its meeting on February 7, 2017. Orange County Flood Control District — The City's General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan and Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan identify the potential use of Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) maintenance roads by bicyclists and pedestrians. The multi -use of these maintenance roads has been identified in an effort to expand the City of Anaheim's transportation and recreational resources. The City of Anaheim and OCFCD plan to enter into an operation and maintenance agreement that identifies existing OCFCD maintenance roads that could be converted into future bikeways and trails and identifies the City's role in improving and maintaining these facilities. The improvements needed to expand the bike and pedestrian network include bridges, gates, fences, and the resurfacing of the existing OCFCD maintenance roads. In some cases, the improvements are as simple as adding signage and striping, and opening the gates for public use. Many of these segments represent important links between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and libraries. OCTA Bikeways Strategies OCTA Bikeways Strategies14 were commissioned by the Orange County Council of Governments and OCTA to expand upon the 2009 CBSP. The Bikeways Strategies were organized by County supervisorial districts, 13 http://ocplanning.net/planning/projects/santa_ana_river_parkway_extension_project 14 http://octa.net/Bike/Bikeways-Planning/ May 23, 2017 Page 1 65 www.anaheim.net/bike XURf 1# Bike - 70 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan and areas of Anaheim are located in or adjacent to Districts 3 and 4. The OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy was most recently completed in 2016, and the Plan reflects coordination between the agencies involved in the development of each strategy. Orange County Loop OC Loops is a vision for 66 miles of seamless connections and an opportunity for people to bike, walk, and connect to some of California's most scenic beaches and inland reaches. About 70% of the OC Loop is existing, and the County of Orange prepared a gap feasibility study to better position cities to pursue grant funding to implement the missing OC Loop segments. Segment H of the OC Loop is located within the City of Anaheim and would connect between the Santa Ana River and Fairlynn Boulevard and the EI Cajon Trail in Yorba Linda. OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan The OCTA Outlook 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan16 includes the multi -modal projects and programs that are the basis for the Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The LRTP provides a visionary blueprint for transportation improvements for Orange County and input into the development of the RTP. The general goals of the LRTP are to assess the performance of the transportation system over a 20+ year horizon, and to identify the projects that best address the needs of the system based on expected population, housing and employment growth, while taking forecast financial assumptions into account at the same time. The LRTP will provide both a financially constrained plan, which takes into account funding limitations, and an unconstrained plan, which contains a vast array of potential improvements should additional funding sources become available. The focus of the LRTP, which looks out to the year 2035, will be on sustainability, specifically addressing the reduction of greenhouse gases from cars and trucks. Sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community -- whether the economic, social and environmental systems that make up the community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan /Sustainable Communities Strategy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)17 has the goal of maintaining regional mobility, while committing to reducing emissions from transportation sources to comply with California Senate Bill (SB) 375 and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards from the U.S. Clean Air Act. SB 375 calls for regional plans to meet reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The Active Transportation portion of the RTP/SCS represents how the region plans to use active transportation to help meet its transportation challenges over the next 25 years, including longer -trip strategies for commuters and active recreation, integrating active transportation with transit, short -trip strategies for utilitarian trips (shopping, school, local retail), and safety/encouragement. The bike strategies and facilities in the RTP/SCS are derived in part from the plans that OCTA and local cities submitted. State Implementation Plan The SCAQMD prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to comply with the California Clean Air Act and SB 375. The California Clean Air Act establishes requirements for local/regional air districts to meet 15 http://octa.net/Bike/-rhe-OC-Loop/ 16 http://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Plans-and-Studies/Long-Range-Transportation-Plan/ 17 http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/default.aspx May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 66 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan state mandates. This filters through the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is responsible for compiling district plans to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act. SCAQMD coordinates efforts with SCAG to comply with transportation requirements through the RTP/SCS. The SCAQMD also coordinates compliance with Rule 2202, which was discussed in section 3.6 above. May 23, 2017 Page 1 67 www.anaheim.net/bike XlAffflf� Bike �uAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 Page 168 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAHUN Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 5 — Bikewav Connections with Neiahborino Jurisdictions Neighboring Jurisdiction Bike ID Street/Path Name Bikeway Class Existing Proposed 6 Carbon Creek Channel I X 107 Orange Avenue II X Buena Park 23 North-South SoCal Edison Right -of -Way w/o Magnolia Street I X 41 Ball Road II X Buena Park and Cypress 53 Cerritos Avenue II X 49 Brookhurst Road II X 38 Lemon Street II X Fullerton 33 Acacia Avenue II X 26 and 108 Orangethorpe Avenue II X 111 and 112 Orangewood Avenue II X X 98 Ninth Street II X 48 Brookhurst Street II X Garden Grove 37 Anaheim Boulevard/ Haster Street II X 56 Chapman Avenue II X 66 Euclid Street II X 123 Serrano Avenue II X 20 Metrolink Side Trail I X 76 Imperial Highway II X 121A Santa Ana Canyon Road II X 132 Tustin Avenue II X 73 Glassell Street II X Orange 91 Lincoln Avenue II X 44 Ball Road II X 14B East-West Edison right-of- way/ Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue I X 114 Orangewood Avenue II X 88 Lewis Street II X 108 and 110 Orangethorpe Avenue II X 155 Orangethorpe Avenue II X 85 Lakeview Avenue II X Placentia 162 Van Buren Street III X 133 Tustin Avenue II X 82 Kraemer Boulevard II X 45 Blue Gum Street II X 116 Richfield Road II X May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 69 �,uAneheim Bicycle Master Plan Neighboring Jurisdiction Bike ID Street/Path Name Bikeway Class Existing Proposed 54 Cerritos Avenue II X 32 Union Pacific Railroad north I of Katella and east of Euclid X 93 Magnolia Street II X Stanton 22 North-South SoCal Edison I ROW west of Magnolia Street X 62 Dale Street II X 163 Western Avenue II X 79 Knott Avenue II X 85 Lakeview Avenue II X 78 Kellogg Drive II X 109 Orangethorpe Avenue II X Yorba Linda 17 Fairmont Boulevard II X 28 Santa Ana River Trail I X 75 Gypsum Canyon Road II X 27 Santa Ana River Trail I X 72 Gilbert Street II X 42A Ball Road II X County of 42B Ball Road III X Orange 42C Ball Road II X 42D Ball Road II X 48C Brookhurst Street II X May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 70 MigHtIN,✓Anaheim 4. Needs Analysis 4.1 Population and Employment Profile Bicycle Master Plan According to the United States Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimatesi8, Anaheim's population was approximately 342,973, with a projected population of 380,000 by 2035. Residential growth will occur primarily in the Platinum Triangle and through infill development throughout the mostly built -out city. Major employment centers in the City include The Anaheim Resort and the Anaheim Canyon. More than 58% of the City's residents are ages 15-54, and are of prime bicycling age for work commute trips. 4.2 Types of Bicyclists The Plan seeks to address the needs of all current and potential bicyclists and seeks to understand the needs and preferences of all types of bicyclists, which may vary among skill levels and trip types. In addition, the propensity to bicycle varies from person to person, providing insight into potential increases in bicycling rates. Research shows that there are four types of bicyclists,ie as shown in Figure 12 — Four Types of Bicyclists: Figure 12 — Four Types of Bicyclists AStrong and Fearless W%) p sj Enthused and Confident (5%) xo O $0Ao O � Ao to Ao Ao o o Q e 0 O fie 4e) Interested but Concerned (60%) 0 A0 AO 40 e At: Ae AO $0 Ae e e C7 CSL. � ) AS- o Ae Ae Ale Ale Ie Alo © Ao Ofeft q j t O AS ©ie No Way, No Now (35%) 18 http://factfinder.census. gov/faces/tableserviceshsf/pages/p rod uctview.xhtml?src=CF 19 http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/264746 May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 71 XNAUPS • Bike . Anahelm Bicycle Master Plan Strong and Fearless bicyclists will ride almost anywhere, any time. High traffic volumes and speeds, and lack of bikeway designation do not deter these riders. They are estimated to be less than one percent of the population. Enthused and Confident bicyclists will ride on most roadways where traffic volumes and speeds are not high. These riders, estimated at 5 to 7 percent of the population, are confident in positioning themselves to share the roadway with motorists. Interested but Concerned bicyclists will ride if bicycle paths or lanes are provided on low traffic and low speed streets. They are typically not confident cycling alongside motorists. These riders are estimated to comprise 60% of the population, and the primary target group that is likely to bicycle more if encouraged to do so. "No Way No How" people do not consider cycling part of their transportation or recreation options, and comprise about one-third of the population. The needs of bicyclists also vary among trip purposes. For example, people who bicycle for performance - recreational purposes may prefer long and straight roadways without traffic signals, while bicyclists who ride with children to school may prefer direct roadways with lower vehicular volumes and speeds. This Plan considers these differences and develops a bikeway network to serve all user types, including: Commuters - Adults who regularly bicycle between home and work Enthusiasts - Skilled adults who ride for exercise and recreation Casual/Family/Elderly Riders - Adults who use bicycles for running errands, recreation, tourism, exercise, or as a family activity Children - Children who bicycle to school and for fun An effective bikeway network accommodates bicyclists of all abilities. Casual bicyclists generally prefer roadways with low traffic volumes and low speeds. They also prefer paths that are physically separated from roadways. Because experienced bicyclists typically ride to destinations or to achieve a goal, they generally choose the most direct route, which may include arterial roadways with or without bike lanes. Bicyclists of all abilities and purposes ride every day in Anaheim. Parents bicycle with their children to school, people bicycle to work, community members bicycle to transit stations, and recreational bicyclists ride through the City on extended bicycle trips. Recent technology, such as electric bicycles, has encouraged less confident bicycle riders to enjoy the benefits of cycling. At times, this has also allowed bicyclists to utilize facilities such as on -street bike lanes that they may not normally feel able to ride in safely and comfortably. May 23, 2017 Page 1 72 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAH�1# 0gAnaBike heim 4.3 Cyclist Comfort Level Bicycle Master Plan In 2012, the Mineta Transportation Institute developed measures of low -stress connectivity to evaluate and guide bicycle network planning20. Criteria include factors such as number of vehicle travel lanes and vehicle speed. Road segments can be classified into four Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS): LTS 1 is generally suitable for children; LTS 2 represents the comfort level for the `Interested but Concerned" rider type; LTS 3 can be tolerated by the "Enthused and Confident" rider type that prefers to still have dedicated space on the road for cyclists; and LTS 4 can only be tolerated by the "Strong and Fearless" rider type. Table 6 — Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic below shows a generalized summary of methods to determine LTS levels on arterial streets. Speed Limit Up to 25 mph 30 mph Table 6 — Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic 2-3 lanes Street Width 4-5 lanes 6+ lanes Note: E Use lower value for streets without marked centerlines or classified as residential and with fewer than 3 lanes: use higher value otherwise. Class I Bike Paths and Class IV Cycle Tracks have the lowest level of traffic stress between intersections, and are generally categorized as LTS 1. Class II Bike Lanes and Class III Bike Routes can exhibit the full range of traffic stress. Where they have ample width and are positioned on a road whose traffic is slow and simple (a single lane per direction), they can offer cyclists a low -stress riding environment. However, bike lanes can also present a higher stress environment when positioned on roads with heavy traffic or next to parking lanes. 20 http://transweb.smsu.edu/PDFs/research/1005-low-stress-bicycling-network-connectivity pdf May 23, 2017 Page 1 73 www.anaheim.net/bike 4.4 Public Outreach • Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan The City solicited input from the public over the course of the planning process, which began with the City's Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan that was adopted in 2014. Outreach efforts included: Presentations at regularly scheduled Neighborhood Council District meetings, where details of the Plan were discussed and the public was invited to participate. The planning process was introduced at the Neighborhood Council meetings in January 2014, and followed with more detailed presentations in August 2014. Staff returned to the Neighborhood Councils in January 2016 to present the Plan recommendations at that point in the planning process. Staff returned to the Neighborhood Councils in July 2016, to announce that the Draft Plan was available for public comment from August 1, 2016 to August 31, 2016. Additional meetings were held with the Neighborhood Districts in February, 2017. 2. An online survey was completed by 201 respondents in Fall 2014. Findings are detailed in Appendix D - Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results and are summarized as follows: • Over 70% of respondents see bicyclists on Anaheim streets once or more per day • If safe bicycle routes were in close proximity, respondents would bicycle to complete the following trip types: 0 90% for exercise/health 0 61% for shopping/errands 0 54% for work commutes o 23% to get to transit • Over 83% of respondents answered that there are too few bicycle routes in Anaheim, and over 76% shared that this prevents them from bicycling more often • To be influenced to bicycle more often, respondents prioritized the following: o More buffered bike lanes (74%) o More paved off-street (Class 1) paths (67%) o More traditional on -street bike lanes (Class II with 6 -inch stripe) (59%) o More bicycle boulevards (shared roadways designed to slow vehicle traffic and give equal priority to bicyclists) (59%) A Bicycle Master Plan Open House was held Saturday, October 18, 2014, at the Muzeo, to solicit public input on their preferences among the proposed new bicycle lanes and trails. The public preferences are summarized as follows: • Lemon Street bicycle boulevard from Ball Road to La Palma Park • Broadway buffered bike lanes from Dale Street to Olive Street • Orange Avenue buffered bike lanes from Carbon Creek Channel to Magnolia Avenue • Ball Road bicycle path from Lemon Street to Walnut Street • Carbon Creek Channel bicycle path from Beach Boulevard through Dad Miller Golf Course May 23, 2017 Page 174 www.anaheim.net/bike XIAHUN Bike j� Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 4. A fact sheet on the Plan, including the web link to the Plan on the City's website, was distributed in August 2016 to raise awareness of the Plan and solicit public input during the public review period from August 1 to August 31, 2016. It was available at the four Neighborhood Council Meetings in July 2016, National Night Out on August 2, 2016, at educational programs held by the Traffic Safety Program, at all City facilities and events, and at various back -to -school open houses in local school districts in the month of August 2016. The fact sheet was also emailed to various distribution lists, including OCTAs. The fact sheet is included as Appendix E — Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet. 5. A workshop was held at the Planning Commission meeting on August 8, 2016, which included the opportunity for public comment. 6. The Plan was adopted through a series of Planning Commission and City Council hearings in Spring, 2017. May 23, 2017 Page 175 www.anaheim.net/bike OADUSAnaQ[ , heim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 Page 1 76 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAHUN %� Anaheim 5. Bikeway Network Recommendations 5.1 Proposed Bikeways Bicycle Master Plan A comprehensive bikeway network improves bicyclists' level of safety, convenience, and access to key destinations. Planning a bikeway network enables the City to prioritize and seek funding to construct bicycle facilities where they will provide the greatest benefit to bicyclists and the community -at -large. The proposed bikeway network, when completed, will include 180.17 miles of bicycle facilities to increase connectivity within Anaheim and to surrounding communities. The proposed bikeway network has been developed to create a safe and logical network. It is important to note that bicyclists are legally entitled to ride on all city streets, regardless of whether the streets are a part of the designated bikeway network. The scope of the Plan is limited to proposing bikeways that do not require the removal of vehicle travel lanes. Staff has identified areas for future study that focus on specific geographic areas or types of bikeways facilities that may have additional impacts to the Planned Roadway Network in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These areas for future study include The Anaheim Resort and Platinum Triangle, road diets, Class III Bicycle Boulevards, Class IV Cycle Tracks, off-road/unpaved riding and hiking trails, and pedestrian facilities. Table 7 — Proposed Bikeways details all of the proposed bikeways in the Anaheim bikeway network, which are also shown in Figure 13 — Proposed Bikeway Network (West) and Figure 14 — Proposed Bikeway Network (East). May 23, 2017 Page 177 www.anaheim.net/bike tjAfffIM �pnaheim This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 78 0AHEIN �p�aheim Table 7 — Proposed Bikeways Bicycle Master Plan Class 1 Bike Path Proposed Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles Anaheim Coves Trail North 2 Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94 Extension Basin Trail south of La 3 Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 0.46 Palma Avenue 4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Avenue 0.25 Buena Park City 6 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard 1.30 Limit 7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57 8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89 165 Carbon Creek Channel Schweitzer Park Lincoln Avenue 0.73 Carbon Creek Diversion 9 Channel Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe Avenue 1.35 Crescent Avenue Bike 10 Bridge Muller Street Chippewa Avenue 0.18 11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 1.62 East Tustin Flood Control Anaheim Canyon 12 Path Santa Ana River Trail Metrolink 0.79 East-West Edison right -of- 13 way north of Katella UPRR West of Ninth Walnut Street 0.41 Street Avenue East-West Edison right -of - way/Union Pacific Railroad 14A right-of-way north of Harbor Boulevard Douglass Road 2.31 Katella Avenue East-West Edison right -of - way/Union Pacific Railroad 14B right-of-way north of Douglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32 Katella Avenue 15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana CanyonRoad La Palma Avenue 0.54 16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.09 Imperial La Palma Santa Ana River Trail 179 Connector w/o Imperial Highway 0.45 Connector Imperial Highway 18 Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.75 19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street east of Brasher Street 4.23 20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue 0.98 Nohl Ranch Open Space 21 Trail Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road 1.27 May 23, 2017 Page 179 www.anaheim.net/bike 9Bi/re Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 80 North-South Edison right - 23 of -way west of Magnolia Broadway La Palma Avenue 1.26 Street Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles North-South Union Pacific E -W Southern California 24 Railroad- Olive Street Vermont Avenue Edison right-of-way 1.18 south of Cerritos Continuation Avenue 109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway 1.66 Peralta Canyon Park 178 Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail 0.25 Overcrossing Santa Ana River Trail 29 Connector west of Imperial Santa Ana River Trail La Palma Avenue 0.28 Highway Sycamore Connector west 30 of State College Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.13 Tustin Avenue -Metrolink 31 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue 0.28 Connection Alt 1 0.17 Tustin Avenue -Metrolink (Alt. to 31— 175 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail Connection Alt 2 Not Counted) Union Pacific Railroad north 32 of Katella and east of Euclid Stanton City Limits Broadway 3.42 Tota 1 30.05 Class II Bike Lane Proposed Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits .61 35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56 Anaheim Bou levard/Haster Garden Grove City 37 Cerritos Avenue 1.25 Street Limits Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Fullerton City Limits north 38 La Palma Avenue 1.10 Street of Freedom Lane Buena Park City 41 Ball Road Knott Avenue 0.38 Li m its 42D Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69 43A Ball Road Brookhurst Street Walnut Street 1.75 43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Place 0.25 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.64 May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 80 XNAffIM Bike �Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 Page 181 www.anaheim.net/bike Southern California Edison 46A Broadway Dale Street 0.23 Trail Southern California 46B Broadway Gilbert Street 0.75 Edison Trail 46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85 Bike Centerline Street/Path From To ID Miles 49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits 1.00 Camino Grande/Stagecoach 50 Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 1.53 Road 51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Avenue 0.56 West City Limits 54 Cerritos Avenue (east of Magnolia) Walnut Street 2.51 55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Douglass Road 1.65 Carbon Creek 58 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street 0.22 Channel 62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits 1.64 63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.41 Orangewood 171 Dupont Drive (W) Dupont Drive (E) 2.22 Avenue 64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 2.09 Orangewood 66 Euclid Street Ball Road 1.52 Avenue 67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 1.07 68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street 0.20 Crescent Pinney Drive/Royal Oak 70 Gerda Drive 0.39 Elementary School Road 71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail 0.58 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma Avenue 0.67 Santa Ana Canyon 75 Gypsum Canyon Road Yorba Linda City Limit 0.16 Road 77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.38 79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.93 82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue 1.37 Buena Park City 81 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street 4.63 Limits State College 167 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street 1.18 Boulevard Santa Ana CanyonRoad 83 Lakeview Avenue Riverdale Avenue 0.25 85A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.50 85B Lakeview Avenue Orangethorpe Yorba Linda City Limit 0.26 Avenue May 23, 