Loading...
Systemic Safety Analysis Report & Local Roadway Safety Plan - 2020 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page i Prepared For: City of Pismo Beach Prepared By: GHD 669 Pacific Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805-858-3141 Adopted December 1st, 2020 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL Mayor: Ed Waage Mayor Pro Tempore: Erik Howell Council Member: Sheila Blake Council Member: Marcia Guthrie Council Member: Mary Ann Reiss PARTNERS Caltrans District 5 City of Arroyo Grande City of Grover Beach San Luis Obispo Council of Governments CITY STAFF City Manager: James R. Lewis Director of Public Works: Benjamin A. Fine, P.E. Police Chief: Jake Miller Fire Battalion Chief: Paul Lee Engineer: Chad Stoehr Public Works Management Analyst: Erin Olsen GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... ii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Vision and Goals .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Vision Zero Statement ....................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Goals .................................................................................................................................. 4 3. Safety Partners ............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Safety Leadership .............................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................... 6 4. Plan Development and Process ................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding ............................................................... 7 4.2 Systemic Citywide Safety Pattern Analysis ....................................................................... 7 4.3 Site Specific Analysis ......................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Traffic Safety Committee Review ...................................................................................... 7 4.5 Virtual Public Outreach ...................................................................................................... 7 4.6 Adoption ............................................................................................................................. 8 5. Existing Efforts ............................................................................................................................. 9 6. Data Summary ........................................................................................................................... 11 6.1 Citywide Collision Trends................................................................................................. 11 6.1.1 Overall Collision Trend ................................................................................... 14 6.1.2 Injury and Fatal Only Collision Trends............................................................ 14 6.1.3 Pedestrian collision trend ............................................................................... 15 6.1.4 Bicycle Collision Trend ................................................................................... 16 6.1.5 Human and Economic Impact ........................................................................ 17 6.2 Traffic Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 18 7. Citywide Systematic Collision Pattern Analysis ......................................................................... 21 7.1 Citywide Predominant Contributing Factors .................................................................... 21 7.2 Pedestrian Collision Types and Predominant Contributing Factors ................................ 22 7.3 Bicycle Collision Types and Predominant Contributing Factors ...................................... 23 8. Emphasis Areas ......................................................................................................................... 24 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page iv 8.1 Emphasis Area #1: Highest Incident Locations ............................................................... 24 8.1.1 Engineering Recommendations ..................................................................... 25 8.1.2 Education Recommendations ......................................................................... 25 8.1.3 Enforcement Recommendations .................................................................... 25 8.1.4 Emergency Services Recommendations ....................................................... 25 8.2 Emphasis Area #2: Intersection Visibility ......................................................................... 26 8.2.1 Engineering Recommendations ..................................................................... 27 8.2.2 Education Recommendations ......................................................................... 27 8.2.3 Enforcement Recommendations .................................................................... 27 8.2.4 Emergency Services Recommendations ....................................................... 27 8.3 Emphasis Area #3: Impaired Driving ............................................................................... 28 8.3.1 Engineering Recommendations ..................................................................... 29 8.3.2 Education Recommendations ......................................................................... 29 8.3.3 Enforcement Recommendations .................................................................... 29 8.3.4 Emergency Services Recommendations ....................................................... 29 8.4 Emphasis Area #4: Speeding .......................................................................................... 30 8.4.1 Engineering Recommendations ..................................................................... 31 8.4.2 Education Recommendations ......................................................................... 31 8.4.3 Enforcement Recommendations .................................................................... 