2017 Page 181 www.anaheim.net/bike �/MAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan 87A Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25 Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 89A Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Southern California Edison Trail 1.74 89B Lincoln Avenue Southern California Edison Trail Euclid Street 2.26 90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue 0.16 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 2.49 94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana Street Lincoln Avenue 0.44 96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Circle 1.31 99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue 1.56 101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45 103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street 0.22 105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive 0.21 107A Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Carbon Creek Trail 0.97 107B Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue 1.41 26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75 108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College Boulevard Placentia Avenue 0.36 110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Boulevard Miller Street 0.63 112 Orangewood Avenue West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51 114 Orangewood Avenue Mountain View Avenue Dupont Drive (W) 1.03 115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive 0.06 116 Richfield Road Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.22 118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Street 0.40 123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.10 125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon Road 1.45 126 South Street State College Boulevard peregrine Street 0.50 130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Avenue 1.01 131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue 0.91 172 Towne Centre Place Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street 0.23 May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 182 Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Miraloma Avenue 1.18 134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Trail 1.65 Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 136 Wagner Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.50 138A Walnut Street Katella Avenue Ball Road 1.02 138B Walnut Street Ball Road Santa Ana Street 0.65 140 West Street Santa Ana Street North Street 0.94 141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits 0.76 Total 71.13 Class 111 Bike Routes Proposed Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 145 A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00 145 B Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail 0.25 147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49 148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76 149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana River Trail 0.13 86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56 150 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.53 151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42 152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23 106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09 154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98 158 Ro neva Drive/Carl Karcher Y Euclid Street Anaheim Boulevard 1.26 122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63 159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Boulevard 0.72 160 South Street Indiana Street State College Boulevard 1.97 161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Coves Trail 0.28 170 Sycamore Street West Street Sycamore Connector 2.22 162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limit north of Miraloma Avenue 0.42 135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15 May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 1 83 • Hike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue 0.42 143 1 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48 Total 19.13 This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 Page 184 www.anaheim.net/bike tufffUna IN 1; Bike 4V Jheim Figure 13 — Proposed Bikeway Network (West) ..... . ..... . ....... . ........ rULLERTON F_ ...... 2 . ....................... r ..... .... . ...... .......... . ..... .... ..... . ..... . ....... . ........ �­A ORANGE i W-4 Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 w—anahemnet/bike Page 1 85 .... . ...... .......... I o I- CYPRESS ............... GARDEN GROVE P,000se Wk. G- I &M P.m GamrypMnpe —.1-keLamb --AR_ ON L— �­A ORANGE i W-4 Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 w—anahemnet/bike Page 1 85 tI10 AHEIN Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan Mayy23 2017 Page S6 w .anaheim.net/bike OAHEIR j� Bike Ana 71V heim PLACENTIA o—� A = 2017 aheim.net/bike Figure 14 - Proposed Bikeway Network (East) Proposed BIM—y. N YORBA LINDA ..... Cay— R. ............ .. VILLA Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 87 Anaheim May 23, 2017 -anaheirn.net/bike This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan Page 188 Hike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 5.2 Proposed Parking and End -of -Trip Facilities The City will continue to promote the integration of bicycle parking and end -of -trip facilities into future development of commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and multi -family residential developments in the City. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, detailed in Appendix B, will help to implement more bicycle parking. The proposed parking code amendment, as discussed in Section 3.7 above, will address bicycle parking in the City's municipal code. 5.3 Proposed Multi -Modal Connections Convenient connections for bicyclists to continue their trips on public transit include three key elements: bicycle access to transit stops; bicycle parking facilities at multi -modal centers; and accommodation for bicycles on trains and buses. The bikeway network connects to existing transit stops and provides bicycle parking at multi -modal centers such as the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station and the ARTIC. Multi -modal connections were scoring criteria in the priority ranking for the proposed segments of the Plan. 5.4 Proposed Education, Awareness, and Enforcement Programs The City recognizes that in addition to providing safe and inviting bikeways facilities, ongoing education, awareness, and enforcement are critical components of the safety of riders on the City's bikeway network. In addition to maintaining existing programs with the Anaheim Police Department and Anaheim Fire & Rescue as funding is available, the City will pursue grant funding for additional resources for the Traffic Safety Program and bicycle helmet distribution. Additional opportunities include the creation and distribution of a bicycle user map, pursuing a Safe Routes to Schools program, and coordinating with ATN and employers in the City to increase the number of bicycle commuters. 5.5 Bicycle Signal Detection In -pavement loop detectors are used at signalized intersections to trigger a traffic light when a roadway user approaches the intersection. California law (AB 1581) requires that all new traffic actuated traffic signals respond to the presence of bicycles and motorcyclists. The City of Anaheim currently complies with State guidelines for traffic signal timing and detection. This is accomplished through traffic signal retiming, signal upgrades, and rehabilitation projects. The City is committed to continue to seek funding to ensure bicycle loop detectors are installed at all signalized intersections, particularly during roadway construction. While bicycle detector loops facilitate faster and more convenient bicycle trips, if they aren't calibrated properly, or stop functioning, they can frustrate cyclists waiting for signals to change, unaware that the loop is not working. The City is responsible for ensuring that all bicycle loops are operable. 5.6 Implementation Toolbox Appendix G — Implementation Toolbox, is a menu of design standards from the current versions of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Additionally, the toolbox includes a selection of non-standard treatments, for reference, from nationally recognized publications by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which have not been adopted into the CA MUTCD or the HDM. These standards and best practices have been implemented by public agencies and municipalities nationwide. This menu of options is intended to assist the City in the selection and design of bicycle facilities, to ensure that the appropriate bicycle facility is placed. The wide range of tools could address issues on specific types of facilities, including Class I Bike Paths, and would be implemented on a case-by-case basis. May 23, 2017 Page 189 www.anaheim.net/bike NJAHfIll:Anaheim 6. Implementation and Funding 6.1 Proiect Prioritization Bicycle Master Plan The proposed bikeway network was prioritized based on key indicators of demand, utility, connectivity, and readiness. Based on the ranking analysis, three tiers of ranked projects have been identified, as shown in Table 8 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 1, Table 9 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 2, Table 10 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 3, and Figure 15 - Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) and Figure 16 - Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (East). The complete scoring analysis is provided in Appendix F - Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores. For purposes of prioritization, individual segments were combined into corridors, shown in Bold, to better capture the intent of closing gaps in the existing network. Individual segments are also scored, and shown in italics. Demand Criteria focus on population and employment along each segment. The probability of bicycle commuting trips is higher in corridors that have higher population and/or employment densities. Bikeways connecting to employers with more than 250 employees have a higher demand due to Transportation Demand Management programs implemented by these employers. Medium to high density residential areas typically have lower automobile demand and higher bicycle and transit ridership. Utility Criteria focus on the completeness of the bikeway network. New bikeways that connect to existing facilities tend to attract more ridership as they serve to extend existing facilities and provide more opportunities to areas serviced by existing bikeways. Several bikeways, both existing and proposed, have been identified as Regional Bikeways through a collaborative process with OCTA and the cities within each County Supervisorial District. These intercity bikeways are intended to serve as the backbone of the County's bikeway network. Facilities that connect to the regional bikeway system are anticipated to benefit from these connections once the regional network is substantially completed. Inter -city connectivity outside of these regional corridors was also considered to account for bicyclists from other cities that may consider using their bikeways due to a connection into Anaheim. Connectivity Criteria focus on multimodal flexibility and special generators that lie outside typical commuter bicycling patterns. Connectivity to Metrolink, Amtrak, and high quality transit corridors were ranked highly, as bicycles can be used to provide the last mile connection between transit and employment or population centers. High Quality Transit Corridors are those bus routes with a service frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak hours. Connections to elementary, middle, and high schools received additional points, as well as connections to parks, community centers, and libraries. Readiness Criteria focus on agency coordination and physical barriers to implementation. Bicycle projects may become more complex as more affected agencies are involved with the process. Right of way acquisition is costly relative to the cost to construct bicycle facilities, and can serve as a significant setback to the implementation of bikeways. Removal of on -street parking to provide bicycle facilities may have unintended consequences to degrade the quality of life in the surrounding residential neighborhoods that may be already impacted by spillover parking concerns. May 23, 2017 Page 190 www.anaheim.net/bike Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 8 — Priority Rankina of the Pronosed Network — Tier 1 Tier 1 Priority Ranking Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score 6 164 1 165 Carbon Creek Channel Buna Park City La Palma Avenue 87 ts 5 8 107 Buena Park City 2 Orange Avenue Euclid Street 87 154 Limits 122 State College 3 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street 87 159 Boulevard 37 36 Haster Street/ Anaheim Garden Grove Fullerton City 4 354 Boulevard/ Lemon Street City Limits Limits 86 38 81 Buena Park City 5 166 La Palma Avenue West Blue Gum Street 84 Limits 167 6 69 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Glassell Street 82 7 32 UPRR/Edison w/o Walnut Stanton City Broadway 81 13 Limits 41 8 42D Ball Road Buena Park City West Place 79 43 Limits Fullerton 9 49 Brookhurst Street Katella Avenue 79 City 128 10 3Sunkist/ Miraloma Cerritos Avenue Van Buren Street 79 96 97 134 11 Vermont/Wagner Citron Street Rio Vista Street 79 136 137 May 23, 2017 Page 191 www.anaheim.net/bike XNADYN ,uAneheim Bicycle Master Plan Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score 58 59 10 12 60 Crescent Avenue/ North Street Carbon Creek Olive Street 77 151 Channel 101 102 103 46 State College 13 Broadway Dale Street 75 47 Boulevard 160 126 Anaheim Coves 14 South Street Indiana Street 75 127 Trail 161 123 Orange City Weir Canyon 15 124 Serrano Avenue 74 Limits Road 125 132 Orange City Placentia City 16 Tustin Avenue 74 133A Limits Limits 143 Sycamore Street/Westmont 17 170 Loara Street Van Buren Street 73 Drive 30 18 89A & 8 Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue Euclid Street 72 19 109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Hwy 72 88 Santa Ana Yorba Linda City 20 84 Lakeview Avenue 72 Canyon Road Limits 85 May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 192 XlAfff�MAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 9 — Priority Rankina of the Pronosed Network — Tier 2 Tier 2 Priority Ranking Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score 21 84 East/Lewis Katella Avenue La Palma Avenue 69 94 22 90Manchester/Loara Santa Ana Street North Street 69 144 92 153 Edison Trail s/o 23 106 Olive Street La Palma Avenue 69 24 Cerritos 55 24 63 Cerritos/ Douglass/ Katella Anaheim Santa Ana River 68 Boulevard Trail 149 147 25 148 Gilbert Street South City Limits La Palma Avenue 68 72 26 22 N -S Edison ROW w/o Magnolia Stanton City La Palma Avenue 67 23 Limits 27 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City 66 Limits 28 54 Cerritos Avenue West City Limits walnut Street 65 (% Magnolia) 40 Anaheim Shores/ Anaheim 29 158 Romneya/Karcher La Palma Avenue Boulevard 65 111 112 113 30 114 Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Rampart Street 65 171 172 31 173 West Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 65 32 26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 64 33 65 Euclid Street Oranuewood Lincoln Avenue 64 34 15 Lemon Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 64 35 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 63 May 23, 2017 Page 193 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAfff 1M Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Rank Bike IN Street/Path From To Score 152 36 145A Crone Avenue/ Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Walnut Street 63 145B 37 82 Kraemer/ Glassell Orange City Limits Orangethorpe 63 73 Avenue Fullerton City 38 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue 62 Limits 39 138 Walnut Street Katello Avenue Santa Ana Street 62 Placentia City 40 162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue 60 Limits 31 41 12 Tustin Metrolink Paths Orange City Limits Tustin Avenue 60 20 Buena Park City 42 62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits 59 Limits 67 15 Yorba Linda City 43 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road 58 16 Limits 17 104 Running Springs 44 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue 57 105 Drive 45 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 56 19 Santa Ana River 46 29 La Palma Avenue East Blue Gum Street 56 Trail 179 47 Nohl Ranch Pelanconi Park Serrano Avenue 56 100 May 23, 2017 Page 194 www.anaheim.net/bike (�Bike 'Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 10 — Priority Ranking of the Proposed Network — Tier 3 Tier 3 Priority Ranking Rank Bike IDs Street/Path From To Score 76 Santa Ana 48 Imperial Hwy Orange City Limits 52 18 Canyon Road Placentia City 49 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue 51 Limits 50 2 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Frontera Street 49 77 Yorba Linda City 51 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue 49 78 Limits 117 52 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Frontera Street 48 118 163 Stanton City Buena Park City 53 Western Avenue 48 141 Limits Limits Kraemer Orangethorpe 54 9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel 47 Boulevard Avenue 120 Crescent 55 178 Royal Oak/ Pinney/ Gerda Nohl Ranch Road Elementary 46 7School 70 56 51 1 Canyon Creek/Sunset Ridge Serrano Avenue Serrano Avenue 45 State College 57 108 Orangethorpe Avenue Placentia Avenue 44 Boulevard 98 Garden Grove 58 Ninth Street Cerritos Avenue 44 99 City Limits East-West Edison ROW/Union 59 13 Pacific Railroad ROW north of Harbor Boulevard Orange City 43 Katella Avenue Limits Miraloma 60 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue 43 Avenue 79 Stanton City 61 Knott Avenue Lincoln Avenue 41 80 Limits 62 11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Serrano Avenue 40 Boulevard 63 110 Orangethorpe Avenue Kraemer Jefferson Street 34 Boulevard 64 135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 34 Basin Trail s/o La Placentia City 65 116 Richfield Road 33 Palma Avenue Limits 66 3 Basin Trail s/o La Palma Avenue Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 27 May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 95 MAHEIN ,`�``uAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan Rank Bike IN Street/Path From To Score 67 75 Gypsum Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon Yorba Linda City 26 Road Limits 68 50 Camino Grande/Stagecoach Road Nohl Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 24 69 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood 22 Avenue Proposed projects may be implemented out of scoring order as opportunities arise, which may include grant availability, new development projects, capital improvement projects, or roadway repaving. The City Public Works Department and Community Services Department (for Class I Bike Paths) will regularly review the project list and rankings to evaluate current priorities, needs, and opportunities for implementing the bikeway network in a logical and efficient manner. Due to the unpredictability of funding sources, economic conditions, and community support, some projects, especially those that require right-of-way purchase or coordination with multiple jurisdictions, may take longer to be developed. Additionally, while the priority ranking combines several segments into a corridor, any segment within that corridor can be implemented independently of the others. Funding for an entire corridor doesn't need to be secured in order to implement any part of the corridor. As projects are implemented, lower ranked projects will move up the list. The project list and individual projects outlined in the Plan are flexible concepts that serve as a guideline. The ranked project list, and perhaps the overall system and segments themselves, may change over time as a result of changing bicycling patterns, land use patterns, implementation constraints and opportunities and coordination with the implementation of other transportation system facilities. May 23, 2017 Page 196 www.anaheim.net/bike XmllL1# Bike "® JUnahelm Figure 15 – Bikeway Network Priority Ranking (West) Bicycle Master Plan STANTON y 0 � a � CYFRE 9 m } GARDEN GROVE I m 1 Bikeways Pr jeer Prlorgtration Brore ewe iD c ­ — SANTA - uuu n -mo r�Nv a� aarce N � / li z3-sa -. CnY Limmr SANTA i. •,• MayN23 2017 w .anaheim.net/bike Page 1 97 «terra � PL CENTIA : •: i._ a a - - FULLERJON !mow Aw y8 �� ...1..i''•. » a . • } RvnnPOr as`+^' s4 .� �:9 u ...... .........»«.«...« 1 1• PARK .... ......e.W. UPw•Iw A.n. . N �/�(I�.• _ .,... ..1...». '^!� >_ STANTON y 0 � a � CYFRE 9 m } GARDEN GROVE I m 1 Bikeways Pr jeer Prlorgtration Brore ewe iD c ­ — SANTA - uuu n -mo r�Nv a� aarce N � / li z3-sa -. CnY Limmr SANTA i. •,• MayN23 2017 w .anaheim.net/bike Page 1 97 Jmtax ..... : •: c s«�e's ..' a - - . »«.....« _ ........... ...... .........»«.«...« 1 1• ORANGE STANTON y 0 � a � CYFRE 9 m } GARDEN GROVE I m 1 Bikeways Pr jeer Prlorgtration Brore ewe iD c ­ — SANTA - uuu n -mo r�Nv a� aarce N � / li z3-sa -. CnY Limmr SANTA i. •,• MayN23 2017 w .anaheim.net/bike Page 1 97 NAAHE y Bi Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. May 23 2017 -anaheim.net/bike Page 198 tufffINBike 1 175Anaheim PLACENTIA ......... Bicycle Master Plan Figure 16 — Bikeway, Network Priority Ranking (East) ORANCE VILLA ARK May23,2017 —anaheim.net/blke Pap 1 99 Bikeways Project 'k Priorid"bon 5 Q B—D titH EI'm t 70 N YORSA ORANCE VILLA ARK May23,2017 —anaheim.net/blke Pap 1 99 'k t ORANCE VILLA ARK May23,2017 —anaheim.net/blke Pap 1 99 Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. Bicycle Master Plan May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 100 MAHONAnaheim 6.2 Bicycle Ridership Estimates and Forecasts Bicycle Master Plan Current bicycling level and forecasted future bicycle ridership and vehicle trip reduction in Anaheim were estimated using US Census data, along with adjustments for likely Census underestimations. Census data captures only work commute trips and does not include bicycle trips for other purposes, such as school, shopping, or other errands. Of the work commute trips reported, Census data only captures the mode of travel for the longest portion of the trip, and excludes bicycle trips as part of a multi -modal trip. The Plan supplements US Census data with other methodologies for estimating bicycle trips of students and transit riders, which are described in Table 11 - Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates. The Plan estimates that the actual current number of daily bicycle commuters in Anaheim is closer to 6,593 riders, making 13,186 daily trips and saving an estimated 9,097 vehicle trips per weekday. This estimate does not include recreation or utilitarian bicycle trips. Additional assumptions according to industry standards were used to estimate future ridership and VMT reductions from the build out of the bikeways network. The 2002 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report, Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (NCHRP Report 552)21 presents methodologies and tools to estimate potential value and benefits of bicycle facilities. Bicycle ridership estimates were developed using a cost, demand, and benefit analysis and estimation too122 derived from and consistent with NCHRP Report 552.People within one mile of a bikeway are more likely to ride a bicycle, with the likelihood of bicycling increasing within one-half mile and one -quarter -mile of bikeways. Estimated ridership for a new facility is derived based on existing and induced demand from the quarter -mile, half -mile and one mile buffers around a facility. To be conservative, the existing population density was used rather than the forecast build out density, and the future forecasts were normalized based on the US Census based existing ridership estimation. As shown in Table 11 - Bikeway Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates, completion of the proposed Anaheim Bikeway Network could increase the total number of bicycle trips from the current estimate of 13,186 to 41,444, with annual VMT reduction increase from 9,975,331 to 31,350,424. 21 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_552.pdf 22 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost/ May 23, 2017 Page 1 101 www.anaheim.net/bike MAY is goike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 11 — Bikewav Network Ridership and VMT Reduction Estimates Current Statistics Anaheim Methodology Notes and Estimates Estimated Ridership of the Existing Bikeway Network Population 342,973 2014 ACS Number of Employed Persons 155,031 2014 ACS Bicycle -to -Work Mode Share o 0.7/ 2014 ACS Number of Bicycle 1,085 Employed Persons multiplied by bike -to -work mode share Commuters Work -at -Home 3.2% 2014 ACS Mode Share Estimated Work -at- Assumes 50% of population working at home makes at least one Home Bicycle 2,480 bicycle trip per day Commuters Existing Transit -to- 4.4% 2014 ACS Work Mode Share Estimated Transit- Employed persons multiplied by transit mode share. Assumes Bicycle Commuters 1,705 25% of transit riders access transit by bicycle. School Children 66,114 2014 ACS Grades K-12 Estimated School Children Bicycling 2.0% National Safe Routes to School Surveys (2003) Mode Share Estimated School 1,322 School children multiplied by school children bike mode share Bicycle Commuters Adjusted Current Estimated Total Total of bike -to -work, work at home, transit, and school Number of Daily 6,593 commuters. Does not include recreation or utilitarian Bicycle Commuters Adjusted Current Estimated Total 13,188 Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for round trips) Daily Bicycle Trips May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 102 9 Billre Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Current Statistics Anaheim Methodology Notes and Estimates Estimated VMT Reductions of Current Bicycle Network Assumes 73% of bicycle trips replace vehicle trips for adults and 53% for school children. Based on survey results from 10 Reduced Vehicle 9,097 California cities conducted by Alta between 1990 and 1999, L.A. Trips per Weekday Countywide Policy Document survey (1995), and National Bicycling & Walking Study, FHWA, 1995. Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 Trips per Year 2.374,410 (weekdays in a year) Reduced Vehicle Assumes average round trip travel length of 7 miles for adults Miles per Weekday 38,220 and 1 mile for school children. Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 Miles per Year 9,975,331 (weekdays in a year) Projected Ridership and VMT Reductions at Build Out of Bicycle Network Future Estimated NCHRP 552 Methodology using the analysis tool at Total Daily Bicycle 41,444 http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bikecost Trips Reduced Vehicle Assumes same ratio of vehicle trip replacement from existing Trips per Weekday 28,591 conditions, assumes same percentage of school trips from existing conditions Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle trips multiplied by 261 Trips per Year 7,462,284 (weekdays in a year) Reduced Vehicle Assumes average round trip travel length of 7 miles for adults Miles per Weekday 120,117 and 1 mile for school children, using same school children percentage of total trips estimated for existing conditions. Reduced Vehicle Reduced number of weekday vehicle miles multiplied by 261 Miles per Year 31,350,424 (weekdays in a year) May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 103 NIAHEIR Anaheim This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan Page 1 104 �p�aheim 6.3 Past Expenditures on the Bikeway Network Bicycle Master Plan Since 2004, Anaheim has implemented approximately 32 miles of new bikeways. Table 12 — Bikeway Network Expenditures Since 2004 summarizes these estimated costs. Table 12 — Bikewav Network Exnenditures Since 2004 Class Centerline Miles Cost Per Mile Total Estimated Cost Class I Bike Path (Anaheim Coves) 1.63 $306,748 $500,000 Class I Bike Path (SoCal Edison ROW w/o Magnolia) 1.33 $338,345 $450,000 Class I Bike Path 0.83 $1,957,040 $1,624,343 Class II Bike Lane 27.54 $133,170 $3,667,501 Class III Bike Route 0.59 $25,070 $14,791 Total $6,256,635 Two notable recent projects are 3.79 miles of new Class I bike paths, including the Anaheim Coves Trail, which is 1.6 miles long and cost $550,000, and the SoCal Edison Bike Path between Broadway and Stanton City Limits, which is 1.3 miles long and cost $450,000. The remaining Class I bike paths are estimated to have cost a combined total of $1,624,343. The 27.54 miles of Class II bike lanes 0.59 miles of Class III bike routes have been added as part of road widening or street pavement rehabilitation projects. Since these were part of larger projects, the portion of the overall cost attributed to the bikeway is difficult to isolate, therefore the costs were estimated using national bikeways cost estimates developed for the Federal Highway Administration23. 23 www.pedbikeinfo.org/cros/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs Report Nov2013 pdf May 23, 2017 Page 1 105 www.anaheim.net/bike 9 Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan The City of Anaheim has implemented several projects designed to improve pedestrian and biking routes to schools and throughout the community. Prior to 2013, State and Federal funding grants were available for SRTS infrastructure improvements. Table 13 —Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards, lists projects in Anaheim funded through the SRTS Federal Grant or the SR2S State Grant Programs. Table 13 — Safe Routes to Schools Grant Awards Project Year Award Amount Description Benefitting Awarded Schools Magnolia Avenue and Installation of a new Winston Road Traffic traffic signal at the Magnolia High, Signal Installation 2015 $368,100 intersection of Magnolia Salk Elementary Project Avenue and Winston Road Sidewalk gap closure La Palma Sidewalk (410 feet) project on the Sunkist $450,000 south side of La Palma Elementary, Improvement Project 2013 Avenue between Sunkist Sycamore Street and SR -57 Junior High freeway. Lincoln Avenue and To signalize the Centralia Westchester Drive 2013 $331,200 intersection and include Elementary, Traffic Signal System pedestrian countdown Danbrook Improvement signals. Elementary To build a bicycle trail Bike Trail Along 2012 $448,560 along Edison Right -of - Dale Junior High, Maxwell Edison Right -Of -Way Way between Broadway Elementary and Lola Avenue To build 1,350 feet of sidewalk on the north side of Ball Road between Magnolia Dale Jr High Sidewalk Gap Closure 2011 $426,600 Avenue and 160 feet School, on Ball Road west of Sherrill Street. Magnolia High Bike lanes will also be School installed on Ball Road between Magnolia Avenue and Dale Avenue To build 300 feet of Sycamore Sidewalk Gap Closure 2011 $530,000 sidewalk on the south Junior High, on La Palma Avenue side of La Palma Avenue Thomas Edison west of East Street Elementary Afterthe passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21St Century Act (MAP -21) in 2012, SRTS projects were integrated into the State's Active Transportation Program (ATP). Federal and State funded SRTS infrastructure and non -infrastructure projects are now funded through this program. The four projects in May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 106 pA,10IM Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan Table 14— Active Transportation Program Awards, were awarded to the City of Anaheim in the first ATP Cycle in 2014 and are currently in design or under construction. The project awarded to Anaheim in 2015 will commence design in mid -2017. Table 14 — Active Trans ortation Program Awards Project Year Award Description Benefitting Awarded Amount Schools Mann West Street and Multiple sidewalk gap Elementary, Price Citron Street 2015 $2,056,000 closures on West Street, Elementary, Sidewalk Gap Closure Citron Street, and Sycamore Westmont Street Elementary, Anaheim High Sidewalk gap closure project Jefferson South Street Sidewalk 2014 $796,000 on the south side of South Elementary, Gap Closure Street between the Metrolink tracks and East Street Olive Elementary New pedestrian signal at an Danbrook Western Avenueexisting 2014 $400,000 midblock school Elementary, Orangeview Jr Pedestrian Signal crosswalk on Western High, Western Avenue. High Full sidewalk gap closure project on the south side of Palm Lane Cerritos Avenue 2014 $1,209,000 Cerritos Avenue east of Euclid Elementary, Ball Sidewalk Gap Closure Jr High, Loara Street. Partial gap closure on High the north side of the street. Anaheim Coves Trail To extend the Anaheim Coves Northern Extension 2014 $832,000 trail northerly from Lincoln Avenue to Frontera Street May 23, 2017 Page 107 www.anaheim.net/bike NIA B I# Bike Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 108 XNAfff IAl ai/re Anaheim 6.4 Proposed Bikeway Network Cost Estimates Bicycle Master Plan Each proposed bikeway in the network will undergo more detailed cost analysis prior to proceeding with the project. Costs can range widely as most Class II or III bike lanes may be implemented as part of larger road rehabilitation projects, but complex projects, such as connections to the Anaheim Canyon Metrolink Station, can be extremely costly. The same FHA cost estimates are used for the proposed Bikeway Network. The City will continue to seek grant funding in addition to incorporating bikeways installation into larger projects. Table 15 — Proposed Bikeway Network Estimated Cost summarizes cost estimates for the proposed bikeway network recommended in this plan. Table 15 — Pronosed Rikewav Network Estimated Cost Class Centerline Miles Cost Per Mile Total Estimated Cost Class I Bike Path 30.05 $1,957,040 $58,809,052 Class II Bike Lane 71.13 $133,170 $9,472,382 Class III Bike Route 19.13 $25,070 $479,589 Total $68,761,023 May 23, 2017 Page 1 109 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAH,f l Mice �; '70 Anaheim 6.5 Implementation and Funding Opportunities Bicycle Master Plan The City of Anaheim's Planned Roadway Network is approximately 640 centerline miles. The Department of Public Works collects pavement condition information such as distress (cracking), rutting, and roughness. Pavement condition is considered with other variables such as traffic volume, type of road, maintenance history, coordination with other capital projects, and allocated funding levels to prioritize street resurfacing projects. The Traffic and Transportation Section works closely with the Design Section and Operations Division to review resurfacing efforts and implements bicycle improvements in conjunction with resurfacing. This close coordination has resulted in the implementation of the majority of Class II and Class III bikeway installations since 2004. The Department of Public Works actively seeks to implement bicycle facilities with any street improvement project that involves the widening and/or upgrade of existing arterial streets. Each year, Anaheim pursues grant opportunities to build out the arterial highways in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, consistent with the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial Highways. In conjunction with these projects, implementation of or improvements to a bicycle facility in the Bicycle Master Plan is included the project. The adoption of the Plan will allow for a significant increase in the number of arterial streets that are eligible for bikeway improvements. Additionally, any development of private property immediately adjacent to any street on the Bicycle Master Plan is subject to dedicate and improve the street to the ultimate width, including bicycle lanes, consistent with the Anaheim Municipal Code sections on Dedications and Improvements. Class I Bike Paths that are located outside of the City's Planned Roadway Network may require additional consideration prior to implementation. Bike Paths occur in a variety of settings and are generally co - located with the following types of facilities: flood control channel maintenance roads (Carbon Creek Channel Bike ID 164), abandoned railroad right-of-way (Union Pacific Railroad Bike ID 32), beneath overhead utility easement right-of-way (Edison Easement Bike ID 22), and within or between parks (Anaheim Coves Bike ID 1). Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and maintenance. The process for implementing a Class I Bike Path that is outside of the City's Planned Roadway Network is outlined below: 1. If the City does not own the property on which the Class 1 Bike Path is planned, City staff will approach the property owner (e.g., other public agency, utility company, railroad operator, private property owner) and request to enter into a non-binding letter of interest forthe proposed project. As applicable, the letter would generally identify: the type of proposed agreement, (i.e. lease, license, easement, joint use agreement); its term; law enforcement jurisdiction; potential property acquisition; maintenance responsibilities; cost sharing agreement; contingencies, etc. 2. City staff will collaborate with the surrounding community, through a community advisory working group, to identify potential issues and solutions related to the implementation of the Class 1 Bike Path. Outreach is typically initiated by mailing a notice to all addresses within a minimum of 300 feet of the project site. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Page 110 XNAHEIN Bilte (�';Anaheim Bicycle Master Plan 3. City staff will pursue funding for the project, typically by applying for grants. City Council approval is required for acceptance of a grant in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1. 4. City staff will analyze potential environmental impacts of the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA outlines a public review process and requires that the City, as lead agency, to adopt or certify the environmental document(s) required by State law prior to construction of a proposed project. In addition, compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) would be required for projects that receive federal funding. 5. City staff and a design consultant (as applicable), in close coordination with the community advisory working group, would finalize the project design, including features of the built environment such as access control, fencing, lighting, amenities, parking, etc. City Council approval is required for design consultant contracts in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211; and City Council Policy 4 and 4.1. 6. The City will enter into formal agreements with the property owner(s) as described in the letter of interest that initiated the proposed project. These agreement(s) would identify the design of the project, as well as maintenance and enforcement responsibilities. The agreement(s) would require City Council approval, as well as approval and/or permits from the governing body of the property owner(s), if they are public agencies in accordance with City Charter Section 518, 1211. 7. Once all agreements/permits are in place, proceed with the award of the construction contract in accordance with Administrative Regulation 105 (Council Agenda Items) and Administrative Regulation 110 (Administration of Contracts for City Improvements, Public Work Construction Projects). Potential funding sources for projects, programs, and plans can be found at the federal, state, regional, and local levels, including non-traditional funding sources. More expensive projects may take longer to implement. Most funding sources are highly competitive, with many potential projects competing for a relatively small amount of money. Therefore, it is impossible to determine exactly which projects will be funded by which funding sources. Additionally, programs and opportunities will be implemented and/or change over time. Anaheim actively pursues opportunities to implement and projects as funding is available. Projects may be implemented out of priority order as grants typically are specific in the type of projects that are eligible. Additionally, street improvement projects and pavement maintenance projects will not follow the bicycle project priority list; Anaheim will take advantage of these projects and programs as they occur. Table 16 — Recently Funded Bikeways Project, is an example of a project that was funded by a combination of grant funding, development fees, and other non -grant sources for its design and implementation. Table 16 — Recently Funded Bikeways Proiect Project Year Awarded Award Amount Description Nohl Ranch 2016 (Funds $650,000 from 10 -foot wide Class I bikeway and pedestrian trail Multi -Use Available FY Bicycle ranging from 3-10 feet wide in compliance with Trail (Bike ID 17/18) Corridor Caltrans standards. 21) Improvement Program (BCIP) May 23, 2017 Page 1 111 www.anaheim.net/bike XNAfffill j Anaheim Appendices May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Bicycle Master Plan tNAfff IN jr'uAnaheim Bicycle Master Plan This page is intentionally blank. May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike XlAfffll Anaheim Appendix A Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Appendix A Bicycle Transportation Account Compliance Checklist BTA 891.2 Plan Element Location a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in Page 101 the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the plan. b) A map and description of existing and proposed land Maps - Pages 15, 17 (Existing Land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but Use) not be limited to, locations of residential Pages 19, 31 (Proposed Land Use) neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers. Description — Pages 11 to 13 C) A map and description of existing and proposed Maps - Pages 31, 33, 37, 39, 85, 87 bikeways. Description — Pages 23 to 42 & Pages 77 to 83 d) A map and description of existing and proposed end -of- Map - Page 47 trip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, Description — Pages 43, 44, 45, 89 public buildings, and major employment centers. e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle Map — Page 47 & 51 transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall Description — Pages 49, 50 include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels. f) A map and description of existing and proposed Map - Page 47 facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These shall include, but not be limited to, Description — Pages 43, 44, 45, 89 locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities. g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs Page 53 to 58, 89 conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists. h) A description of the extent of citizen and community Pages 74 & 75 involvement in development of the plan, including, but not limited to, letters of support. i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan Pages 63 to 67 has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting. j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a Pages 77 to 99 listing of their priorities for implementation. k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities Pages 105 to 110 and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area. gAnaheim Appendix B Bicycle Master Plan General Plan Amendments May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Appendix B General Plan Amendments General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513 includes the following: Existing Bikeways Not in 2004 General Plan — Addition To GP Class I Bike Path Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 176 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Canyon Rim Canyon Rim 1.74 Total 1.74 Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 — Addition to GP Class I Bike Path Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Lincoln 1 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road 1.63 Avenue La Palma Yorba Linda 17 Fairmont Boulevard 0.14 Avenue City Limits North-South SoCal Edison Right 22** of Way west of Magnolia Stanton City Broadway 1.33 Limits Avenue Yorba Linda Yorba Linda 28 Santa Ana River Trail 0.42 Boulevard City Limits 164* Carbon Creek Channel Beach Schweitzer 0.27 Boulevard Park Total 3.79 *Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been implemented **Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been partially implemented Page 1 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 — Addition to GP Class II Bike Lane Sycamore La Palma 34 Anaheim Boulevard 0.53 Street Avenue Cerritos 36 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road 0.53 Avenue Anaheim Shores/ Romneya La Palma 40 Euclid Street 0.71 Drive Avenue Knott 42A** Ball Road Western Ave 0.5 Avenue Gaymont Brookhurst 42C** Ball Road 0.5 Street Street State College 47** Broadway East Street 0.76 Boulevard Lincoln Crescent 48B** Brookhurst Street 0.50 Avenue Avenue Katella 48C** Brookhurst Street Ball Road 1.01 Avenue Nohl Ranch Fairmont 52A* Canyon Rim Road 1.17 Road Boulevard Fairmont Serrano 52B Canyon Rim Road 0.97 Boulevard Avenue Harbor Garden Grove 56 Chapman Avenue 0.25 Boulevard City Limits Brookhurst 59* Crescent Avenue Muller Street 0.51 Street Chippewa 60* Crescent Avenue Loara Street 0.58 Avenue Rio Vista Glassell 69** Frontera Street 1.01 Street Street Page 2 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles South City 72 Gilbert Street Ball Road 1.01 Limits 73* Glassell Street Orange City Frontera 0.16 Limits Street Orange Lincoln 80** Knott Avenue 0.51 Avenue Avenue 84** Lakeview Avenue La Palma Riverdale 0.48 91* Lincoln Avenue Rio Vista Orange City 0.49 Street Limits Wilshire 92 Loara Street North Street 0.38 Street La Palma Orangethorpe 95* Miller Street 1.00 Avenue Avenue 97** Miraloma Avenue La Loma Van Buren 1.91 Circle Street Orangewood Katella 98B** Ninth Street 0.50 Avenue Avenue Harbor Anaheim 102 North Street 0.34 Boulevard Boulevard 111A* Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street 0.50 East City Limit 111B Orangewood Avenue Ninth Street east of 0.22 Janette Lane 117** Rio Vista Street Wagner Dutch Avenue 1.11 Street 120* Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Santa Ana 0.47 Road Canyon Road 121B Santa Ana Canyon Road Weir Canyon Gypsum 1.98 Road Canyon Road 124** Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Canyon Rim 1.43 Road Road Page 3 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Sunkist Rio Vista 127** South Street 0.51 Street Street 128B** Sunkist Street Wagner South Street 0.50 Avenue Orange City Santa Ana 132 Tustin Avenue 0.39 Limits River Trail Miraloma Placentia City 133B* Tustin Avenue 0.38 Avenue Limits Sunkist Rio Vista 137** Wagner Avenue 0.51 Street Street Lincoln 144* Wilshire Avenue Loara Street 0.47 Avenue Stanton City Orange 163** Western Avenue 0.76 Limits Avenue Acacia State College 166** La Palma Avenue 0.50 Street Boulevard Total 26.04 *Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been implemented **Identified as proposed in 2004 and has been partially implemented Page 4 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Existing Bikeways Built Since 2004 — Addition to GP Class III Bike Routes Centerline Bike ID Street/Path From To Miles Western Gaymont 42B Ball Road 0.69 Avenue Street 146 Dutch Avenue/Park Vista Avenue Rio Vista Frontera0.59 Street Street Total 1.28 Total Bikeways Built Since 2004 32.85 Page 5 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan Class I Bike Paths Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 2 Anaheim Coves Trail North Lincoln Frontera Extension Avenue Street 0.94 7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Gilbert 0.57 Avenue Street 8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst La Palma 189 Street Avenue East-West Edison right -of- 14B way/Union Pacific Railroad right- Douglass Orange City 0.32 of -way north of Katella Avenue Road Limit 15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana La Palma 0.54 Canyon Road Avenue 21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Avd Anaheim 1.27 Margarita Hills Road 31 Tustin Avenue -Metrolink Orange Sub Tustin 0'28 Connection Alt 1 Avenue 0.17 175 Tustin Avenue -Metrolink Orange Sub Santa Ana (Alternative Connection Alt 2 River Trail - Not Counted) Peralta Canyon Park Santa Ana 178 Overcrossing Pinney Drive River Trail 0.25 Santa Ana River Trail 179 Imperial La Palma Connector Connector Imperial 0.45 w/o Imperial Highway Highway Total 6.51 Page 6 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan Class II Bike Lanes Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Raymond 26 Orangethorpe Avenue Lemon Street 0.75 Avenue La Palma Fullerton City 33 Acacia Street 0.61 Avenue Limits 35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore 1.56 Street Anaheim Boulevard/Haster Garden Grove Cerritos 37 1.25 Street City Limits Avenue Fullerton City Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon La Palma Limits north 38 Street Avenue of Freedom 1.10 Lane 42D Ball Road Western Gaymont 0.69 Avenue Street 43B Ball Road Walnut Street West PI 0.25 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City 2.31 Limits 46A Broadway Dale Street SCE Trail 0.23 46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85 West City 54 Cerritos Avenue Limits (east of Walnut 2.51 Magnolia) Street Stanton City Buena Park 62 Dale Street 1.64 Limits City Limits 66 Euclid Street Orangewood Ball Road 1.52 Avenue Page 7 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Cerritos 87B Lewis Street Ball Road 0.52 Avenue Orange City Orangewood 88 Lewis Street 0.25 Limits Avenue SoCal Edison 89B Lincoln Avenue Euclid Street 2.26 Trail Stanton City La Palma 93 Magnolia Avenue 2.49 Limits Avenue Harbor 101 North Street West Street 0.45 Boulevard Anaheim 103 North Street Olive Street 0.22 Boulevard Carbon Creek Magnolia 107B Orange Avenue 1.41 Channel Avenue Harbor 112 Orangewood Aveenue West Street 0.51 Boulevard Basin Trail Placentia 116 Richfield Road south of La 0.22 City Limits Palma Avenue State College Sunkist 126 South Street 0.50 Boulevard Street Santa Ana Miraloma 133A Tustin Avenue 1.18 River Trail Avenue Katella 138A Walnut Street Ball Road 1.02 Avenue Total 29.29 Page 8 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Proposed Projects Not Identified in the 2004 Bicycle Master Plan Class III Bike Routes Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Nutwood 145B Crone Street UPRR 0.25 Street La Palma Crescent 147 Gilbert Street 0.49 Avenue Avenue 148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76 Sycamore 150 Lemon Street Ball Road 1.53 Street 151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42 Orange 152 Nutwood Street Crone Street 0.23 Avenue Santa Ana La Palma 153 Olive Street 1.09 Street Avenue Magnolia 154 Orange Avenue Euclid Street 1.98 Avenue Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Anaheim 158 Euclid Street 1.26 Way Boulevard State College 159 Santa Ana Street East Street 0.72 Boulevard State College 160 South Street Indiana Street 197 Boulevard 161 South Street Rio Vista Anaheim 0.28 Street Coves Trail Total 10.98 Page 9 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Change in Bikeways Classification Class II Bike Lane Reclassified to Class I Bike Path Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Blue Gum e/o Brasher 19 La Palma Avenue 4.23 Street Street 109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Imperial 1.66 Avenue Highway Total 5.89 Page 10 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Change in Bikeways Classification Class II Bike Lane Reclassified to Class III Bike Route Centerline Bike ID Street/Path From To Miles Vermont Santa Ana 57 Citron Street 0.57 Avenue Street Sycamore La Palma 86 Lemon Street 0.56 Street Avenue Vermont Santa Ana 106 Olive Street 0.57 Avenue Street 122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63 Santa Ana 135 Vine Street Broadway 0.15 Street 143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48 Walnut 145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail 1.00 Street Sycamore 170 Sycamore Street West Street 2.22 Connector La Palma 173 West Street North Street 0.42 Avenue Total 7.60 Page 11 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Change in Bikeways Classification Class III Bike Route Changed to Class II Bike lane 155 Orangethorpe Avenue Miller Street Jefferson 0.87 Street N/A 108 Orangethorpe Avenue State College Placentia 0.36 Boulevard Avenue N/A 115 PinneyDrive Santa Ana Gerda Drive 0.06 Canyon Road N/A Total 1.29 Deletion from the General Plan Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles N/A Mountain Park Drive Weir Canyon Gypsum N/ARoad Canyon Road N/A Weir Canyon Road Blue Sky Road Mountainpark N/A Drive N/A Gypsum Canyon Road Mountain Santa Ana N/ A Park Drive Canyon Road N/A Oak Canyon Drive Running East end of N A / Springs Road Street N/A Old Bridge Path Fairmont Old Bridge N/A Boulevard Road N/A Orangewood/Santa Ana River 15 Santa Ana N/A Link River Page 12 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Figures: Replace Figure C-5, Page C-33 of the Circulation Element of the Anaheim General Plan, Figure G- 1, Page G-5 of the Green Element of the Anaheim General Plan to reflect the changes referenced in the tables above. Text: Amendments to the Anaheim General Plan are shown in s*.