31 8.4.4 Emergency Services Recommendations ....................................................... 31 8.5 Emphasis Area #5: Access Management ........................................................................ 32 8.5.1 Engineering Recommendations ..................................................................... 33 8.5.2 Education Recommendations ......................................................................... 33 8.5.3 Enforcement Recommendations .................................................................... 33 8.5.4 Emergency Services Recommendations ....................................................... 33 9. High Incident Data Analysis (Systemic Safety Analysis Report - SSAR) .................................. 35 9.1 Top Locations and Recommended Projects .................................................................... 35 9.1.1 Recommendations and Benefit-Cost Analysis ............................................... 35 9.1.2 Dolliver/Hwy 1 (Main St. to Ocean View Ave.) Ranks #1, #3, #6, #7, & #8 ... 36 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page v 9.1.2.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Bulbouts ..................................... 39 9.1.2.2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Parking Restrictions/Restriping . 41 9.1.2.3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Right Turn Pocket ...................... 43 9.1.3 N. 4th Street and 5 Cities Drive Rank #2 ......................................................... 44 9.1.3.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis - Signal Upgrade ........................... 47 9.1.4 North Oak Park Blvd. and West Branch St. Rank #4 ..................................... 48 9.1.4.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Signal upgrades ......................... 51 9.1.5 Price St. and Hinds Ave. Rank #5 .................................................................. 52 9.1.5.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Restriping ................................... 55 10. Site Specific Locations ............................................................................................................... 57 10.1 Summary of Site Specific Location and Recommended Approaches ............................. 57 10.1.1 Price St / Mattie Rd Intersection and segment Locations #1 & #2 ................. 58 10.1.1.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis-Restriping and sidewalk ................ 60 10.1.2 Beachfront Promenade (Main St. to Edgewater Hotel) .................................. 61 10.1.2.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Beachfront Promenade from Main St. to Cypress St. ................................................................................... 63 10.1.3 Sidewalk and Bike lane under US 101 (Mattie Rd. to Shell Beach Rd.) ........ 64 10.1.3.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Sidewalk and Restripe ............... 66 10.1.4 Shell Beach Rd. (Spyglass Dr. to Terrace Ave) ............................................. 67 10.1.4.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Sidewalk on Shell Beach Rd. .... 69 10.1.5 Sidewalk on Coburn Lane (sidewalk along Coburn Lane to existing sidewalk on Shell Beach Rd.) ........................................................................................ 70 10.1.5.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Sidewalk on Coburn Ln. ............. 72 10.1.6 Price Canyon Rd. and Bello St ....................................................................... 73 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis- Signalize and modification of the Intersection76 11. Evaluation and Implementation .................................................................................................. 77 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page vi Figure Index Figure 1 Local Road Safety Plans courtesy of Federal Highway Administration ................................... 2 Figure 2. A New Vision for Safety .......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. 2014-2018 Citywide Collision Locations ............................................................................... 11 Figure 4. Collision hotspots in the city center ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 5. Collision hotspots outside the city center .............................................................................. 13 Figure 6: All Collisions .......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Injury and Fatal Collisions ..................................................................................................... 14 Figure 8. Citywide Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity ........................................................................ 15 Figure 9. Citywide Pedestrian Collision Location ................................................................................. 15 Figure 10. Citywide Bicycle Collision Injury Severity ............................................................................ 16 Figure 11. Citywide Bicycle Collision Location ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 12. Overall Citations .................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 13. Speeding Citation ................................................................................................................ 18 Figure 14. DUI Arrest............................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 15. Citation by Vehicle Code Section ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 16. Predominant Collision Factors ............................................................................................ 21 Figure 17. Pedestrian Collision Types.................................................................................................. 