�ut for removal and bold for additions. Circulation Element GOAL 2.2: Provide a safe circulation system. Policies: 1) Promote the principle that streets have multiple uses and users, and protect the safety of all users. 2) Discourage high speed, through traffic on local streets with appropriate traffic calming measures (e.g., traffic enforcement, bulb -outs, lane striping, chokers, etc). 3) Design access onto major arterial streets in an orderly and controlled manner. 4) Promote common driveways and reduce curb cuts along arterial highways to minimize impacts to traffic flows. 5) Minimize disruptions to traffic and pedestrian/bicycle flow. 6) Implement street design features on arterial highways such as the use of medians, bus turnouts, consolidated driveways and on -street parking prohibitions to minimize mid -block traffic congestion. 7) Implement street design features that discourage through traffic intrusion on residential streets. 8) Support freeway improvements that remove through traffic from local and arterial streets. 9) Provide bus turnouts along heavily traveled arterials to minimize traffic conflicts. 10) Provide adequate sight distances for safe vehicular movement on roadways, at intersections and at driveways. 11) Implement arterial grade separations at railroad crossings. GOAL 3.1: Provide a well-maintained street system. Policies: 1) Maintain the street network in optimal functioning condition. 2) Maintain and rehabilitate all components of the circulation system, including roadways, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, Intelligent Transportation systems and traffic signals. 3) Prioritize maintenance and reconstruction projects. 4) Coordinate maintenance or enhancement of transportation facilities with related infrastructure improvements. Page 13 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments 5) Implement bicycle routes, priority signaling and bicycle amenities whenever roadways are improved. 6) Give additional maintenance priority to streets with bike lanes or bike routes. GOAL 7.1: Protect and encourage bicycle travel. Policies: 1) Provide safe, direct, and continuous bicycle routes for commuter and recreational cyclists. 2) Incorporate bicycle planning into the traditional transportation and roadway maintenance planning processes. 3) Support and implement bicycle routes that minimize cyclist/motorist conflicts. 4) Support roadway design policies that promote attractive circulation corridors and safe and pleasant traveling experiences for bicyclists. 5) Support OCTA's program to provide bike racks on transit buses. 6) Implement a bikeway system with linkages to routes in neighboring jurisdictions and regional bicycle routes. 7) Maximize the use of easements and public rights-of-way along flood channels, utility corridors, rail lines and streets for bicycle and pedestrian paths. 8) Connect Downtown with The Platinum Triangle using the Olive S+..,,,,+ ra:lrnead Fight of way for pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit users.,a "-a"5 +A. +��"�" 9) Require that new streets or developments contain adequate right of way for bicycle lanes, where appropriate. 10) Where space and appropriate roadway conditions currently exist, continue to install bike routes with priority to segments serving US Census documented existing high bicycle ridership areas. 11) Work with the Caltrans to provide appropriate accommodation for bicyclists and pedestrians along Caltrans facilities, as well as applying for funding for state, local and regional non -motorized modal projects. Goal 12.1: Ensure adequate parking is made available to City residents, visitors, and businesses. Policies: 1) Assess the adequacy of existing or proposed on- and off-street parking as needed, especially in urban and commercial areas, to ensure that an adequate supply is provided. 2) Explore strategies for the management of parking supply, which can include parking fees, metered on -street parking, and staggered work schedules. 3) Develop strategies for the control of parking demand such as improved transit service, amenities for bicyclists, and rideshare vehicles. Page 14 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments 4) Develop strategies for shared parking opportunities in mixed-use and multiple -use development. 5) Encourage the use of well-designed, aesthetically -enhanced parking structures as an alternative to large, expansive surface parking lots. 6) Encourage businesses to provide bicycle parking facilities such as bike racks and lockers to Promote bicycling. Green Element Goal 3.1: Actively plan for the use of utility easements as recreational trails and open space amenities. Policy: 1) Coordinate with Southern California Edison to pursue the implementation of recreational and open space amenities on utility easements. Goal 9.1: Reduce single -occupancy vehicle trips Policies: 1) Encourage alternative work schedules for public and private sector workers. 2) Encourage development of new commercial and industrial projects that provide on-site amenities that help to lesson vehicle trips such as on-site day care facilities, cafeterias, automated teller machines and bicycle storage facilities. 3) Encourage use of vanpools and carpools by providing priority parking through the project design process. 4) Encourage bicycle and pedestrian travel by improving the City's trail and bikeway master plan and by providing convenient links between the trail system and desired destinations. 5) Encourage the development of commercial, office and residential uses in appropriate mixed-use and multiple use settings. Goal 10.1: Improve the efficiency and ridership of public transit within the City. Policies: 1) Continue to expand the convenience and quality of local transit service. 2) Provide convenient connections and shuttle services from commuter rail stations to employment centers and entertainment venues. 3) Work with public transit providers to ensure that transit stops are safe, comfortable and convenient. 4) Continue multi -faceted efforts to inform the public about transit opportunities, scheduling and benefits. 5) Provide convenient first/last mile bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit stops. Goal 11.1: Encourage land planning and urban design that support alternatives to the private automobile such as mixed-use, provision of pedestrian and bicycle amenities, and transit -oriented development. Page 15 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments Policies: 1) Encourage commercial growth and the development of commercial centers in accordance with the Land Use Element. 2) Encourage mixed-use development in accordance with the Land Use Element. 3) Encourage retail commercial uses in or near residential areas and employment centers to lessen vehicle trips. 4) Encourage higher densities and mixed-use development in the vicinity of major rail and transit stops. 5) Encourage a diverse mix of retail uses within commercial centers to encourage one-stop shopping. 6) Locate new public facilities with access to mass transit service and other alternative transportation services, including rail, bus, bicycles and pedestrian use. 7) Provide everyday opportunities to connect with nature through the promotion of trails, bicycle routes, and habitat friendly landscaping. Community Design Element GOAL 3.1: Single-family neighborhoods are attractive, safe and comfortable. Policies: 1) Continue to maintain and improve the visual image and quality of life of single-family neighborhoods. 2) Strengthen the important elements of residential streets that unify and enhance the character of the neighborhood, including parkways, mature street trees, compatible setbacks, and a unified range of architectural detailing. 3) Require new and infill development to be of compatible scale, materials, and massing as existing development. 4) Improve the pedestrian and social atmosphere of the street by orienting new homes towards the street with attractive front porches, highly visible street facades, and compatible setbacks. 5) Enhance and encourage neighborhood or street identity with theme landscaping or trees, entry statements, and enhanced school or community facility identification. 6) Maintain, improve and/or develop parkways with canopy street trees, providing shade, beauty and a unifying identity to residential streets. 7) Encourage well-designed, front yards to provide an effective visual transition from the street to the homes. 8) Where feasible, encourage the actual or visual narrowing of streets through measures such as widened parkways, canopy trees, and -sidewalk bulbs at the intersections. Page 16 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments 9) Site garages back from the street and minimize street frontage devoted to driveways and vehicular access. 10) If desired by the community, provide continuous sidewalks and links to nearby community facilities, retail centers and transit stops for safety and convenience. 11) Encourage a variety of architectural styles, massing, floor plans, facade treatment and elevations to create visual interest. 12) Reduce the impact of monotonous walls, located at the periphery of residential neighborhoods along arterial corridors, through landscaping, varied surface treatment, and use of vertical and/or horizontal design elements. 13) Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from single family neighborhoods to nearby commercial centers, schools, and transit stops. GOAL 4.1: Multiple -family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the neighborhood and provides visual interest through varied architectural detailing. Policies: 1) Reduce the visual impact of large-scale, multiple -family buildings by requiring articulated entry features, such as attractive porches, and detailed facade treatments, which create visual interest and give each unit more personalized design. 2) Discourage visually monotonous, multiple -family residences by incorporating different architectural styles, a variety of rooflines, wall articulation, balconies, window treatments, and varied colors and building materials on all elevations. 3) Require appropriate setbacks and height limits to provide privacy where multiple -family housing is developed adjacent to single-family housing. 4) Reduce the visual impact of parking areas by utilizing interior courtyard garages, parking structures, subterranean lots, or tuck -under, alley -loaded designs. 5) Require minimum lot size criteria in the Zoning Code to encourage professional, responsible, on-site property management. 6) Provide usable common open space amenities. Common open space should be centrally located and contain amenities such as seating, shade and play equipment. Private open space may include courtyards, balconies, patios, terraces and enclosed play areas. 7) Where a multiple -story apartment building abuts single -story development, provide for a gradual transition in height by reducing the height of the building adjacent to the smaller scale use. 8) Provide safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access from multiple -family development to nearby commercial centers, schools, and transit stops. 9) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible. Page 17 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments 10) Encourage multi -family housing developers to comply with Residential Voluntary Measure A4.106.9.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code that outlines the provision of long-term bicycle parking for multi -family buildings. GOAL 8.1: Anaheim's mixed-use areas are attractively designed, pedestrian and bicycle -friendly, easily accessible, and contain a proper blend of commercial retail, office and residential uses. Policies: 1) Encourage design flexibility in mixed-use development by allowing both a vertical and/or horizontal mix of uses. 2) In vertical mixed-use, site retail or office uses on the ground floor, with residential and/or office uses above. 3) Encourage architecture that divides individual buildings into a base, middle and top (i.e., second story and higher density residential uses could incorporate different window treatment, architectural detailing, colors, balconies, and bays). For two-story buildings, ground floor retail uses should be distinguished from second story facades, with both containing rich surface articulation. Rooflines should have a finished look with cornices, parapets or other finishing details. 4) Locate commercial/retail uses near the sidewalk to provide high visibility from the street. 5) Design development with the pedestrian in mind by including wide sidewalks, canopy street trees, sitting areas and clearly defined pedestrian routes. 6) With large-scale mixed-use development, orient the tallest portions of the buildings towards the center of the site and ensure that the height of the buildings at the periphery are compatible with adjacent development. 7) Minimize the visual impact of surface parking by providing either parking structures, rear- or side -street parking with effective landscape buffering. 8) Segregate residential parking from commercial and office parking. 9) Locate mixed-use development in areas of high visibility and accessibility, and along streets that balance vehicular and pedestrian traffic. 10) Strategically locate potentially disruptive retail uses such as nightclubs or bars to avoid future conflicts with adjacent residential uses. 11) Provide each residential use with its own private space (such as balconies, patios or terraces) and larger communal spaces such as lobbies, central gardens or courtyards. 12) Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and size them to be as inconspicuous as possible. 13) Provide appropriate bicycle parking facilities to serve diverse users of mixed-use developments. Bicycle parking should be highly visible and/or near the entrance of the building. Page 18 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments GOAL 13.1: Anaheim has a vibrant, distinctive, bicycle and pedestrian -friendly Downtown that respects its historic context and provides civic, shopping, employment, and entertainment opportunities for residents and visitors. Policies: 1) Use the Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles and Design Guidelines to ensure that new development reflects the diverse architectural heritage, and that the detailing and scale of the area is maintained and/or enhanced. 2) Incorporate historic themes and community symbols into the design of the Downtown area to distinguish it as Anaheim's historic/civic core. 3) Provide generous bicycle and pedestrian amenities such as bicycle lanes, sharrows or signs to encourage vehicles to share the road with bicyclists, bike racks and lockers, wide sidewalks, ground -level retail uses, parkways, vintage streetlights, sitting areas, and street furniture as key features of Downtown Anaheim. 4) Establish a strong sense of architectural identity and visual continuity through similarities in scale, height, massing, facade organization, signage, material use, colors and roof shapes. 5) Encourage architectural detailing, which includes richly articulated surfaces and varied facade treatment, rather than plain or blank walls. 6) Locate commercial buildings close to the public right-of-way to better define the urban space and create pedestrian interest. Consistent street frontages of buildings are encouraged, but can be relieved with occasional courtyards, patios and setbacks. 7) Develop a sign program for important streets that complements the architecture of individual buildings and also provides a unifying element along the streetscape. 8) Encourage the following types of signs: indirectly lit signs, raised letter signs, wall signs, awnings, and double-faced, projecting signs along pedestrian streets. 9) Discourage the use of the following types of signs: internally illuminated, plastic, flashing signs, billboards, generic trademark signs, and any sign temporarily affixed to ground -floor windows. Roof signs are generally discouraged, although exceptions can be made for historically appropriate designs through established zoning provisions. 10) Where feasible, incorporate either angled or parallel parking on local commercial streets in the Downtown area to provide convenient access to retail uses. 11) Minimize the visual impact of surface parking lots by locating them behind buildings, away from the street, if possible, or through perimeter and interior landscaping and small-scale fencing. 12) Encourage use of parking structures in lieu of surface parking lots. When provided along a pedestrian -oriented street, the structure should be designed to provide ground -level retail and/or office space. On streets where cars must occupy the ground level, a landscaped setback should be used to minimize and soften the visual impact of the structure. 13) Design public plazas and spaces that are both comfortable and convenient. They should be well-defined by surrounding buildings, located near the street for visual contact and Page 19 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments convenience, contain abundant seating opportunities, and incorporate amenities such as distinctive focal points, public art, ample shade, and eating and entertainment possibilities. 14) Mark the transition from residential areas of the Colony to the Downtown core with special edge treatment, gateway monumentation and distinctive signage. Economic Development Element GOAL 6.4: Promote the revitalization of Downtown Anaheim as a pedestrian -oriented and bicycle - friendly civic town center, enhanced with diverse retail, residential and cultural opportunities. Policies: 1) Promote the Anaheim Colony Historic District as a destination for local residents and regional visitors thereby creating a stimulus for economic revitalization. 2) Encourage quality design through implementation of the Anaheim Colony Vision, Principles, and Design Guidelines. 3) Encourage mixed-use development incorporating ground -floor retail and high quality architecture that is consistent with the historic nature of the area. 4) Encourage well-designed, convenient parking structures, distinctive street furniture, and ample bicycle and pedestrian amenities as stimuli to Downtown shopping and commercial activity. Page 20 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments General Plan Amendments (West) 'cE CIIIIA FULE EATON 7 < i•1,,.^� r ^H :F FtT ROP✓Mtr : #yy . i VPPrs BUfN 1 .. -. ,. i s 9 PARK • s J '— y La PMmaAw: °1 3 fi in v � m .r ..... ,., ORANGE MUM3 E -STANTON-.-a�..�.,_..-y I — _ _ _ ... t C✓PRf59 _ -.._.._.T 8 i GARDEN GROVE •._. j:'�"°✓+' E ' 'I avgwoaAw i Amendment Type � E+u4te 4Fsw.yr drn aricv 3001 �-7 LYy aIAreMYn � �......•.......... ....\ ..,..:.-. P:opo.eb P'PMcu ^Plain Z. •�• tl.e Y004 Biy le Mesle-Plan ••� Cry Lm1a CnoPwn Aw — Y.. � Clunpe in birwa}s deasif Iron Vnn poreim Cwnh I T b n.anP Bablm pain the Gerimi Pbn �'l�®�� :i•:e. ... SANTA Page 22 of 22 Appendix B General Plan Amendments G-1 Plan Amendments (East) YOREA PLACENTIA -2!1..,. A - It —A. ORANGE .................. Page 22 of 22 Amendment Type I—A PARK -------------- - Page 22 of 22 NUB/,Anaheim Appendix C Bicycle Master Plan Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeway Network May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Existing Bikeways Class I Bike Path Existing Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles 1 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Lincoln 1.63 Street Avenue 5 Carbon Creek Channel Gilbert Street Crescent 0.45 Avenue Avenue 164 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard Schweitzer 0.27 39 Anaheim Hills Road Park 0.67 Road Yorba Linda 17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue 0.14 40 City Limits 0.71 North-South SoCal Edison Avenue 22 right-of-way west of Stanton City Limits Broadway 1.33 42C Magnolia Street Gaymont Brookhurst 1.79 Yorba Linda 27A Santa Ana River Trail Orange City Limit 5.72 Boulevard Yorba Linda 28 Santa Ana River Trail Yorba Linda Boulevard 0.42 City Limits Orange City 27C Santa Ana River Trail West Orange City Limit 0.43 Limit Santa Ana River Trail 177 Santa Ana River Trail South Connector at Imperial Yorba Linda 2.65 Highway City Limits 176 Walnut Canyon Reservoir Canyon Rim Road Canyon Rim 1.74 Road Total 14.78 Class 11 Bike Lane Existing Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles 34 Anaheim Boulevard Sycamore La Palma Avenue 0.53 Street 36 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Ball Road 0.53 Avenue Nohl Ranch Santa Ana Canyon 39 Anaheim Hills Road 0.67 Road Road Anaheim Shores / Romneya La Palma 40 Euclid Street 0.71 Drive Avenue 42A Ball Road Knott Avenue Western Ave 0.5 42C Ball Road Gaymont Brookhurst 1.79 Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 47 Broadway East Street State College Boulevard 0.76 48A Brookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Ball Road 1.02 48B I Brookhurst Street Lincoln Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.50 48C Brookhurst Street Ball Road Katella Avenue 1.01 52A Canyon Rim Road Nohl Ranch Road Fairmont Boulevard 1.17 52B Canyon Rim Road Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 0.97 53 Cerritos Avenue (West of Knott Avenue) Buena Park City Limits Stanton City Limits 0.32 56 Chapman Avenue Harbor Boulevard Garden Grove City Limits 0.25 59 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street Muller Street 0.51 60 Crescent Avenue Chippewa Avenue Loara Street 0.58 65 Euclid Street Ball Road Lincoln Avenue 1.01 69 Frontera Street Rio Vista Street Glassell Street 1.01 72 Gilbert Street South City Limits Ball Road 1.01 73 Glassell Street Orange City Limits Frontera Street 0.16 76 Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.67 78 Kellogg Drive Orangethorpe Avenue Yorba Linda City Limit 0.67 80 Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Lincoln Avenue 0.51 84A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Santa Ana River Trail 0.33 84B Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Riverdale Avenue 0.15 91 Lincoln Avenue Rio Vista Street Orange City Limits 0.49 92 Loara Street Wilshire Street North Street 0.38 95 Miller Street La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 1.00 97 Miraloma Avenue La Loma Circle Van Buren Street 1.91 98A Ninth Street Garden Grove City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.12 98B Ninth Street Orangewood Avenue Katella Avenue 0.50 102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Boulevard 0.34 104 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Weir Canyon Road 0.53 111A Orangewood Avenue Euclid Street Ninth Street 0.50 111B Orangewood Avenue Ninth Street East City Limit east of Janette Lane 0.22 113 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Mountain View Avenue 0.66 Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network 117 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Dutch Avenue 1.11 119 Riverdale Avenue Orange City Limits Lakeview Avenue 1.26 120 Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Canyon Road 0.47 121A Santa Ana Canyon Road Orange City Limits Weir Canyon Road 5.98 121B Santa Ana Canyon Road Weir Canyon Road Gypsum Canyon Road 1.98 124 Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road Canyon Rim Road 1.43 127 South Street Peregrine Street Rio Vista Street 0.51 128A Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue Wagner Avenue 1.03 128B Sunkist Street Wagner Avenue South Street 0.50 132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Santa Ana River Trail 0.39 133B Tustin Avenue Miraloma Avenue Placentia City Limit 0.38 137 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Rio Vista Street 0.51 139 Weir Canyon Road Santa Ana Canyon Road Blue Sky Road 1.67 144 Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Lincoln Avenue 0.47 155 Orangethorpe Avenue Miller Street Jefferson Street 0.87 163 Western Avenue Stanton City LimitstSBt nge Avenue 0.76 166 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street e College levardd 0.5 Total 43.8 Class III Bike Route Existing Bike Centerline Street/Path From To ID Miles 42B Ball Road Western Gaymont 0.69 146 Dutch Avenue/Park Vista Avenue Rio Vista Street Frontera0.59 Street Total 1.28 Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Proposed Bikeways Class I Bike Path Proposed Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles Anaheim Coves Trail 2 Lincoln Avenue Frontera Street 0.94 North Extension Basin Trail south of La 3 Richfield Road Lakeview Avenue 0.46 Palma Avenue 4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Avenue 0.25 Buena Park City 6 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard 1.30 Limit 7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street 0.57 8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Avenue 1.89 165 Carbon Creek Channel Dale Street Lincoln Avenue 0.73 Carbon Creek Diversion 9 Kraemer Boulevard Orangethorpe Avenue 1.35 Channel Crescent Avenue Bike 10 Muller Street Chippewa Avenue 0.18 Bridge 11 Deer Canyon Park Fairmont Boulevard Serrano Avenue 1.62 East Tustin Flood Control Santa Ana River Anaheim Canyon 12 Path Trail Metrolink 0'79 East-West Edison right -of - UPRR West of 13 way north of Katella Walnut Street 0.41 Ninth Street Avenue East-West Edison right -of - way/Union Pacific 14A Harbor Boulevard Douglass Road 2.31 Railroad right-of-way north of Katella Avenue East-West Edison right -of - way/Union Pacific 14B Railroad right-of-way Douglass Road Orange City Limit 0.32 north of Katella Avenue 15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana Canyon La Palma Avenue 0.54 Road 16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River La Palma Avenue 0.09 Trail Santa Ana River Imperial La Palma Trail Connector 179 Connector w/o Imperial Imperial Highway 0.45 Highway Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID From To Centerline ID Miles Miles 33 Santa Ana Canyon La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits 18 Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Ball Road Sycamore Street 0.75 Anaheim Garden Grove City Road 37 19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street east of Brasher Street 4.23 20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue 0.98 Nohl Ranch Open Space 21 Avd Margarita Anaheim Hills Road 1.27 Trail North-South Edison right - 23 of -way west of Magnolia Broadway La Palma Avenue 1.26 Street E -W Southern North-South Union Pacific California Edison right- 24 Railroad- Olive Street Vermont Avenue 1.18 of -way south of Continuation Cerritos Avenue 109 Orangethorpe Avenue Lakeview Avenue Imperial Highway 1.66 Peralta Canyon Park 178 Pinney Drive Santa Ana River Trail 0.25 Overcrossing Santa Ana River Trail Santa Ana River 29 Connector west of La Palma Avenue 0.28 Trail Imperial Highway Sycamore Connector west 30 of State College Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.13 Boulevard Tustin Avenue -Metrolink 31 Orange Sub Tustin Avenue 0.28 Connection Alt 1 Tustin Avenue -Metrolink 0.17 175 Orange Sub Santa Ana River Trail (Alt. to 31— Connection Alt 2 Not Counted) Union Pacific Railroad 32 north of Katella and east Stanton City Limits Broadway 3.42 of Euclid Total 30.05 Class 11 Bike Lane Proposed Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles 33 Acacia Street La Palma Avenue Fullerton City Limits .61 35 Anaheim Boulevard Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.56 Anaheim Garden Grove City 37 Cerritos Avenue Boulevard/Haster Street Limits 1.25 Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Bike Centerline Street/Path From To ID Miles Fullerton City Limits Anaheim 38 Boulevard/Lemon Street La Palma Avenue north of Freedom 1.10 Lane Buena Park City 41 Ball Road Knott Avenue 0.38 Limits 42D Ball Road Western Avenue Gaymont Street 0.69 43A Ball Road Brookhurst Street Walnut Street 1.75 43B Ball Road Walnut Street West Place 0.25 44 Ball Road Lemon Street Orange City Limits 2.31 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.64 Southern California 46A Broadway Dale Street 0.23 Edison Trail Southern California 46B Broadway Gilbert Street 0.75 Edison Trail 46C Broadway Gilbert Street East Street 3.85 49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Limits 1.00 Camino 50 Grande/Stagecoach Noh) Ranch Road Nohl Ranch Road 1.53 Road 51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Avenue 0.56 West City Limits 54 Cerritos Avenue Walnut Street 2.51 (east of Magnolia) 55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Douglass Road 1.65 Carbon Creek 58 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street 0.22 Channel 62 Dale Street Stanton City Limits Buena Park City Limits 1.64 63 Douglass Road Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.41 171 Dupont Drive (W) Orangewood Dupont Drive (E) 0.23 Avenue 64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Avenue 2.09 Orangewood 66 Euclid Street Ball Road 1.52 Avenue 67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Canyon 1.07 Road 68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Street 0.20 Crescent Pinney Drive/Royal 70 Gerda Drive 0.39 Elementary School Oak Road 71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek Trail 0.58 74 Grove Street La Palma Avenue Miraloma Avenue 0.67 Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles Gypsum Canyon 75 Santa Ana Canyon Road Yorba Linda City Limit 0.16 Road 77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.38 79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Avenue 0.93 Kraemer 82 Frontera Street Orangethorpe Avenue 1.37 Boulevard 81 La Palma Avenue Buena Park City Limits Acacia Street 4.63 167 La Palma Avenue State College Boulevard Blue Gum Street 1.18 83 Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon Road Riverdale Avenue 0.25 85A Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue 0.50 85B Lakeview Avenue Orangethorpe Avenue Yorba Linda City Limit 0.26 87A Lewis Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 87B Lewis Street Cerritos Avenue Ball Road 0.52 88 Lewis Street Orange City Limits Orangewood Avenue 0.25 Southern California 89A Lincoln Avenue Knott Avenue 1.74 Edison Trail Southern California Edison 89B Lincoln Avenue Euclid Street 2.26 Trail 90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Avenue 0.16 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City Limits La Palma Avenue 2.49 Manchester 94 Santa Ana Street Lincoln Avenue 0.44 Avenue 96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Circle 1.31 99 Ninth Street Katella Avenue Cerritos Avenue 0.50 100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Avenue 1.56 101 North Street West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.45 103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street 0.22 105 Oak Canyon Drive Weir Canyon Road Running Springs Drive 0.21 107A Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits Carbon Creek Trail 0.97 107B Orange Avenue Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue 1.41 Orangethorpe 26 Lemon Street Raymond Avenue 0.75 Avenue Orangethorpe 108 State College Boulevard Placentia Avenue 0.36 Avenue Orangethorpe 110 Kraemer Boulevard Miller Street 0.63 Avenue Orangewood 112 West Street Harbor Boulevard 0.51 Avenue Orangewood 114 Mountain View Avenue Dupont Drive (W) 1.03 Avenue Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Road Gerda Drive 0.06 116 Richfield Road Basin Trail south of La Palma Avenue Placentia City Limits 0.22 118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Street 0.40 123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Road 0.10 125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon Road 1.45 126 South Street State College Boulevard Peregrine Street 0.50 130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Avenue 1.01 131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Avenue 0.91 172 Towne Centre Place Dupont Drive (E) Rampart Street 0.23 133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Miraloma Avenue 1.18 134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Trail 1.65 136 Wagner Avenue State College Boulevard Sunkist Street 0.50 138A Walnut Street Katella Avenue Ball Road 1.02 138B Walnut Street Ball Road Santa Ana Street 0.65 140 West Street Santa Ana Street North Street 0.94 141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park City Limits 0.76 Total 71.13 Class III Bike Routes Proposed Bike ID Street/Path From To Centerline Miles 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street 1.00 145B Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRR Trail 0.25 147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue Crescent Avenue 0.49 148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road 0.76 149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana River Trail 0.13 86 Lemon Street Sycamore Street La Palma Avenue 0.56 150 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Street 1.53 151 North Street Loara Street West Street 0.42 152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street 0.23 106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Street 0.57 153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street La Palma Avenue 1.09 154 1 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street 1.98 Appendix C Inventory of the Anaheim Bikeways Network Bike Street/Path From To Centerline ID Miles Anaheim 158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher Way Euclid Street 1.26 Boulevard 122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street 1.63 State College 159 Santa Ana Street East Street 0.72 Boulevard State College 160 South Street Indiana Street 197 Boulevard Anaheim Coves 161 South Street Rio Vista Street 0.28 Trail Sycamore 170 Sycamore Street West Street 2.22 Connector 162 Van Buren Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City 0.42 Limit north of Miraloma Avenue 135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway 0.15 173 West Street North Street La Palma Avenue 0.42 143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street 0.48 Total 19.13 X�Aflfl# �pnaheim Appendix D Bicycle Master Plan Anaheim Outdoors Bicycle Master Plan Update Survey Results May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike BICYCLE MASTER PLAN UPDATE SURVEY RESULTS Anaheim Outdoors' commitment to engaging the community to define the vision elicited over 200 survey responses, as summarized in the following slides. The Cny of Anaheim would like to invite you to participate in the next step for the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Wan: Bicycle Master Plan Update Saturday, October 18 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. ._TH.EMUZEQ— w1fltiple ilmea per0ey Daily Multiple Umee - perweek HOW OFTEN DO YOU weemy SEE OTHERS MAKING Not at as ■ TRIPS BY BICYCLE? a% ic% I'M :u�% aa% :a% eow ;a% Roy eon too W!slaw CMc% Responses Muf*8 times per gay "28% °5 Daily 26.37% MutlpNe times per week 13.53% :� weekly 7.46% Not at all 7.56% - c Thal __1 WHAT TYPES OF TRIPS WOULD YOU USE A BICYCLE FOR IF SAFE BICYCLE LANES OR TRAILS WERE IN CLOSE PROM M I TY TO YOUR RESIDENCE? For ExefGreM1leMl<f For Envgonmanb._. F- snappinpdErr._ To gat m Wolk = Top« m. Sg ttD To gat m T—H Tl -4 c ■ nucn For R*m mDon DIOyoM GS iC'i :7's 3� uJ% 47% c0% '0% �0k 40% 100ti MS�'aI CI+O.. ft9a"pOn626 For EYFtOgPHaYfi 91.90% 1 E i FarEmtowalmatM dW AMM Raawne For 9nappingie. 'a. 4150% To gat m wort, 49.50% f4 To gat to suwm 17.00% ._ To::m 7r 9900% E0 TO peE m CfMM 9.00% 13 For ReCft. '9.00% tEE 1 wooq Meat Mtytla 3.50% - TOtdl fie>FcrOers _CC MY NEIGHBORHOOD'S BICYCLE LANES AND TRAILS ARE: Tao many Abautthe ber ■ tight number Too few =were9' R` r Qi 7€etl 1 a 1[% 112% .c4 4.3% ea% east -a% HN 90% 10D% Answer Chnices R=apwEes Toa many u.54)x 1 Abo0t the right number 12.50% Tao law 87.00% 1% TOt3i riti HOW OFTEN DO YOU BICYCLE? .r ?•4 F'El. 2C: al --:^1J 1 a/utilpl per par aay pa. Daily ■ NUltipe �■ w waaaay - MultipleHMOsy asPil- eag Not at sal 0'4 1C% 214 31% 304 50% EO% '0% 80% 90% 100% At!r=iw_r Choices Rewses MuMpls dries per Bay 5.97% Dally 7.96% 1E Mur*$ ilaMa par week 28.36% °8 Weekly 23,40% 41 MuVe tines per year 1041% 2 - Not at sit 18.41% _- T7idl 2C7 WHAT PREVENTS YOU FROM BICYCLING MORE? hnsw Choices Reaponssa - Not enough bre paticq Drs Untie or bike routes 82.59% 1 E 1 neumctedt ora parkng a atwage 38.14% '- eecewayadoede NO In poor conation 14.33% Ee unsai&Vaawka motorist behavior 65.57% 1.d tn►awiunlawu bicyclists behavior 10.92% =1 Delbhebons are too far away 21.13% :1 - 1 neve too many totnge to carry 15.46% .o I barer with snail children 4.64%9 1 dont have enough tkna 15.58% 91 nsumGald "V* 14.55%2- Weather 12.37% ._ Tartan 8.76% My bicycle U in disrepair 3.05% e I do not own a blcycte 6.70% _ Total Rnparae m 1 . Mot we pane_.. er,auph lneue bm.Pan"— Bikat!` he6 ■-, Oneaww"kc. tmaentusawts - raryolets_ D9911ma l0ot am too rm 1 Mate Leo trey tlmge 1tram won , eeua enaeraa r boot neve — 0— rsuDCUat - e8 vvaebler - Tamm ■ my ouycae It , in dia"at Iso rwbk)'M . 1lrcyae ''% 1C': 2:% „-c 4O4 .7'.x EOSe ?OS SOie ?Oy -OLA. WOULD THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENTS INFLUENCE YOU TO BIKE MORE OFTEN? Likely somewhat Somewhat Unlikely Total Average Likely Unlikely Raw1g More 611te Lades 58.57% 25.13% 7.10% 8.72% jou-street oft 11`_ 49 13 i' 19c. 1.EE Separate Lanes for Uses deelgllebe by an a 0oft vd 1ta sae} More Bullared 75.35% 19-58% 2.51% 5.53% Bite Lanae (On- 5. _ n5 1. 1 attest wtlh - Separahe Lanes for dkse designated by a - 4-1001 tlanlert - More Pared(otf- 73.50% 17.00% 4.50% 5.00% str6etj Blas Pathe 147 2= 9 19-. eldycle 51.34% 15.46% 10.31% - 12.89% Bolaevaroe 119 30 20 - 25 194 1.7E ,ahersd roadways - deelgllad to give priority fo eyeing bwnlc and starring weldcle hunic) . More Educahal 31.82% 25.00% 20.45% 22.73% Programs 76 !L 1'E 23d More 40.51% 26.70% 16.48% 15.51% ErrMrcement -: 4- 29 2! 17E 2.0' Programs Increased 52.43% 26.45% 5.73% 11.35% - o^ .- 15 2 ?5 Si tMaintenance tns�P� bate tensa. routes. patae. andlandscape (anomieg. e1cj More Bicycle 47.25% 2812% 15.53'X. 5.89% Parklawstotage at 49 ,_ tf Showers and 36.79% 20.00% 16.36% 24.85% - LockersatWork 64 -i XIAHEIIIAnaheim Appendix E Bicycle Master Plan Bike Anaheim Ride With Us Fact Sheet May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike AN n heim Ride With uS1 Anaheim's Bicycle Master Plan is the vision for the city's bikeways network. With community input, the plan will guide building of new bikeways in the next two decades. The goal? To triple Anaheim's more than 60 miles of bikeways with new routes that will connect neighborhoods, employment centers and transportation hubs. Cycling lifts quality of life by lowering emissions, reducing congestion and promoting health and fun! —•— 64.5 miles of existing bikeways • • • 119.6 miles of proposed bikeways i Regional bike path Learn More Explore the Map Comments -- Anaheim.net/bike Anaheim.net/bikemap bike@anaheim.net XUfffI,#Anaj� heim Appendix F Bicycle Master Plan Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores For purposes of prioritization, individual segments were combined into corridors, shown in Bold, to better capture the intent of closing gaps in the existing network. Stand-alone segments are shown in italics. Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Bike Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Gap Inter -City Multimodal Parks/ Library/ Agenq Existing On Street ID Street/Path From 7o Class or Centers Density Bikeway closure Connectivity Connectivity Schools Rec Coordination ROW Parking Score Proposed Connection Center Impacts Im act P Tier 1 Priority Ranking Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City La Palma Class Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 87 Limits Avenue 6 Carbon Creek Channel Buena Park City Be ach Class I Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 2 84 Limits Boulevard 164 Carbon Creek Channel Beach Boulevard Schweitzer Class I Existing 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 68 Park 165 Carbon Creek Channel Schweitzer Park Lincoln Class I Proposed 0 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 58 Avenue 7 Carbon Creek Channel Magnolia Avenue Gilbert Street Class I Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 39 5 Carbon Creek Channel Gilbert Street CrescentAvenue Class I Existing 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 46 8 Carbon Creek Channel Brookhurst Street La Palma Class I Proposed 2 2 1 2 0 3 2 2 1 0 2 77 Avenue Orange Avenue BLS na Park City EuclidStreet Various Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 87 107 Orange Avenue Buena Park City Magnolia Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 87 Limits Avenue 154 Orange Avenue Magnolia Avenue Euclid Street Class III Proposed 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 73 Santa Ana Street Walnut5treet State College Class 111 Proposed 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 87 Boulevard 122 Santa Ana Street Walnut Street East Street Class III Proposed 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 87 159 Santa Ana Street East Street State College Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 42 Boulevard Haster Street/ Anaheim Garden Grove City Fullerton city Boulevard/ Lemon Street Limits Limits Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 86 37 Anaheim Boulevard/Hasler Street Garden Grove City Cerritos Class II Proposed 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 2 78 Limits Avenue 36 Anaheim Boulevard Cerritos Avenue Ball Road Class II Existing 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 2 55 35 Anaheim Boulevard Bali Road Sycamore Class 11 Proposed 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 71 Street 34 Anaheim Boulevard Sycamore Street La Palma Class II Existing 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 62 Avenue Anaheim Boulevard/Lemon Fullerton City on 38 Street La Palma Avenue Limits Freedom Ln Class II Proposed 2 1 2 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 11B Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Bike Bikewa y Ex�ng Em I ment Po ulation p oy p Regional Ga p Inter- City Multimodal Parks/ Library/ Agency ExisLng On Street ID Street/Path From To Class or Centers Density Bikeway Closure Connectivity Connectivity Schools Rec ROW Coordination Parking Score Proposed Connection Center Impxts Impact La Palma Avenue West Buena Park City Blue Gum Clam11 Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1' 84 Limits Street 1 81 La Palma Avenue Buena Park City Acacia Street Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 84 Limits 166 La Palma Avenue Acacia Street State College Class II Existing 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 53 Boulevard 167 La Palma Avenue State College Blue Gum Class II Proposed 2 1 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 65 Boulevard Street Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Str�ll Class 11 Ex/Prop 2 2 2 2 O 1 1 1 2 1 2 92 68 Frontera Street La Palma Avenue Rio Vista Class II Proposed 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 63 Street 69 Frontera StreetRio Vista Street Glassell Street Class II Existing 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 69 UPRR/Edlson w/oW.&M Stanton City Limits Broadway Claw Proposed 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 n Union Pacific Railroad north of 32 Katella and east of Euclid Stanton Cit Limits y Broadway Class I Proposed 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 63 East-West Edison ROW north of UPRR West of Ninth 13 Katella Avenue Street Walnut Street Class I Pro posed 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 51 Ball Road Buena � Park City PI Class II EK/Prop 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 79 41 Ball Road Buena Park City KnottAvenue Class II Proposed 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 47 Limits 42 Ball Road Knott Avenue Brookhurst St Class II Existing 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 73 43 Ball Road Brookhurst Street West PI Class II Proposed 1 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 75 Brookhumt5treet Katella Avenue Fullerton City Class 11 Ea/Prop 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 79 Limits 48 Brookhurst Street Karelia Avenue Crescent Class IIExisting 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 80 Avenue 49 Brookhurst Street Crescent Avenue Fullerton City Class It Proposed 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 79 Limits Sunkist/ Miraloma Cerrhos Avenue Vanuren Class 11 EK/Prop 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 79 street 128 Sunkist Street Cerritos Avenue South Street Class II Existing 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 56 130 Sunkist Street South Street Miraloma Class II Proposed 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 0 41 Avenue 96 Miraloma Avenue Sunkist Street La Loma Cir Class II Proposed 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 58 97 Miraloma Avenue La Loma Cir Van Buren Class II Existing 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 56 Street Vermont/Wagner Citron Street Rio Vista Various Ea/Prop 2 2 1 2 O 1 2 2 2 1 1 79 Street Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Parks/ On Bike Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Gap Inter -City Multimodal Library/ Agency ExistinH Street ID Street/Path From To Class or Centers Density leeway closure Connectivity Connectivity Schools Rec Coordination ROW Parking Score Proposed o Connection Center Impacts Impact 134 Vermont Avenue Citron Street Boysen Park Class 11 Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 63 Trail 4 Boysen Park Path Vermont Avenue Wagner Class Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 38 Avenue State College 136 Wagner Avenue Boulevard Sunkist Street Class II Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 49 137 Wagner Avenue Sunkist Street Rio Vista Class II Existing 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 48 Street Crescent Avenue/ North Street Carbon Creek Olive Street Various Ex/Prop 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 77 58 Crescent Avenue Carbon Creek Brookhurst Class 11 Proposed 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 47 Channel Street 59 Crescent Avenue Brookhurst Street Muller Street Class II Existing 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 52 10 Crescent Avenue Bike Bridge Muller Street Chippewa Class I Proposed 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 50 Avenue 60 Crescent Avenue Chippewa Avenue Loara Street Class 11 Existing 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 62 151 North Streetreet Loara Street West Street Class III Proposed 2 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 69 101 North Street West Street Harbor Class II Proposed 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 46 Boulevard 102 North Street Harbor Boulevard Anaheim Class II Existing 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 43 Boulevard 103 North Street Anaheim Boulevard Olive Street Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 42 Broadway Dale Street State College Clan11 Ex/Prop 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 75 Boulevard 46 Broadway Dale Street East Street Class II Proposed 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 75 State College 47 Broadway East Street Boulevard Class II Existing 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 33 South Street Indiana Street Anaheim Various Ex/Prop 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 75 CovesTraR State College 160 South Street Indiana Street Boulevard Class III Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 75 126 South Street State College Peregrine Class II Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 