22 Figure 18. Predominant Bicycle Collisions ........................................................................................... 23 Dolliver Street & Ocean View Avenue shown to represent typical segment collision patterns ............ 37 Exhibit A: Dolliver Street and Cabrillo Highway- Bulbouts ................................................................... 38 Exhibit B.1: Dolliver Street and Cabrillo Highway Parking Restrictions ............................................... 40 Exhibit B.2: Dolliver Street and Cabrillo Highway Right Turn Pocket .................................................. 42 4Th Street and 5 Cities Drive collision patterns ..................................................................................... 45 Exhibit C: Five Cities Dr. and 4th Street ................................................................................................ 46 Branch Street and Oak Park Boulevard collision patterns ................................................................... 49 Exhibit D: North Oak Park Blvd and Branch St. ................................................................................... 50 Price Street and Hinds Avenue collision patterns ................................................................................ 53 Exhibit E: Price and Hinds Left turn Pocket ......................................................................................... 54 Exhibit F: Price St. and Mattie Rd. ....................................................................................................... 59 Exhibit G: Beachfront Promenade ........................................................................................................ 62 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page vii Exhibit H: Sidewalk and bike lane under US 101 ................................................................................. 65 Exhibit I: Shell Beach Rd. ..................................................................................................................... 68 Exhibit J: Sidewalk on Coburn Ln. ........................................................................................................ 71 Price Canyon Road and Bello Street collision patterns ........................................................................ 74 Exhibit K: Price Canyon Rd and Bello St.............................................................................................. 75 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 1 Executive Summary The City of Pismo Beach and GHD are pleased to present the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR). The purpose of this document is to establish the framework and process for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on the City of Pismo Beach’s streets. The LRSP section of this report identifies the top Pismo Beach systemic collision trends and recommends countermeasures across the four safety disciplines; Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. The SSAR section of this report identifies the specific top collision locations in Pismo Beach based on collision frequency and recommends countermeasures that can be implemented to mitigate collision patterns. In addition to top collision frequency locations, this report also assesses key locations identified by City staff and officials based anticipated multimodal volume influxes due to new developments and destinations. This plan and report are prepared in compliance with the State and Federal guidelines for eligibility to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program funding (HSIP) and provides the necessary data to support current and future applications for the recommended projects. LRSPs are critically important as, according to the Federal Highway Administration, over 80% of all public roads are operated by local or rural governments and approximately 56% of all fatalities occur on these roads. Even beyond the tragedy of severe incapacitating injuries and deaths, traffic collisions have a significant cost to the community. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) estimated that in 2017 traffic collisions resulted in $836 billion dollars in damages, and effected quality of life, and household productivity. The data presented in this report is from 2018 and prior, as this is the most recent data available and is typical due to collision report processing time frames and late reporting by involved parties. In future HISP grant cycles, an adopted LRSP will be a prerequisite for grant eligibility. In 2018 the City of Pismo Beach experienced 104 traffic collisions, the same as the prior year. Generally, Pismo Beach’s overall collision trend has remained relatively static. The injury collision trend has also remained relatively static with 26 occurring in 2018 and the same occurring in 2017. However, in comparison, the State of California has experienced a 6% reduction and the US a 2% reduction in overall collisions, therefore the City is tracking slightly below State and National trends for traffic safety. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 2 1. Introduction The City of Pismo Beach is committed to improving transportation safety and reducing the risk of death and serious injury that result from incidents on its transportation systems. The purpose of this report is to establish the framework and process for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing systemic roadway safety improvements on the city’s streets. As part of an ongoing effort to make safety improvements, the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was developed in collaboration between the City and its safety partners. The City of Pismo Beach LRSP includes the following elements depicted below in Figure 1: Figure 1 Local Road Safety Plans courtesy of Federal Highway Administration GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 3 2. Vision and Goals 2.1 Vision Zero Statement The Vision of this plan, or an idealized description of the plan’s success, is a future for the City where there are no severe injuries or fatalities as a result of traffic collisions. The City would strive towards achieving this vision while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Traditionally, traffic deaths and severe injuries have been considered inevitable side effects of modern life. The reality is that these tragedies can be addressed over time by taking a proactive and preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue. Vision Zero is a significant departure from the status quo in two major ways:  Vision Zero recognizes that people will sometimes make mistakes, so the road system and related policies should be designed to minimize those inevitable mistakes and reduce their likeliness to result in severe injuries or fatalities. This means that system designers and policymakers are expected to improve the roadway environment, policies (such as speed management), and other related systems to lessen the severity of crashes. Roadway users are however still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all applicable laws and use reasonable judgement when conducting themselves within the public right of way.  Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary stakeholders to address this complex problem. In the past, meaningful, cross-disciplinary collaboration among local traffic planners and engineers, policymakers, and public health professionals has not been standard practice. Vision Zero acknowledges that many factors contribute to safe mobility -- including roadway design, enforcement, education, and emergency response -- and sets clear goals to achieve the shared goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries. Figure 2. A New Vision for Safety GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 4 2.2 Goals From 2014 to 2018, 584 traffic crashes occurred within the City of Pismo Beach with 13 of these crashes ending in serious injuries or death. In addition to these tragedies, the economic impact of these crashes was greater than $6.5 million per year. Based on an assessment of collisions citywide, the major contributing factors to these crashes are unsafe speed, intersection sight distance, driving under the influence (DUI), and private driveway access management. Based on these predominant factors the goals to achieving a vision of no traffic related sever injuries or fatalities, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all are as follows: 1. Addressing Collision Patterns at High Incident Locations. The City should systematically identify and prioritize the City’s highest collision incident locations approximately every two years. The City should also analyze, develop countermeasures, and implement those counter measures using Grants, General Fund, and Fees from Development Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures. 2. Managing speed to appropriate levels. The City should strive to reduce excessive speeding behavior and subsequently reduce the number of speeding related collisions. 3. Reducing Impaired Driving. The City should endeavor to minimize impaired driving through engagement with alcohol serving establishments, public education campaigns, and enforcement actions and enforcement presence. 4. Improving intersection visibility. The City should strive to maintain intersection visibility where it is currently adequate and improve intersection visibility where it its limited. The City should pursue jurisdictional authority from Caltrans over Dolliver Street and consider implementing various sight distance improvements as documented herein. 5. Managing private driveway access to City streets. The City should establish access management standards and policies that minimize conflict points and subsequently reduce the number of collisions along high frequency driveway corridors or at driveways in immediate proximity to controlled intersections. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 5 3. Safety Partners Safety partners are those agencies and organizations whose input and support are foundational to a successful plan. The safety leadership team is primarily comprised of City Departments that have key roles in the development, implementation, and operation of safety projects, programs, and policies. The leadership team is ultimately responsible for developing, adopting, and implementing the plan and program. The stakeholder team is distinguished from the leadership team as it is comprised of partner agencies and organizations who collaborate with the City and contribute to and assist with the development and implementation of the plan. These agencies and their roles in the plan’s development and implementation are provided below: 3.1 Safety Leadership A. City Council The legislative body which is ultimately responsible for adopting the final plan, setting safety policies, and approving budget and funding levels. B. Traffic Safety Committee The non-legislative advisory body including both City Administrative staff as well as well as a volunteer citizen representation which evaluates and provides feedback on the plan. C. Public Works Public Works is the lead City Department in development and production of the plan and its periodic updates. The Public Works Department is responsible for assembling other City Departments and collaborating with Stakeholders. Public Works is also responsible for capital project implementation. The City’s Public Works staff may also lead or collaborate in education campaigns. D. Police Department The City’s Police Department collaborates with and assists the City’s Public Works Department in the development and production of the plan and its periodic updates. The Police Department maintains collision records and is responsible for carrying out enforcement practices and activities. The City’s Police Department may also lead or collaborate in education campaigns. E. Fire Department The City’s Fire Department serves in a support role in the development and production of the plan. F. Community Development The Community Development Department supports implementation of the plan through its development review responsibilities. Community Development assigns conditions of approval and mitigation measures to new development applications in collaboration with Public Works where nexus is found and ensure new development requirements are implemented. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 6 3.2 Stakeholders I. City of Arroyo Grande and City of Grover Beach The Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach border Pismo Beach. Roadways and intersections along these borders require communication and collaboration. Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach also compete and coordinate on regional funding allocations through the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. These agencies provide feedback to the City of Pismo Beach over the course of plan development and updates in regards to bordering facilities, regional safety goals and policies, as well as cooperative funding arrangements. II. San Luis Obispo County and County Sheriff Similar to the City of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach, San Luis Obispo County also borders Pismo Beach, although to a much lesser degree in terms of roadway infrastructure. The County also provides feedback to the City of Pismo Beach over the course of plan development and updates along County borders as well as regional safety programs, policies, and funding. III. Caltrans Caltrans has jurisdiction over US 101 and Dolliver/Hwy 1 through the City’s limits. Caltrans also provides oversight of various grant funding sources. Many of the City’s streets and intersections borders State controlled roadways and ramps. Caltrans provides feedback on the development of this plan and confirms its compliance with HSIP requirements for future funding eligibility. Under SB 504, the City is authorized to pursue the relinquishment of Dolliver Street from Caltrans. IV. San Luis Obispo Council of Government (SLOCOG) The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments coordinates regional transportation programs and projects as well as regional funding allocations. SLOCOG provides feedback on the development of the plan and updates in context to regional planning activities and potential funding allocations. V. Pismo Chamber of Commerce The Pismo Beach Chamber of Commerce represents business interests across the City, including those businesses in the downtown core where City collision concentrations are the highest. The Chamber provides feedback on plan development and in particular how the recommended countermeasures fit with economic vitality goals of the City and its business community. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 7 4. Plan Development and Process 4.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program Funding Beginning with HSIP Cycle 11, an approved LRSP will be a requirement for funding eligibility going forward. The City of Pismo Beach was successful in grant funding to prepare this combination SSAR and LRSP, which has been developed to meet application requirements of the HSIP program. 4.2 Systemic Citywide Safety Pattern Analysis An assessment of all city traffic collisions over the course of 5 years was performed. The predominant city-wide systemic patterns were identified along with the most common contributing factors leading to those patterns. These factors established the top five emphasis areas the City should focus on to reduce traffic collisions. For each factor, multidisciplinary counter measures were developed, including engineering, education, and enforcement. 4.3 Site Specific Analysis In addition to Systemic Citywide Patterns the collision incident locations in the City were identified, prioritized, and ranked. The collisions at each location were evaluated and potentially correctable patterns were identified. Countermeasure recommendations were developed to reduce collisions at the top ranked locations. Preliminary designs, cost estimates, and a benefit-cost ratio (a measure of and justification for the economic investment in the improvement versus the value of the benefit) were prepared. 4.4 Traffic Safety Committee Review The City of Pismo Beach has an established Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) consisting of City Administration staff, emergency services staff, Public Works staff, as well as a citizen representative. The safety pattern analysis and site-specific analysis along with preliminary recommendations was presented to this Committee on February 27, 2020. The program and its recommendations were updated over the course of plan development consistent with feedback provided from the group. 4.5 Virtual Public Outreach Development of the City’s SSAR and LRSP occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. While in person workshops were initially anticipated with both leadership and stakeholder groups, State and Local shelter in place order, and other various related public meeting restrictions prevented this type of outreach. Due to restriction on gathering size, a virtual outreach platform was developed to present plan information, drafts, and provided a forum for feedback on plan development from October 2020 through the plans adoption. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 8 4.6 Adoption The City’s SSAR and LRSP was presented to the City Council at a public hearing on December 1st 2020. The item received public input supporting recommendations of the plan. The plan was unanimously adopted by Council resolution. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 9 5. Existing Efforts In conjunction with safety policies and guidelines stated in the Pismo Beach Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Transportation Plan, and the City of Pismo Beach Circulation Element, there are several safety projects that are currently in progress, nearly complete, recently completed or will begin in the near future. These projects are:  Mattie Road Sidewalk Extension (pedestrian safety, extends sidewalk from Pismo Preserve under US 101 to Price St.) – Completed in June 2020.  Shell Beach Streetscape (bike/pedestrian safety, installation of a multi-use path along 12 blocks of Shell Beach Road) – Completed early Fall 2020.  Bello Bridge replacement (transportation safety, replacement of closed bridge to add an additional transportation and evacuation route) – in progress, anticipated project completion in summer of 2021. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 10 DATA ANALYSIS GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 11 6. Data Summary 6.1 Citywide Collision Trends The past five complete years of collision data (2014-2018) were downloaded from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database for the analysis. This data was then cross- checked with the injury collisions in the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). The City of Pismo Beach provided collision history at the study locations, this data was added to the final data set to complete a comprehensive crash record for the City. Figure 3 below depicts the citywide collision frequency; areas in red have the highest frequency of traffic collisions and areas in blue or grey have the lowest. As shown in Figure 3, the highest concentration of collisions in the City are along Highway 1 (Dolliver Street) and Price St. between Main St. and Ocean View Ave. The figure also depicts isolated high concentrations of collisions at 4th Street and 5 Cities Drive as well as N. Oak Park Blvd. and W. Branch Street. Figure 3. 2014-2018 Citywide Collision Locations GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 12 Figure 4 below depicts a more focused view of the highest concentration area of the collisions in the City. As shown, Dolliver/Hwy 1 from Main Street to Ocean View Avenue has the highest concentration. The vast majority of collisions within this section involved vehicles turning onto or from side streets colliding with vehicles traveling along Highway 1. On October 3, 2019 Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 504 which allows Caltrans to relinquish its jurisdiction of this section of Highway 1 to the City of Pismo Beach. The Bill went into effect in January of 2020; however at the time of this plan the relinquishment has not yet been accepted by the City. Figure 4. Collision hotspots in the city center GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 13 In addition to the concentration of collisions in the vicinity shown in Figure 4, Figure 5 below depicts two (2) isolated collision concentrations: one at 4th Street and 5 Cities Drive and the other at N. Oak Park Blvd. and W. Branch Street. Collisions at both of these locations primarily involved various turning movements and approaches at the signalized intersections as well as vehicles turning into and from driveways in close proximity to the signalized intersections. Figure 5. Collision hotspots outside the city center GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 14 6.1.1 Overall Collision Trend Figure 6 below shows collision from 2014 to 2018, the total number of collisions reported in the City remained relatively stable with a slight spike in 2016. It should be noted that the overall collision chart below does not represent all collisions that occur in the City—rather all reported collisions where a collision report is generated. Many collisions may be unreported by the involved parties, or reported by the parties without an officer investigation. Figure 6: All Collisions 6.1.2 Injury and Fatal Only Collision Trends Injury collisions are the most accurate representation of overall collision trends because these types of collisions are most consistently reported and investigated. There was one less injury collision from 2017 to 2018. Aside from 2014, injury collisions have been on a slight upward trend over the last five years. Figure 7: Injury and Fatal Collisions It’s difficult to identify a trend in fatal collisions for the City because these types of collisions are infrequent, sporadic, and typically occur under unusual circumstances. There were two fatal collisions between 2014 and 2018. The first collision located at Five Cities Dr. and 4th St. involved a cyclist hitting an object with no known contributing factors, the second at Shell Beach Rd. and Leeward Ave. was a broadside collision which involved a vehicle and a motorcycle attributed to impaired driving. 0 50 100 150 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 82 97 113 77 78 35 18 22 25 24 1 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 Property Damange Only Injury Severe Injury Fatal 0 20 40 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 35 18 22 25 24 1 4 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 Injury Severe Injury Fatal GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 15 6.1.3 Pedestrian collision trend Pedestrian collisions have shown an overall upward trend since 2014, with the exception of 2017, where only one pedestrian collision was reported. Because of the vulnerable nature of pedestrians as compared to a motor vehicle, pedestrian collisions typically have a higher number of injuries, serious injuries, and fatalities. Figure 8. Citywide Pedestrian Collision Injury Severity Figure 9. Citywide Pedestrian Collision Location 0 2 4 6 8 10 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 3 12 4 4 1 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 Property Damange Only Injury Severe Injury Fatal GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 16 6.1.4 Bicycle Collision Trend Bicycle collisions have been on a steady decline from 2014 through 2017, 