35 Boulevard Street 127 South Street Peregrine Street Rio Vista Class 11 Existing 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 35 Street 161 South Street Rio Vista Street Anaheim Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 31 Coves Trail Serrano Avenue O range City Umits Weir Carryon Class II Ex/Prop 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 74 Boal Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Exm ng Regional Parks/ Existing On Bike Street/Path From To Bikewa y or Em I ment Population p P Bikeway Gap a P Inter -City City MuRimodal Schools Library/ Agency ROW Street Score ID Class Proposed Centers Density Connection Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Impacts Parking Center Impact Nohl Ranch 123 Serrano Avenue Orange City Limits Road Class It Proposed 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 48 124 Serrano Avenue Nohl Ranch Road Caad nyon Rim Class II Existing 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 54 Ro 125 Serrano Avenue Canyon Rim Road Weir Canyon C lass II Proposed 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 63 Road Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Plmntia City Class II Proposed 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 74 fts 132 Tustin Avenue Orange City Limits Santa An Class II Existing 1 2 2 2 Z 0 0 0 0 2 1 64 River Trail 133A Tustin Avenue Santa Ana River Trail Placentia City Class II Proposed 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 66 Limits Sy®more Street/WestmontLoaraSt Van Buren Drive reet Street Street Various Proposed 2 2 1 2 O 1 2 2 1 1 0 73 143 Westmont Drive Loara Street West Street Class III Proposed 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 59 170 Sycamore Street West Street Sycamore Class 111 Proposed posed 0 2 1 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 63 Sycamore Connector w/o State La Palma 30 College BI Sycamore Street y Avenue Class I Pro posed 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 52 89 Lincoln Avenue KhattAvenue Euclid Street Class it Proposed 2 2 1 1 2 I 2 1 0 0 1 71 109 OrongethorpeAvenue LokeviewAvenue Imperial ClowI Proposed 2 2 1 1 2 O 1 0 2 2 2 72 Highway Lakeview Avenue Send Atte Carry- Yorba Linda Class II Ex/Prop 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 72 Road City Limits 88 Lakeview Avenue Santa Ana Canyon Riverdale Ave Class II Proposed 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 65 Road 84 Lakeview Avenue Riverdale Avenue La Palma Class II Existing 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 68 Avenue 85 Lakeview Avenue La Palma Avenue yorba Linda Class 11 Pro posed 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 47 City limits 1 Tier 2 Priority Ranking East/Lewis Kataft AvenueLaAvenue Paima Class 11 Proposed 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 69 64 East Street Ball Road La Palma Class II Proposed 2 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 69 Avenue 87 Lewis Street Karelia Avenue Ball Road Class II Proposed 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 39 Manchester/Loara Santa Ana Street North Street Class II Ex/Prop 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 69 94 Manchester Avenue Santa Ana Street Lincoln Class IIPro Posed 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 43 1 Avenue Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Existing Regional Parks/ Existing On Bike Street/Path From To Bikewa y or Em I ment Po ulation P °y p Blkeway Ga P Inter- City Multimodal Schools Library/ Agency ROW Street Score ID Class Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Rec Coordination Parking Proposed Connection Center Impacts Impact 90 Lincoln Avenue Manchester Avenue Wilshire Class 11 Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 28 Avenue 144 Wilshire Avenue Loara Street Lincoln Class 11 Existing 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 46 Avenue 92 Loara Street Wilshire Street North Street Class 11 Existing 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 1 71 Edison Tran s/o La Palma Olive Street Cerritos Avenue Various Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 2 69 La Palma 153 Olive Street Santa Ana Street Avenue Class 111 Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 2 2 2 67 106 Olive Street Vermont Avenue Santa Ana Class III Proposed 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 61 Street North-South Union Pacific E -W SCE ROW 24 Railroad- Olive Street Vermont Avenue south of Cerritos Class I Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 59 Continuation Avenue Cerritos/ Douglass/ Karelia Anaheim Boukward Sam Ana Various Proposed 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 2 68 River7rail Douglass 55 Cerritos Avenue Anaheim Boulevard Road Class It Proposed 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 61 63 Douglass Road Karelia Avenue Cerritos Class II Proposed 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 53 Avenue 149 Katella Avenue Douglass Road Santa Ana Class III Proposed 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 62 River Trail GilbertStreet Southto City Limfts Palma Various Ex/Prop 1 2 1 2 O 1 2 1 2 1 1 68 Avenue 147 Gilbert Street La Palma Avenue t Crescent Class III Proposed 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 62 Avenue 71 Gilbert Street Broadway Carbon Creek C lass II Proposed 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 38 Trail 148 Gilbert Street Broadway Ball Road Class III Proposed 0 2 1 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 2 62 72 Gilbert Street South City Limits Ball Road Class II Existing 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 42 N -S Edison ROW w/o Magnolia Stanton City Limits La Palma Class 1 Ex/Prop 0 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 1 2 67 Avenue North-South SoCal Edison ROW 22 est of Magnolia Street Stanton City Limits Broadway Class I Existing 0 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 66 North-South SOCaI Edison ROW La Palma 23 west of Magnolia Street Broadwa y Avenue Class I Proposed 0 2 2 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 2 54 44 Boll Rood Lemon Street Orantsge City Class 11 Proposed 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 66 Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight B 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Parks/ On Bike Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Gap Inter -City Multimodal Library/ Agency Existing Street ID Street/Path From To Class or Centers Density Bikeway, tlosure Connectivity Connectivity Schools Re c Coordination ROW Parking Scare Proposed Connection Center Impacts Im d D a Wiest City Limttc(e/o 54 Cerritos Avenue Magnolia) WolnutStreet Class 11 Proposed 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 65 Anaheim5hores/ Anaheim Ramneya/1(archer La Palma Avenue Boulevard Various Ex/Prop 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 65 40 Anaheim Shores/ Romneya Drive La Palma Avenue Euclid Street Class II Existing 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 58 158 Romneya Drive/Carl Karcher WayEuclid Street Anaheim Class III Pro Posed 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 57 Boulevard Orangewood Avenue Eucgd Street Rampart Class it Ex/Prop 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 65 stree111 ECL e/o Orangewood Avenue Eudid Street Janette Lane Class II Existing 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 26 112 Orangewood Avenue West Street Harbor Class 11 Proposed posed 2 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 47 113 Orangewood Avenue Harbor Boulevard Mountain Class II Existing 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 55 View Avenue 114 Orangewood Avenue Mountain View Dupont Drive Class II Pro posed 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 47 Avenue (W) 171 Dupont Drive (W) Orangewood Avenue Dupont Drive Class II Proposed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 24 172 Towne Centre PI Du nt E Po Drive () Rampart Class II Pro posed 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 22 Street La Palma WestStreet Seat. Ana Street Avenue Various Proposed 2 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 65 140 West Street Santa Ana Street North Street Class II Proposed 1 2 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 57 173 West Street North Street La Palma Class III Pro Posed 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 62 Avenue 26 OrangethorpeAvenue Lemon Street Raymond Class 11 Proposed 2 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 2 64 Avenue Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Lincoin Avenue Oris 11 Ex/Prop 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 64 66 Euclid Street Orangewood Avenue Ball Road Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 56 65 Euclid Street Ball Road Lincoln Class II Existing 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 47 Avenue Lemon Street gall Road La Palma Class III Proposed °posed 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 2 64 86 Lemon Street S camore Street y La Palma Class III Pro Dosed 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 1 2 2 44 Avenue 15 Lemon Street Ball Road Sycamore Class III Proposed posed 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 60 Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Parks/ On Bike Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Gap Inter -City Mukimodal Library/ Agency Existing Street ID Street/Path From To Class or Centers Density Bikeway tlowre Connectivity Connectivity Schools ROW CoordlnaUon Parking Score Proposed Connection Center Center Impacts Impact 93 Magnolia Avenue Stanton City limits La Palma Class 11 Proposed 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 O 1 63 Avenue Crone Avenue/ Nutwood St Orange Avenue Walout5treet Class 111 Proposed 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 - - 2 - 2 63 152 Nutwood Street Orange Avenue Crone Street Class III Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 35 145A Crone Avenue UPRR Trail Walnut Street Class III Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 36 1458 Crone Avenue Nutwood Street UPRRTrail Class III Proposed 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 63 Kraemer/Glassell Orange City Unitts A��� oClass 11 Ex/Prop 2 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 63 82 Kraemer Boulevard Frontera Street Oangethorpe Class II Proposed 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 49 Avenue 73 Glassell Street Orange City Limits Frontera Class II Existing 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 56 Street Fullerton City 33 Acacia Street LaPolmoAvenue Class 11 limits Proposed 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 62 138 Walnut Street KatellaAvenue SantaAaa Class ll Proposed 2 2 2 0 0 O 2 2 2 0 0 61 Street 162 Van Buren Street La PalmoAvenue wactinUa City Class 111 Existing 2 1 1 0 0 O 1 2 2 2 2 60 Limits Tustin Metrolink Paths Orange City Limits Tustin¢ Clam Proposed 2 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 60 Avenu 31 Tustin Avenue -Metrolink Orange Sub Tustin Avenue Class I Proposed 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 28 Connection Anaheim 12 East Tustin Flood Control Path Santa Ana River Trail Canyon Class I Proposed 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 36 Metrolink 20 Metrolink Side Trail Orange/Olive Road Tustin Avenue Class I Proposed 1 1 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 52 62 Dale Street Stanton, City Limits Buena Park Class 11 Proposed 0 2 1 2 2 O 2 1 1 1 1 59 City Limits Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rin Road Yorba Linda Various Ex/Prop 0 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 Sg City Limits 67 Fairmont Boulevard Canyon Rim Road Santa Ana Class II Proposed 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 52 Canyon Road 15 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana Canyon La Palma Class I Proposed 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 50 Road Avenue La Palma 16 Fairmont Boulevard Santa Ana River Trail pass IProposed Avenue 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 53 17 Fairmont Boulevard La Palma Avenue yorba Linda Class I Existing 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 49 City L mos Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Running Class 11 Ex/Prop 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 57 Springs Drive Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Bike Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Gap Inter -City Multimodal Parks/ library/ Agency Existing On Street ID Street/Path From To Class or Centers Density Bikeway Closure Connectivity Connectivity Schods Rec Coordination ROW Parking Parking Sore Proposed Connection Center ImPacts act 104 Oak Canyon Drive Serrano Avenue Weir Canyon Class II Existing 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 53 Road 1 105 Oak Can on Drive y Weir Ca on Road ny Running Class II Pro Posed 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 47 Springs Drive 57 Citron Street Vermont Avenue Class 111 Proposed 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 56 Street La Palma Avenue East Blue Gum Street Santa Ana Class I Proposed 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 56 River Trail e/o Brasher 19 La Palma Avenue Blue Gum Street ss Claw I Proposed Posed 2 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 58 Santa Ana River Trail Connector Santa Ana 29 w La palma Avenue Class Proposed 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 32 Santa Ana River Trail 179 Imperial La Palma Connector Connector w/o Imperial Class I Proposed 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 44 Imperial Highway Highway Nohl Rands Avd Margarita SAvveenueo Various Proposed 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 2 56 I 1 21 Nohl Ranch Open Space Trail Pelanconi Park Anah eim Hills Class I Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 2 40 Roa d 100 Nohl Ranch Road Anaheim Hills Road Serrano Class II Proposed Posed 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 1 2 2 2 59 Tier 3 Priority Ranking Imperial Highway O Orange iriyLimits Santa Ana Various Ex/Prop 0 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 52 Canyon Road 76 Imperial Highway Orange City Limits Nohl Ranch Class II Existing 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 37 Road 18 peria Imperial Park Path Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Class I Pro Posed 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 48 Canyon Road 45 Blue Gum Street La Palma Avenue Placentia City Clow 11 Proposed 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 2 51 Limits Anaheim Coves TraB Ball Road Street re pass i Ex/Prop 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 2 49 1 Anaheim Coves Trail Ball Road Lincoln Class Existing 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 55 Avenue Anaheim Coves Trail North Frontera 2 Extension Lincoln Avenue Street Class I Proposed 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 36 KelloggDrive 1a Palma Avenue Yorba Linda Various Ex/Prop 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 49 City Lknits 77 Kellogg Drive La Palma Avenue Orangethorpe Class II Posed Proposed 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 33 Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Parks/ On Bike Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Gap Inter -City Mukimodal Library/ Agency Ex(rting Street ID Street/Path From To Class or Centers Density Bikeway Closure Connectivity Connectivity Schools Rec Coordination ROW Parking Score Proposed Connection Center ImP.M Im act v 78 Kellogg Drive Orangethorpe Yorba Linda Class II Existing 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 38 Avenue City Limits Rio Vida Street Wagner Street Frontere Gass 11 Ex/Prop 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 1. 1 48 Street 117 Rio Vista Street Wagner Street Dutch Avenue Class II Existing 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 42 118 Rio Vista Street Dutch Avenue Frontera Class II Proposed 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 45 Street Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Bue= Cass II Proposed 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 48 163 Western Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Class II Existing 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 0 41 Avenue 141 Western Avenue Orange Avenue Buena Park Class II Proposed 0 2 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 45 City Limits 9 Carbon Creek Diversion Channel Kraemer Boulevard Orangeth"Pe Class Proposed 2 O 1 2 0 1 0 0 I 0 2 47 Avenue Crescent Royal Oak/ Pinney/ Gerda Nohl Ranch Road Elementary School Various Ex/Prop 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 46 120 Royal Oak Road Nohl Ranch Road Santa Ana Class II Existing 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 44 Canyon Road 115 Pinney Drive Santa Ana Canyon Gerda Drive Class II Proposed 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 41 Road 178 Peralta Canyon Park Overcrossing Gerda Drive Santa Ana Class I Proposed 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 42 River Trail 70 Gerda Drive Crescent Elementary Pinney Drive/Royal Class 11 Proposed 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 35 School OnRd Canyon Creek/Sunset Ridge Serrano Avenue Serrano Claw 11 Proposed 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 45 Avenue 51 Canyon Creek Road Sunset Ridge Road Serrano Class II Proposed 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 39 Avenue 131 Sunset Ridge Road Canyon Creek Road Serrano Class II Proposed 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 34 Avenue 108 OrangethmpeAvenue State College placenda Class 11 Proposed 1 O 2 0 2 2 0 0 1 1 2 44 Boulevard Avenue Ninth Street Garden Grwe City Cerritos Class 11 Ex/Prop 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 0 44 Limits Avenue 98 Garden Grove City KarelAven aClass II Existing 0 12 0 1 1 1 0 0 27 [Ninthtreet Limits Avenuetreet Karelia Avenue Cerritos Class 11 Proposed 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 27 Avenue Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Category Demand Utility Connectivity Readiness Weight 8 8 6 6 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 Total 32 28 20 20 100 Bike Street/Path From TO Bikeway Existing Employment Population Regional Bikeway Gap Inter -City Muldmodal Parks/ Library/ Agency Fxistlng On Street ID Class °r Centers Density Closure Connectivity Connectivity Schools Rec Coordination Row Parking Score Proposed Connection Center Impacts Im act P East-West Edison ROWILFrum 13 Pacific Railroad ROW north of Harbor Boulevard Orange City ClassI Proposed 2 0 1 1 2 1 O 0 0 0 2 43 Katella Avenve Limits 74 Grove St LaPalmaAvea- Cf s11 Proposed 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 43 Avenue, Avenue Knott Avenue Strur on Chy Limits Lincoln pass II Ex/Prop 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 41 Avenue 79 Knott Avenue Stanton City Limits Orange Class 11 Pro Posed 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 41 Avenue 80 Knott Avenue Orange Avenue Lincoln Class II Existing 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 40 Avenue 11 Deer Canyon Park F. -ono Boulevard Serrano Class 1 Proposed 0 1 1 O O 0 1 2 2 1 2 40 Avenue 110 Oran eth eAvenue g orp Kme—Boulevard Jefferson Class 11 P ropased 2 1 0 1 O O 0 0 0 0 1 34 Street 135 Vine Street Santa Ana Street Broadway Class 0l Proposed 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 34 116 Richfield Road Basin Twils/o L. Placentia City Gass 11 Proposed 1 0 0 0 2 1 O 0 1 2 2 33 Pal—Avenve Limits 3 Basin Trail s/o La PalmoAvenue Richfield Road. Lakeview Classl Proposed 2 0 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 0 2 27 Avenue 7S Gypsum Canyon Road S nttaA°OCanyon Y-1, Undo Class 11 Proposed 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 26 City Limits 50 Camino Grande/Stage—oh Road Nahl Ranch Road =Ranch Class 11 Proposed O 1 0 O 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 24 1 88 Lewis Street Ora aOrangewood City GmrGs Class 11 Proposed 0 1 0 O 1 O 0 0 1 1 1 22 Avenue Appendix F Anaheim Bikeway Network Priority Ranking Scores Criteria Raw Score Weight Total Sco—m—T Description Demand Employment Centers 2 8 16 Connects to employer with >250 employees 1 8 8 Connects to census block with employment density> 0.00014 emp/sf 0 a 0 Connects to census block with employment density < 0.00014 emp/sf Population Density 2 8 16 Connects to census block with population density> 0.00053 pop/sf 1 8 8 Connects to census block with population density < 0.00053 pop/sf 0 8 0 Does not connect to any census block with residential properties utility Regional Bikeway Connection 2 6 12 Bikeway is part of regional bikeway corridor 1 6 6 Bikeway connects to regional bikeway corridor 0 6 0 Bikeway does not connect to regional bikeway corridor Gap Closure 2 6 12 Bikeway connects to two or more existing bikeways 1 6 6 Bikeway connects to one existing bikeway 0 6 0 Bikeway does not connect to any existing bikeway Inter -City Connectivity 2 2 4 Provides direct connection to another city 1 2 2 Bikeway is on a city limit but does not cross the city limit 0 2 0 Bikeway does not connect to another city Connectivity Muhimodal Connectivity 2 3 6 Bikeway connects to a Metrolink station or a Transit Priority Area (Intersection of two HQTC's) 1 3 3 Bikeway connects with a High Quality Transit Corridor 0 3 0 Bikeway does not connect with a High Quality Transit Corridor Schools 2 4 8 Bikeway connects to 2 or more Elementary, Middle, or High Schools 1 4 4 Bikeway connects to one Elementary, Middle, or High School 0 4 0 Bikeway does not connect to any Elementary, Middle, or High Schools Parks/ Library/ Rec Center 2 3 6 Bikeway connects to 2 or more libraries, parks, or community centers 1 3 3 Bikeway connects to one library, park, or community center 0 3 0 Bikeway does not connect to any libraries, parks, or community centers Readiness Agency Coordination 2 2 4 Does not require coordination with any agencies for permit and/or approval 1 2 2 Requires coordination with one or two agencies for permit and/or approval 0 2 0 Requires coordination with three or more agencies for permit and/or approval Existing ROW Impacts 2 4 8 Improvements fit within existing street section 1 4 4 Improvements can fit within the existing right of way, but requires modifications to medians or curbs 0 4 0 Significant ROW and widening required to implement bikeway On Street Parking Impact 24 8 On -street parking unaffected 1 44 Minimal in -street parking affected, usually less than 30% of the corridor, and not adjacent to spillover parking impacted areas 0 4 0 Significant on -street parking impacts- requires lane removal or parking removal over most of the bikeway XNAfffj# �uAnaheim Appendix G Bicycle Master Plan Implementation Toolbox May 23, 2017 www.anaheim.net/bike Appendix G Implementation Toolbox INTRODUCTION The following guidelines are derived from and consistent with standards within the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HCM)1, the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)2, and existing City of Anaheim Engineering Standard Details3. These guidelines are intended to reference the most recent versions of each of these sources as they are updated over time. Updates to the toolbox will be performed by the Public Works Department and approved by the City Engineer as design guidelines and standards within the HDM and the California MUTCD change overtime. A toolbox of strategies for implementing bicycle facilities is provided to illustrate many of the ways that individual bicycle facilities can be designed and implemented. This document is intended to assist the City in the design and implementation of bikeways and facilities within the context of the neighborhood it serves. Bikeways should not be implemented in a "one size fits all" approach. The implementation of the Bicycle Master Plan through this toolbox will ensure that the bicycle network will complement the neighborhoods they serve. The toolbox enables the City to work with the local neighborhoods and districts to determine the most appropriate improvements. BIKEWAYS CLASSIFICATIONS Class I — Bike Paths Class I bike paths allow for two-way, off-street bicycle use. Bike paths can be designed for exclusive bicycle use, and can also be designed as shared -use paths that may be used by pedestrians and other non -motorized users. These facilities should generally be designed as separated facilities away from parallel streets. They are commonly planned along rights-of-way such as waterways, utility corridors, flood control access roads, and railroads which provide the opportunity for long separated bikeways. Bike paths can also include amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing where appropriate. Bike paths provide critical connections in the city where roadways are absent or are not conducive to bicycle travel. Class I Bike Paths adjacent to residential areas may present unique situations that will be addressed with the property owner(s) and surrounding community through project planning, implementation, and maintenance. Appropriate fencing, walls, gates and lighting related to park facilities may be installed according to City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual. Examples of standards include: Fences and Gates Omega fencing per Parks Construction Standards Manual Section 3.14.1. Lighting Security/pathway lighting per Parks Construction Standards Manual Section 5.4 in coordination with Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 1 http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm 2 http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/camutcd/ 3 http://www.anaheim.net/285/Standard-Plans-and-Details Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Walls The walls along the North/South Edison Right -of - Way (Bike ID 22) provide an example of the edge treatment adjacent to residential areas. Bike paths should have a minimum of eight feet of pavement, with at least two feet of unpaved shoulders on each side. Signs must have three feet of clearance from the bike path. Paved width of twelve feet is preferred. For shared use paths, a separate path five feet in width should be provided adjacent to the paved bike path, and striping and/or signage should be provided to separate pedestrian from bicycle travel areas. Appropriate design speed, sight distance, superelevation, and clearances shall be incorporated into the design of any Class I bike path. Slopes greater than 4% require more detailed review. Grades should not exceed 5%. Speed bumps shall not be used. Bike path design should take into account vertical requirements, the impacts of maintenance of both the bike path and any utility corridors, and emergency vehicles on shoulders. Both American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Caltrans recommend against using most sidewalks for bike paths, due to conflicts with driveways and intersections. Bike paths should only be considered adjacent to roadways that have high vehicle volume and vehicle speed, and those streets should also have uses with potential bicycle demand on that street. Where sidewalks are used as bike paths, they should be properly separated from the roadway, and pedestrian and bicycle uses should be separated. These paths should have carefully designed intersection and driveway crossings. Bike paths closer than five feet from the edge of the shoulder shall include a physical barrier to prevent bicyclists from encroaching onto the roadway, and would be considered Class IV Cycle Track facilities. Crossings of roadways, other than at intersections, should be carefully engineered to accommodate a safe and visible crossing for users. The design needs to consider the width of the roadway, whether it has a median, the posted speed limit, and the roadway's average daily and peak -hour traffic volumes. All shared use paths should generally conform to the design recommendation by: • City of Anaheim Community Services Department Parks Construction Standards Manual • California MUTCD • Caltrans Highway Design Manual • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Facilities adjacent to rail corridors should also conform with the latest version of these documents: • "Rails -with -Trails": Lessons Learned, FHWA, 2002 • SCRRA Rail -with -Trail Design Guidelines Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Class II — Bike Lanes Bike lanes are defined by pavement striping and signage used to allocate a portion of a roadway for exclusive or preferential bicycle travel. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, on -street parking, or edge of pavement. Consideration should be given to proximity and type of on -street parking, as well as prevailing speeds and traffic volumes in the design of bike lanes. Bike Lane with No On -Street Parking Preferred Design (if space is available) Preferred Minimum Design I"Markup r zv" ♦ .r"wr,,xe, r a�� i.M syn b'Sfnpe M 4' 11 e'zn� - 12 6' 6 - _..... �- 11' 5 a' 7 Itt Vehicle Travel Un! Bikelsne Puking Vehkk Tr 1Wne Blk.t a Vxklrg These bike lanes are adjacent to the curb or edge of pavement. Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is located adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Consideration should be given to proximity and type of on -street parking, as well as prevailing speeds and traffic volumes in the design of bike lanes. Bike lanes shall be a minimum of five feet wide or three feet wide from the gutter pan if the gutter is greater than two feet wide. A width of six feet is preferred. Bike lanes wider than six feet need extra striping and signage to ensure that motorists do not use the bike lane as a vehicle lane or parking lane. Wider bike lanes should be considered on streets with volumes greater than 45 mph, or on heavily travelled bike routes to allow for bicycles to pass within the bike lane. Bike Lane Next to On -Street Parallel Parking Where on -street parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed between the parking area and the travel lane and have a minimum width of five feet adjacent to an eight foot parking lane. Parking "T"s should be placed within the parking lane to ensure that autos are parked as close to the curb as possible. Alternatively, a four foot lane with a three foot buffer area is recommended so that bicyclists do not ride in the area where parked automobile doors can open. The buffer area should be clearly striped. For high turnaround or heavily utilized parking areas, the bike lane should be six feet plus the door buffer. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Bike Lane and Diagonal Parking In certain areas with high parking demand such as urban commercial areas, diagonal parking may be used to increase parking supply. Conventional diagonal parking is not compatible or recommended in conjunction with high levels of bicycle traffic. Drivers backing out of conventional diagonal parking have poor visibility of approaching bicyclists. Conventional diagonal parking should not be permitted on any street identified with a bike lane in the Bicycle Master Plan. Buffered Bike Lane Buffered bike lanes are conventional bike lanes paired with a designated buffer space, separating the bike lane from the adjacent vehicle travel lane. Buffered bike lanes are designed to increase the space between the bike lane and the travel lane. This treatment is appropriate for bike lanes on roadways with high motor vehicle traffic volumes and speed, adjacent to parking lanes, or a high volume of truck or oversized vehicle traffic. Where bicyclist volumes are high or where bicyclist speed differentials are significant, the desired bicycle travel area width is seven feet. Buffers should be at least two feet wide. If three feet or wider, mark with diagonal or chevron hatching. For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings, consider a dotted line for the inside buffer boundary where cars are expected to cross. Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Class III — Bike Routes Bike routes have been typically designated as simple signed routes along street corridors, usually local streets and collectors, and sometimes along arterials to fill gaps between bike lanes. With proper route signage, design, and maintenance, bike routes can be effective in guiding bicyclists along routes suited for bicycling. Class III bike routes should be designed in a manner that encourages bicycle usage, convenience, and safety. There are a variety of other improvements that can enhance the safety and attraction of streets for bicyclists. Bike routes can become more useful when coupled with such techniques as signage, wide curb lanes, shared lane markings, and traffic calming measures. Bike routes should not be placed on streets with a speed limit greater than 35 miles per hour, or high hourly traffic volumes. Placement of new bike routes on arterial streets should be reviewed for compatibility with the street and the adjacent land uses before placement to ensure that the bike route is compatible with the neighborhood. There are many features that can be implemented on bike routes, depending on the intended use of the facility. Bike routes can be as simple as signed shared routes, or could have multiple enhancements to convert the street into a Bicycle Boulevard (also called Neighborhood Greenway), or could have a range of improvements somewhere between the two. This section will review potential implementation tools from least impactful to most impactful. 14' preferred minimum Bike route with Wide Outside Lane This type of facility is implemented on streets that are too narrow to stripe a Class II bike lane. It is an existing implementation of bike routes found in Anaheim. The wide outside lane provides adequate on -street space for the vehicle and bicycle to share the lane without requiring the vehicle to leave its lane to pass the bicyclist. This should only be implemented for lane widths of 14 or 15 feet. This type of facility should not be implemented on high volume or high speed streets. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Shared Lane Marking (Sharrow) Shared Lane Marking stencils (commonly called "Sharrows") have been introduced for use in California and may complement signage as an additional treatment for bike routes. The stencil serves a number of purposes, such as reminding bicyclists to ride further from parked cars to avoid collisions with opening car doors, raising motorists' awareness of bicycles potentially in the travel lane, and showing bicyclists the correct direction of travel. The 11 foot minimum distance from curb shown in the CA MUTCD is based on a seven foot parking stall. Shared lane markings adjacent to an eight foot parking stall may be installed at a minimum of 12feet from centerline to curb. Placing the sharrow between vehicle tire tracks may also be considered as it will increase the life of the markings and the long-term cost of maintenance to the treatment. All new Class III bike routes should have sharrows in addition to bike route signage. Additional Signage and Pavement Markings Signage and pavement markings are cost-effective yet highly -visible treatments that can improve the riding environment on a bike route. Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes. Wayfinding Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along the bike network, including where multiple routes intersect and at key bicyclist "decision points." Wayfinding signs displaying destinations and distances can dispel common misperceptions about time and distance while increasing user ease and accessibility to the bicycle network. Wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bike route and should correspondingly use caution. Note that ARL too many road signs tend to clutter the ASHFFE THE R,)Aup;agea right-of-way and become invisible to regular users. dw:-„t°w�«^`���s:�.;,_°� f farms c! Uarvportao°n. Warning Signs advising motorists to._. "Share the Road", informing motorists that "Bicycles May Use Full Lane", or r (� notifying motorists about the "Three Foot Rule" for passing bicyclists may also improve bicycling conditions on any street, including a bike route. These signs may be useful near major bicycle " trip generators such as schools, parks #" and other activity centers. Warning signs should also be placed on major streets MAY USE approaching any bikeway to alert FULL LANE motorists of bicycle crossings. These signs may be placed on all streets as deemed appropriate. On -Street Parking Delineation with parking Ts on bike routes will clearly indicate where a vehicle should be parked and can discourage motorists from parking their vehicles too far into the adjacent travel lane. Parking Ts help bicyclists by maintaining a wide enough space to safely share a travel lane with moving vehicles while minimizing the need to swerve farther into the travel lane to maneuver around parked Appendix G Implementation Toolbox cars and opening doors. In addition to benefiting bicyclists, delineated parking spaces can also promote the efficient use of on -street parking by maximizing the number of spaces in areas where on -street parking is in high demand. Loop Detector Stencils may be used at signalized intersections with in -pavement detection. The CA MUTCD Bicycle Detector Symbol may be used to indicate where bicyclists should wait to activate a green light Puv rncnt Atei kin9� �: i.Y .i c th EM --d o eslny P "i.1 CI ..tr th t ... Speed Hum P+ Local Intersections — Curb Bulb -Outs and High -Visibility Crosswalks Installation of curb bulb -outs and high -visibility crosswalks is appropriate for bike routes near activity centers that may generate large amounts of pedestrian activity such as schools or commercial areas. The bulb -outs should only extend across the parking lane and should not obstruct bicyclists' path of travel or the travel lane. This treatment may be combined with a stop sign on the cross street if necessary. Bulb -outs also provide a safety benefit for pedestrians as it reduces crossing distance and increases the visibility of pedestrians waiting to cross the street. This is a traffic calming device, and typically requires neighborhood approval. It is a moderate cost measure, and could potentially impact storm water runoff if not designed correctly. Bulb -outs should not be installed at corners where trucks or buses frequently make a right turn. Bulb -outs can decrease on -street parking capacity, but they do significantly increase the line of sight for vehicles at the intersection by pushing parked vehicles away from the intersection. Bicycle Boulevard Bicycle boulevards (also known as "Neighborhood Greenways") are low-volume, low -speed streets modified to enhance bicyclist comfort by using treatments such as signage, pavement markings, traffic calming and/or traffic reduction, and intersection modifications. These treatments allow the through movement of bicyclists while discouraging similar through -trips by non -local motorized traffic. C-1, E I-- 1 •�,. Mimi 1fi C{r clos ., ...rl.... c( i ,i ® � Mcdxn opaing allows blcxkts a vers roadway R—d med... prewnn namn� It—< Jagthrwgh Stop algre on cro tre favor th—gh kyl, .,w milt tramc dines M4 speed humps Drgmal Dorene, allows dwou js rrovcmmtfor L6k}elKr. w%bpwaem g mY tants from.mng thro gh openingp—, pnw,9K",ehhNartes< i • Signs and pavement markings are the minimum treatments necessary to designate a street as a bicycle boulevard. • Bicycle boulevards should have a maximum posted speed of 25 mph. Use traffic calming to maintain an 85th percentile speed below 22 mph. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox • Implement volume control treatments based on the context of the bicycle boulevard, using engineering judgment. Target motor vehicle volumes range from 1,000 to 3,000 vehicles per day. • Intersection crossings should be designed to enhance safety and minimize delay for bicyclists. Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Ewing, Reid and Brown, Steven. (2009). U.S. Traffic Calming Additional References and Guidelines NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Caltrans- Comprehensive Design Guidelines for Cycle Tracks- under development Appendix G Implementation Toolbox GAP CLOSURES AND ROADWAY RETROFITS Lane Narrowing Lane narrowing utilizes roadway space that exceeds minimum standards to provide the needed space for bike lanes. Many roadways have existing travel lanes that are wider than those prescribed in City standards. For most streets, City standards allow for the use of 11 foot lanes. Industry standards allow for the use of 10 foot lanes as needed. Special consideration should be given to the amount of heavy vehicle traffic and horizontal curvature before 10 foot wide travel lanes are installed to create space for bike lanes. Center turn lanes can also be narrowed in some situations to free up pavement space for bike lanes. Road Widening Egg IC 11 14' 12" 14' BEFORE AFTER If right-of-way is available, or a street is not widened to its ultimate width, road widening serves as an opportunity to complete bikeway segments. Sometimes, this will also involve lane narrowing. Lane Reconfiguration The removal of a single travel lane, often referred to as a "Road Diet", will generally provide sufficient space for bike lanes on both sides of a street. Streets with excess vehicle capacity provide opportunities for bike lane retrofit projects. Under these conditions, bike lanes could take the place of one or more vehicle travel lanes. Depending on a street's existing configuration, traffic operations, user needs, and safety concerns, various lane reduction configurations exist. For instance, a four - lane street (with a center line and two travel lanes in AFTER each direction) could be modified to include one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and bike lanes. Prior to implementing this measure, a traffic analysis is needed for each project location to identify overall transportation impacts including analysis of peak hour volumes. Studies from around the country indicate that this type of lane removal may be used on streets with high-end traffic volumes ranging from 22,000 — 30,000 ADT. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox The removal of any travel lane will result in a reduction of available vehicle capacity. Any lane reconfiguration will require its own analysis, and possibly an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan, in order to ensure that the removal of the traffic lane will not significantly impact the surrounding streets. Parking Removal Bicycle lanes could replace one or more on -street parking lanes on streets where there is negligible demand for on - street parking and/or the importance of bike lanes outweighs parking needs. For instance, parking may be needed on only one side of a street to accommodate residences and/or businesses. Eliminating or reducing on - street parking also improves sight distance for bicyclists in bike lanes and for motorists on approaching side streets and driveways. Prior to reallocating on -street parking for bike lanes, a parking study should be performed to gauge demand and concerns from local residents and businesses. Connection Gap Closure —Wide Outside Lane & Signage As an interim measure, for connection gaps with no on - street parking and without adequate right of way for widening or lane width reductions to provide continuous bike lanes, a wide outside lane may be used with the appropriate signage. If parking is under-utilized, its removal should be considered to provide for dedicated bicycle facilities. The gap area should have "Bike Route" signs and warning signs such as `Share the Road'. It should be reiterated that this should only be considered as a temporary interim measure for short term bicycle network gap closures until funding can be secured to provide continuous bike lanes. -P >,9_g, DI1�1 W161 Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. 2011. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Caltrans. Main Street, California. 2013. FHWA. Evaluation of Lane Reduction "Road Diet" Measures on Crashes. 2010. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox INTERSECTION TREATMENTS Bike Lane at Right Turn Only Lane The appropriate treatment at right -turn lanes is to place the bike lane between the right -turn lane and the rightmost through lane. The design (right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the conflict area. Existing bike lane width for that street shall be used Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Caltrans. California HDM. 2012. Caltrans. Complete Intersections. 2010. FHWA. Interim Approval (IA -14). 2011. Combined Bike Lane / Turn Lane 4kn:� ccJ'rc� space The combined bicycle/right turn lane places a standard width bike lane on the left side of a dedicated right turn lane. A dotted line delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared lane. This treatment includes signage advising motorists and bicyclists of proper positioning within the lane. This treatment is recommended at K.. � intersections lacking sufficient space to accommodate both a standard b �, 10 through bike lane and right turn lane. 41A For a shared turn -lane, the maximum width is 13 feet; narrower is preferable. The bike lane pocket should have a minimum width of four feet. A dotted four inch line and bike lane marking should be used to clarify bicyclist ' y y positioning within the combined lane, without .. excluding cars from the suggested bicycle area. A "Right Turn Only" sign with an "Except Bicycles" plaque may be needed to make it legal for through bicyclists to use a right turn lane. Case studies cited by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center indicate that this treatment works best on streets with lower posted speeds (30 MPH or less) and with lower traffic volumes (10,000 ADT or less). Shared turn -lanes may not be appropriate for high-speed arterials or intersections with long right turn lanes. Additional References and Guidelines NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012 Appendix G Implementation Toolbox BICYCLE DETECTION Loop Detectors Bicycle -activated loop detectors are installed within the roadway to allow the presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in the traffic signal. This allows the bicyclist to stay within the lane of travel without having to maneuver to the side of the road to trigger a push button. Loops that are sensitive enough to detect bicycles should be supplemented with pavement markings to instruct bicyclists how to trip them. Video Detection Cameras Video detection systems use digital image processing to detect a Design Example change in the image at a location. These systems can be calibrated to detect bicycles. Video camera system costs range from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection. Additional References and Guidelines California MUTCD Caltrans Highway Design Manual Caltrans Standard Plans (1999) ES -513 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities oma„ 70mmtz N) Loop Detector Pavement Markings EM mm QO in) Locate a Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking where a bicycle can be inn) detected in a shared travel lane by a loop detector or other detection technology. Bicycle Detector Pavement Markings guide bicyclists to position 44 themselves at an intersection to trigger signal actuation. Efforts need to be CAM) ROM) made to ensure that signal detection devices are capable of detecting a bicycle. Detectors for traffic -actuated signals need to be located in the bicyclist's expected path, including left -turn lanes and shoulders. Marking Tsmm(3in) the road surface to indicate the optimum location for bicycle detection is,� helpful to the bicyclist.I "1 11 lilt ZS mm (1k)" Bikeway Signage Several regulatory, warning, and wayfinding sign types are available to implement and supplement bicycle facilities. The following tables highlight signs currently available. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox REGULATORY SIGNAGE (CA-MUTCD) Description Facility CA MUTCD Graphic Type CODE STOP signs shall be installed on shared -use paths at points where bicyclists are required to Bike R1-1 Class 1 stop. YIELD signs shall be installed on shared -use paths at points where bicyclists have an adequate view of conflicting traffic as they Bike Path YIELD / approach the sign, and where bicyclists are Class I R1-2 required to yield the right-of-way to that conflicting traffic. Where motor vehicles entering an exclusive right -turn lane must weave across bicycle BEGIN traffic in bike lanes, the BEGIN RIGHT TURN Bike Lane RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES sign may be used to Class II R4-4 inform both the motorist and the bicyclist of A YIELD TO BIKES this weaving maneuver. NO The NO MOTOR VEHICLES sign may be Bike Path R5-3 MOTOR installed at the entrance to a shared -use path. Class 1 YEOTOR The Bicycle WRONG WAY sign and RIDE WITH TRAFFIC plaque may be placed facing wrong - way bicycle traffic, such as on the left side of a Bike Lane R5 -1b roadway. This sign and plaque may be Class II R9-3cP I mounted back-to-back with other signs to minimize visibilit to other traffic. Y PARKIN BIKE If the installation of signs is necessary to Bike Lane R7-9 LANE restrict parking, standing, or stopping in a bike Class II R7 -9a lane. (81 BIKE LANE Where pedestrians are prohibited, the No Pedestrians sign may be installed at the Bike Path R9 -3(V entrance to the facility. Class I Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Description Facility CA MUTCD Graphic Yp Type CODE The 119-5 sign may be used where the crossing of a street by bicyclists is controlled by Signal R9-5ISIGNAL pedestrian signal indications. The R9-6 sign may be used where a bicyclist is i required to cross or share a facility used by pedestrians and is required to yield to the Signal R9-6 YITOD pedestrians. PEDS The Shared -Use Path Restriction (119-7) sign may be installed on facilities that are to be shared by pedestrians and bicyclists. The Bike Path Class I R9-7 LELEFTKEEP IRIGHT 1 symbols may be switched as appropriate. ft ] The Bicycle Signal Actuation sign may be installed at signalized intersections where TO REQUEST GREEN markings are used to indicate the location Signal R10-22 WAITi where a bicyclist is to be positioned to actuate ON A the signal Where it is not intended for bicyclists to be controlled by pedestrian signal indications, the Signal R10-26 BICYCLE PUSH BUTTON FOR GREEN LIGHT sign BUTTON may be used. FOR GREEN UGHT The Bike Path Exclusion sign may be used to identify a bike path and prohibit motor vehicles and motorized bicycles from entering BIKE PATH the bike path. Bike Path R44A NO MOTOR If motorized bicycles are permitted, the Class I VEHICLES OR "Motorized Bicycles" portion may be replaced MOTORIZED with "Motorized Bicycles Permitted". BICYCLES The BIKE LANE sign shall be placed at the Bike Lane R81 BIKE LANE beginning of each designated bike lane and R81A along each at all major changes in direction. Class II R81C BEGIN END Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Guide Signage Description Facility CA MUTCD Graphic Type CODE If used, Bike Route Guide signs should be • placed at the beginning and end of bike routes intervals that 1311-1 and repeated at regular so bicyclists entering from side streets will have M4-14 Bike Route M4- an opportunity to know that they are on a bike Class III M4-55 route. Similar guide signing should be used for shared roadways with intermediate signs M1-8 it placed for bicyclist guidance. The M1-8 sign M1 -8a may be used on numbered routes. If used, Bike Route Guide (1311-1) signs should be provided at decision points along designated bike routes, including supplemental signs to inform bicyclists of bike route direction changes and confirmation M6-1 / M6- signs for route direction, distance, and destination. 