2017 having the lowest reported bicycle collisions on record. However there was a spike in 2018. Figure 10. Citywide Bicycle Collision Injury Severity Figure 11. Citywide Bicycle Collision Location 0 5 10 15 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 1 2 2 1 1 10 6 6 4 7 1 3 1 1 Property Damange Only Injury Severe Injury Fatal GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 17 6.1.5 Human and Economic Impact Traffic collisions result in direct economic costs to those involved—wages and productivity losses, medical expenses and legal costs, and motor vehicle damages—but this represents only a portion of total costs associated with collisions. Traffic collisions also have indirect impacts on the families of those involved, employers, and society as a whole. A study by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that more than 75 percent of collision costs are born by society in the form of insurance premiums, taxes and congestion-related costs such as travel delay, excess fuel consumption and lost quality of life associated with deaths and injuries. Comprehensive costs include the economic cost components, but also indirect societal costs. Using cost estimates by crash severity published in the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual, adjusted to reflect 2018 dollars, the comprehensive costs associated with the 104 citywide traffic collisions occurring in 2018 were calculated to be slightly more than $3.8 million. Comprehensive collision costs for 2018 by collision type are summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: 2018 City of Pismo Comprehensive Collision Cost Collision Severity Number of collisions Cost per Collision Total Cost Fatal 0 $6,418,400 - Disabling injury 2 $345,800 $691,600 Non-Incapacitating Injury 9 $126,500 $1,138,500 Possible injury 15 $71,900 $1,078,500 Property damage only 78 $11,800 $920,400 Total $3,829,000 Source: Crash Cost Estimates based on AASHTO’s Highway Safety Manual, 2010. Costs adjusted to 2018 dollars based on Consumer Price Index and Employment Cost Index per Highway Safety Manual guidance. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 18 6.2 Traffic Enforcement Enforcement is one of the key disciplines for achieving a reduction in collision trends and improving overall safety. Figure 12 below depicts the total citations (hazardous and nonhazardous) by the Police Department from 2014 to 2019, which shows an overall rise over the last five years. This positive enforcement trend has likely contributed to the fact that City traffic collision numbers have remained relative static despite rising traffic volumes. Figure 12. Overall Citations According to National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), speeding has been the primary contributing factor in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities. Since 2014, the Police Department has averaged 33.5 speeding citations each year. In 2018 the Police Department cited 32 people for speeding. Figure 13. Speeding Citation 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Traffic Citations Trends Traffic Citations 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Speeding Citations Speeding Citations GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 19 Driving under the influence (DUI) violations have been a focal point of enforcement in an effort to reduce injury traffic collisions. Typically, DUI is associated with drunk driving, however, DUI also includes operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs (including prescription drugs). Since 2014, the Police Department has averaged 128 DUI arrests each year. In 2018 the Police Department cited (cite and release) only 3 people for DUI, however in the same year arrested 159 people for DUI. Figure 14. DUI Arrest Figure 15 below depicts the distribution of vehicle code citations by type for 2018. Over half of the collisions in Pismo beach were reported as not complying with traffic control devices or failing to yield the right of way, this is consistent with the predominant collision patterns along Dolliver/Hwy 1 as well as Price St. Figure 15. Citation by Vehicle Code Section 0 50 100 150 200 250 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 DUI Arrest DUI Arrest Distraction and Driving Offenses (§23100-23135) 24% Speed (§22348- 22413) 8% Stop Sign (§22450- 22456) 47% Traffic Control Devices (§21350- 21468) 4% Bicycle Violation (§21200-21212) 4% Right side of Roadway (§21650- 21664) 4% Turning & Signals (§22100-22113) 7% Failure to Yield (§21800-21809) 1%Pedestrian Violation (§21949- 21971) 1% GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 20 CITYWIDE SYSTEMIC PATTERN ANALYSIS GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 21 7. Citywide Systematic Collision Pattern Analysis 7.1 Citywide Predominant Contributing Factors As shown in Figure 16 below, broadside, sideswipe, and rear end were the most common type of collisions reported in 2018, representing 73% of the total recorded incidents. Broadside and sideswipe collisions were the most prominent, with automobile right of way (ROW) and improper turning as the leading contributing factors. Figure 16. Predominant Collision Factors GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 22 7.2 Pedestrian Collision Types and Predominant Contributing Factors As shown in the Figure 17 below, vehicle/pedestrian collisions were most commonly caused by unsafe speed, improper turning, and pedestrian violations. City of Pismo Beach Police Department typically classifies all pedestrian collisions as Vehicle/Pedestrians. However, in cases where a collision occurs in multiple stages, such as a rear- end collision between vehicles that then results in one of the vehicles colliding with a pedestrian, these pedestrian collisions are coded based on the initial stage of the collision. This is why some pedestrian collisions are coded as rear-end or sideswipe. Figure 