2 M6-3 / M6 - Option: 1 The M4-14, M4-6, and M4-5 supplemental 4 M6-5 / M6- plaques may be mounted above the appropriate Bike route Guide signs, Bike route Bike Route 6 -7 signs, or Interstate Bike route signs. Class III 3 1311-1 Destination (D1-1, D1 -1b, D1-213, D1-3, D1 -3b, and 133-1) signs may be mounted below Bike D1 -1b (R) 131-1b (L) route Guide signs, Bike route signs, or D1 -2b Interstate Bike route signs to furnish DI -3 additional information, such as directional ,. -3 D1 -3b changes in the route, or intermittent distance ®� and destination information. D Guidance: If used, the appropriate arrow (M6-1 through M6-7) sign (see Figure 913-4) should be placed below the Bike route Guide sign. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Description Facility CA MUTCD Graphic Type CODE The BICYCLE PARKING AREA (134-3) sign or C BICYCLE PARKING (G93C(CA)) sign may be Bicycle D4-3 PARKING �-- installed where it is desirable to show the direction to a designated bicycle parking area. Parking G93C (CA) —J The arrow may be reversed as appropriate. P�eKiN� Directional sign for bikeway access to bike ��t, paths. The wording on the D11-1 and S17 (CA) Bike Path D11-1 ` •' signs can be changed to reflect a bike path and Class I S17 (CA) a specific bike path, respectively. M6-1 • • � • Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Warning Signage Description Facility Type CA MUTCD Graphic CODE The Bicycle Warning sign alerts the road user to unexpected entries into the roadway by r. bicyclists, and other crossing activities that Non` >t_ might cause conflicts. These conflicts might be Bikeway W-11-1 relatively confined, or might occur randomly Facilities over a segment of roadway. This sign may use supplemental signs below the sign. Other bicycle warning signs such as SLIPPERY WHEN WET may be installed on bicycle All Bikeways W8-10 facilities to warn bicyclists of conditions not W8 -10p readily apparent. Other bicycle warning signs such as Hill may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn bicyclists All Bikeways W7-5 of conditions not readily apparent. Other bicycle warning signs such as BIKEWAY lox NARROWS may be installed on bicycle facilities Bike Path^ °ter to warn bicyclists of conditions not readily Class I W5 -4a -``�` . apparent. Other bicycle warning signs such as NARROW BRIDGE may be installed on bicycle facilities to All Bikeways W5-2 warn bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent. May be used to warn bike path users of Bike Path W11-2 F` pedestrian activity. Class I �'3 May be used to warn bikeway users of a traffic: All Bikeways W3-3 signal ahead. Other bicycle warning signs such as BUMP may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn All Bikeways W8-1MIp bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent. Other bicycle warning signs such as DIP may be installed on bicycle facilities to warn All Bikeways W8-2; bicyclists of conditions not readily apparent. May warn bike path users of a playground Bike Path W15-1 ahead that may be adjacent to the path. Class I To warn motorists to watch for bicyclists Bike Route SHAR traveling along the highway, the SHARE THE W16-1 ROAD plaque may be used with W11-1 sign. Class III Appendix G Implementation Toolbox Temporary Traffic Control (TTC) Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including: • Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network • Helping users identify the best routes to destinations • Helping to address misperceptions about time and distance • Helping overcome a "barrier to entry' for people who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., "interested but concerned" bicyclists) A community -wide bicycle wayfinding signage plan would identify: • Sign locations • Sign type —what information should be included and design features • Destinations to be highlighted on each sign — key destinations for bicyclists • May include approximate distance and travel time to each destination Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bike route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bike routes, including the intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists rather than per vehicle signage standards. Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. CA Description Facility Type MUTCD Graphic CODE The PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE DETOUR (M4 -9a) should be used where a pedestrian/bicycle detour route has been established because of the closing of a pedestrian/ bicycle facility to Bike Path through traffic. Standard: If used, the Pedestrian/Bicycle Class I M4 -9a Detour sign shall have an arrow pointing in the appropriate direction. The BICYCLE DETOUR (M4 -9c) may be used where a pedestrian Bike Lane or bicycle detour route (not both) has been established Class II; or M4 -9c because of the closing of a bicycle facility to through traffic. Bike Route Class III Several standard signs [W21-5, W21 -5a, W21 -5b, C24 (CA), Bike Route Class III or W21 -5a C30A (CA), C31A (CA)] may be used to warn bicyclists of other Shared C24 (CA) changes in conditions regarding the roadway shoulder. Roadway Signage can serve both wayfinding and safety purposes including: • Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle network • Helping users identify the best routes to destinations • Helping to address misperceptions about time and distance • Helping overcome a "barrier to entry' for people who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g., "interested but concerned" bicyclists) A community -wide bicycle wayfinding signage plan would identify: • Sign locations • Sign type —what information should be included and design features • Destinations to be highlighted on each sign — key destinations for bicyclists • May include approximate distance and travel time to each destination Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue motorists that they are driving along a bike route and should use caution. Signs are typically placed at key locations leading to and along bike routes, including the intersection of multiple routes. Too many road signs tend to clutter the right-of-way, and it is recommended that these signs be posted at a level most visible to bicyclists rather than per vehicle signage standards. Additional References and Guidelines AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. Caltrans CA-MUTCD. 2014 NACTO. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2012. Appendix G Implementation Toolbox MISCELLANEOUS Rumble Strips Rumble strips are provided to alert motorists that they are wandering off the travel lanes onto the shoulder. They are most common on long sections of straight freeways in rural settings, but are also used on sections of winding streets where vehicles may cross into the shoulder. Early designs placed bumps across the entire width of the shoulder, which is very uncomfortable for cyclists. A newer rumble strip design is more bicycle -friendly: 12-16 inch grooves are cut to the left of the bike lane line and a right edge line is added at this location. This creates a buffer area between the travel lane and the bike lane. Drainage Gates Care must be taken to ensure that drainage grates are bicycle- •xi��m ie' � sv®chw safe. If not, a bicycle wheel may fall into the slots of the grate causing the cyclist to fall. Replacing existing grates or welding thin metal straps across the grate perpendicular to the direction of is required. These should be checked periodically to ensure that the straps remain in place. The most effective way to avoid drainage-ot..,+rate roblems is to eliminate them entirel with the use of inlets dlr flavel dir Uavel g p y trarei uavet trarei in the curb face. If a street -surface grate is required for drainage, A B c care must be taken to ensure that the grate is flush with the road surface. Inlets should be raised after a pavement overlay to within 6 mm (1/4") of the new surface. If this is not possible or practical, the pavement must taper into drainage inlets so they do not cause an abrupt edge at the inlet. Reflectors & Raised Pavement Markers These can deflect a bicycle wheel, causing the cyclist to lose control. If pavement markers are needed for motorists, they should be installed on the motorist's side of the stripe, and have a beveled front edge. Pavement markers should not be used on shoulder lines or turn lane lines, as cyclists tend to use these. The use of raised pavement markers has been restricted or prohibited by several jurisdictions in recent years, including Washington State. Provisions can be made for their use in certain circumstances, including lane tapers, on uphill edgelines with SO' separation between installations, and where a specific engineering study concludes that the benefit of the installation to correct a demonstrable problem at a given site. Sidewalks as Bicycle Facilities The use of sidewalks as bicycle facilities is not encouraged by AASHTO. There are exceptions to this rule: while in residential areas, it is true that sidewalk riding by young children too inexperienced to ride in the street is common. With lower bicycle speeds and lower auto speeds, potential conflicts are somewhat lessened, but still exist. But it is inappropriate to sign these facilities as bikeways. Bicyclists should not be encouraged (through signing) to ride facilities that are not designed to accommodate bicycle travel. Sidewalks can be used for short distances to make connections between off-street shared use paths and other facilities when such routing provides safer and more direct access than other available options. Shared use paths and cycle tracks can be placed next to sidewalks if appropriately designed. EXHIBIT "B" -8- PC2017-*** Exhibit B - 1 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Proposed Top Priority Proposed Top Priority (City Boundary Class I Bikeway �— Class III Bikeway -- — Proposed 2nd Priority Proposed 2nd Priority Sphere -of -Influence... Class l Bikeway ___.___. Class 111 Bikeway Proposed 3rd Priority Proposed 3rd Priority Class I Bikeway Class III Bikeway Adopted: Mey 21, 223, Revised: November 23, 2016 e 1 City of Anaheim onou: General Plan Program Figure C-5 Page C-33 Fxhibit B - 1 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities Z unsung rroposeu Clawl Regional Bike Path ! Transit Station Class I Bike Patln 011 1119 Claw I Bike Path 0 Park -and -Ride Claw It Bike Lane 01102 Claw II Bike Lane WM Paiks/Open Space Class III Bike Route I I I I I Class III Bike Route F-1 school OR Road Trail ---- ORRoad Trail _ City Boundary Sphere -of -Influence n US n =gra City of Anaheim General Plan Program Figure C-5 Page C-33 Exhibit B - 2 Green Plan u �yc— ISIRats as .wa wmr s,hoob f ahm,i P.eir ie W.— [_� c.�ma..mr anrauo�zaK n -- City B.duy sphceof e.. 'Reaidc,,h meas outside ,uty Nle radius of .it..i -f or i.i P k. ry Ped or qumter- mila radius ote Mini Park. MAdopted: May 25.2004 Revised: Novmtb�rc 23, 2016 City of Anaheim 0 o.s t z vwtita General Plan Program Figure G-1 Page G-5 Exhibit B - 2 Green Plan opo, g— 'E, ----... Goacounc (5! Grail School Lpcnion O Public Schoo4 CLlmnl Facilnia Growdwamr goiwiow Zm�e O Pa'k Defcirnry Mu' ciryeowdvy Sphceof-IMumx -Resd.fiW an:aa —i& Wf-mile radius of Ncighborlwod-CartuaaaiN Pad: or gwrlm- milc.diuc ofa Mini Park. a, Mla City of Anaheim General Plan Program Figure G-1 Page G-5 EXHIBIT "C" -9- PC2017-*** MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR CITY OF ANAHEIM 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN CEQA Action: Addendum to the Program Environmental Impact Report No. 330 (EIR 330) and Supplemental Environmental impact Report No. 346 (EIR 346) 1. Project Description — The 2017 Bicycle Master Plan (Miscellaneous Case No 2017-00651) Project is a City -initiated update to the City of Anaheim's 2004 Bicycle Master Plan. The project includes amendments to the General Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 2017-00513) to provide consistency between the proposed 2017 Bicycle Master Plan and the General Plan. 2. Property Owner/Developer — Any owner or developer of real property within the City boundaries. 3. Environmental Equivalent/Timing — Any Mitigation Measure and timing thereof, subject to the approval of the City, which will have the same or superior result and will have the same or superior effect on the environment. The Planning Department, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or City departments, shall determine the adequacy of any proposed "environmental equivalent/timing" and, if determined necessary, may refer said determination to the Planning Commission. Any costs associated with information required in order to make a determination of environmental equivalency/timing shall be borne by the property owner/developer. Staff time for reviews will be charged on a time and materials basis at the rate in the City's adopted fee schedule. 4. Timing — This is the point where a mitigation measure must be monitored for compliance. In the case where multiple action items are indicated, it is the first point where compliance associated with the mitigation measure must be monitored. Once the initial action item has been complied with, no additional monitoring pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan will occur because routine City practices and procedures will ensure that the intent of the measure has been complied with. For example, if the timing is "to be shown on approved building plans" subsequent to issuance of the building permit consistent with the approved plans will be final building and zoning inspections pursuant to the building permit to ensure compliance. 5. Responsibility for Monitoring — Shall mean that compliance with the subject mitigation measure(s) shall be reviewed and determined adequate by all departments listed for each mitigation measure. 6. Ongoing Mitigation Measures — The mitigation measures that are designated to occur on an ongoing basis as part of this mitigation monitoring program will be monitored in the form of an annual letter from the property owner/developer in January of each year stating how compliance with the subject measures(s) has been achieved. When compliance with a measure has been demonstrated for a period of one year, monitoring of the measure will be deemed to be satisfied and no further monitoring will occur. For measures that are to be monitored "Ongoing During Construction," the annual letter will review those measures only while construction is occurring. Monitoring will be discontinued after construction is completed. 7. Building Permit — For purposes of this mitigation monitoring program, a building permit shall be defined as any permit issued for construction of a new building or structural expansion or modification of any existing building but shall not include any permits required for interior tenant improvements or minor additions to an existing structure or building. IN MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible forMonitorin Completion AIR QUALITY Prior to the Applicable Mitigation Measures from the 2004 Certified EIR Public Works issuance of grading 5.2-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the property Department/Engineering permits. owner/developer shall include a note on all grading plans, which Division, Traffic and requires the construction contractor to implement following Transportation Division; measures during grading. These measures shall also be discussed at the pregrade conference. Planning • Use low emission mobile construction equipment. Department/Building • Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them Division tuned. • Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. • Utilize existing power sources (i.e., power poles) when feasible. • Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. • Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. When feasible, construction should be planned so that lane closures on existing streets are kept to a minimum. • Schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. • Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). Prior to issuance of 5.2-6 The City will encourage the incorporation of bus stands, bicycle Public Works building permit. racks, bicycle lanes, and other alternative transportation related Department/Engineering infrastructure in new developments. Division, Traffic and Transportation Division; Planning Department/Building Division MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible forMonitorin Completion BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Prior to issuance of 5.3-1 Retention of rare communities shall be incorporated into building Planning grading permit. and project design to the maximum extent practical. Rare Department/Building communities include oak, riparian and wetland, walnut woodland, Division, Advanced and coastal sage scrub. If retention is not practical, healthy Planning Division; Zoning specimens shall be relocated and/or replaced. Division Prior to issuance of 5.3-2 Property owners/developers will be required to restore and re- Planning certificate of vegetate where the loss of small and/or isolated habitat patches is Department/Building occupancy. proposed. Division, Advanced Planning Division; Zoning Division Prior to issuance of 5.3-3 If construction activity is timed to occur during the nesting season Planning grading permit. (typically between March 1 and July 1), developers will be required Department/Building to provide focused surveys for nesting birds pursuant to California Division, Advanced Department of Fish and Game requirements. Such surveys shall Planning Division; Zoning identi avoidance measures taken to protect active nests. Division Ongoing during 5.3-4 Removal of nonnative trees shall be permitted only outside the Planning construction nesting season. Department/Building activities. Division, Advanced Planning Division; Zoning Division Ongoing during 5.3-5 Any crushing of existing habitat during the breeding season of the Planning construction gnatcatcher shall occur only under the supervision of a biological Department/Building activities monitor. Division, Advanced Planning Division; Zoning Division Prior to issuance of 5.3-6 Preserved and/or protected areas will be identified by the project Planning grading permit. biologist and isolated with construction fencing or similar materials Department/Building prior to clearing or grading activities. Protected areas include Division, Advanced existing woodland and coastal sage scrub adjacent to revegetation Planning Division; Zoning areas and individual trees and patches of native habitat to be Division reserved within reve etation areas. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible forMonitorin Completion Prior to issuance of 5.3-7 Lighting in residential areas and along roadways shall be designed Planning building permit. to prevent artificial lighting from reflecting into adjacent natural Department/Building areas. Division, Advanced Planning Division; Zoning Division; Public Works Department/Traffic and Transportation Division Prior to issuance of 5.3-8 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any project potentially Public Works grading perm it. affecting riparian or wetland habitat, the property owner/developer Department/Engineering shall provide evidence that all necessary permits have been obtained Division; Planning from the State Department of Fish and Game (pursuant to Section Department/Building 1601-1603 of the Fish and Game Code) and the U.S. Army Corps of Division, Advanced Engineers (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) or that Planning Division; Zoning no such permits are required, in a manner meeting the approval of Division the City of Anaheim Planning Department. If a Section 404 Permit from the ACOE is required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will also be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. CULTURAL RESOURCES Prior to issuance of 5.4-1 City staff shall require property owners/developers to provide Planning grading permit. studies to document the presence/absence of historic resources for Department/Building areas with documented or inferred resource presence. On properties Division, Advanced where resources are identified, such studies shall provide a detailed Planning Division; Zoning mitigation plan, including a monitoring program and recovery and/or Division in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist. Prior to issuance of 5.4-2 City staff shall require property owners/developers to provide Planning grading permit. studies to document the presence/absence of archaeological and/or Department/Building paleontological resources for areas with documented or inferred Division, Advanced resource presence. On properties where resources are identified, Planning Division; Zoning such studies shall provide a detailed mitigation plan, including a Division monitoring program and recovery and/or in situ preservation plan, based on the recommendations of a qualified specialist. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 343 FOR 2017 BICYCLE MASTER PLAN Timing Mitigation Measure Responsible for Completion Monitoring Prior to issuance of 5.4-3 All archaeological resources shall be subject to the provisions of Planning grading permit. CEQA (Public Resources Code) Section 21083.2. Department/Building Division, Advanced Planning Division; Zoning Division GEOLOGY AND SOILS Prior to issuance of 5.5-1 The City shall require geologic and geotechnical investigations in Planning grading permit. areas of potential seismic or geologic hazards as part of the Department/Building environmental or development review process. All grading Division operations will be conducted in conformance with the recommendations contained in the applicable geotechnical investigation. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Prior to issuance of 5.6-3 Prior to issuance of any discretionary permit for a current or former Planning any discretionary hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site, the project Department/Building permit for a property owner/developer shall submit a Phase I Environmental Site Division, Advanced current or former Assessment to the City. If possible hazardous materials are Planning Division; Zoning hazardous waste identified during the site assessments, the appropriate Division disposal site or response/remedial measures will be implemented in accordance with solid waste the requirements of the Orange County Health Care Agency disposal site. (OCHCA) and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RW CB), as appropriate. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Ongoing. 5.7-1 The City shall work with the Orange County Flood Control District Public Works to ensure that flood control facilities are well maintained and capable Department/Engineering of accommodating, at a minimum, future 25 -year storm flows. Division; Planning Department/Advanced Planning Division Prior to issuance of 5.7-2 The City shall require that new developments conduct a drainage Public Works grading permit. study and mitigate its drainage impacts if the development creates a Department/Engineering deficiency in an existing storm drain facility or discharges to an Division; Planning existing deficient facility. Department/Building Division CLERK'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, LINDA ANDAL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original Resolution No. 2017-081 adopted at a regular meeting provided by law, of the Anaheim City Council held on the 23rd day of May, 2017 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: Mayor Tait and Council Members Vanderbilt, Murray, Barnes, Moreno, and Faessel NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Council Member Kring IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of May, 2017. (SEAL)