17. Pedestrian Collision Types GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 23 7.3 Bicycle Collision Types and Predominant Contributing Factors As shown in the Figure 18 below, Sideswipe and Broadside were the most common type of bicycle collisions reported in 2018, representing 78% of the total bicycle recorded incidents with improper turning as the leading contributing factor. Figure 18. Predominant Bicycle Collisions GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 24 8. Emphasis Areas 8.1 Emphasis Area #1: Highest Incident Locations Between 2014 and 2018 the City experienced 584 traffic collisions, although the number of traffic collisions has remained relatively static over the year’s traffic collisions statewide have been on the decline. The City’s highest incident collision locations are concentrated in the City’s downtown core along Dolliver/Hwy 1 as well as Price Street. One of the most effective ways to reduce Citywide collisions is to regularly and systematically identify the highest incident locations, analyze the collision patterns at those locations, develop targeted countermeasures to those patterns, then prioritize and implement the measures. Clipart obtain from <a href="https://www.clipart.email/">clipart.email</a> GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 25 8.1.1 Engineering Recommendations  Idenify and rank the highest incident locations within the City every two to three years.  Assess collision patterns at each of the highest incident locations and develop countermeasures to address those patterns.  Maintain an official list of prioritized safety locations and the associated countermeasures for: o Grant Funding Requests such as HSIP, ATP, SHA, etc. o Capital Improvement Funding Requests o Leveraging other Capital Projects to Implement safety measures (i.e.…changing striping as part of a roadway resurfacing project) o Informing safety analysis of development proposals and potentially establishing those as mitigation measures or conditions of approval where nexus is established. o Informing updates to existing fee programs or establishing new fee programs. o Leveraging the analysis and prioritization for defense against tort liability claims.  Assess and report collision patterns before and after implementation of countermeasures and adjust as necessary. 8.1.2 Education Recommendations  Publish results of high incident location analysis and countermeasure recommendations.  Regularly initiate and engage with local media outlets such as the Tribune, KSBY, Pismo Beach Civic News & Announcements, and City’s other own social media platforms to publish articles and interviews regarding high incident locations and contributing factors.  Consider “pop-up” safety events on-site at high incident locations. (i.e. on-site staff handing out flyers and discussing the primary factors for bicycle accidents at a high bicycle incident location) 8.1.3 Enforcement Recommendations  Prioritize patrol patterns and overall presence at high incident locations.  Target driver behavior that correlates with the predominant contributing factors for collisions at high incident locations. 8.1.4 Emergency Services Recommendations  Support Engineering, Education, and Enforcement, Activities.  Consider targeted training for responding to specific high incident locations and treatment of predominant injuries types at those locations.  Consider prepositioning of assets in close proximity to high incident locations. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 26 8.2 Emphasis Area #2: Intersection Visibility Broadside and Rear end collisions, primarily resulting from vehicles turning from a side street at two-way stop controlled intersections, are the City’s number one most common collision type. Intersection visibility is the most common issue reported by parties involved in these collision types. Visibility limitations are most commonly on-street parking, street furniture, and vegetation. These collision types are predominantly concentrated along Dolliver/Hwy 1 between the Pismo Creek Bridge and Price St. “Road Junction “icon by Alexander Skowalsky from the noun Project GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 27 8.2.1 Engineering Recommendations  Consider proceeding with Dolliver/Hwy 1 Right-of-Way acquisition from Caltrans as permitted through SB 503 legislation.  Consider installation of bulbouts and moving side street stop bars forward to improve visibility around obstructions from side street approaches.  Consider parking restrictions and clearing other sidewalk furniture and vegetation obstructions in the immediate vicinity of intersections. Right or left turn pockets can be installed with width gained from parking restrictions that would further lessen conflicts.  Require sight distance studies as part of development applications and require minimum visibility clearances at driveways and adjacent intersections.  Consider conducting all-way stop control and signalization warrant studies and following up with potential installations where warrants are satisfied. 8.2.2 Education Recommendations  Consider installation of “cross-traffic” does not stop supplemental warning placards on side street approaches.  Regularly Initiate and Engage with local media outlets such as the Tribune, KSBY, Pismo Beach Civic News & Announcements, and City’s other own social media platforms to publish articles and interviews regarding turning onto Dolliver/Hwy1 and the importance of ensuring an adequate gap is available before proceeding from the side street. 8.2.3 Enforcement Recommendations  Prioritize patrol patterns and overall presence at high incident locations.  Engage in targeted stop sign and traffic signal compliance. 8.2.4 Emergency Services Recommendations  Support Engineering, Education, and Enforcement Activities. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 28 8.3 Emphasis Area #3: Impaired Driving DUI (driving under the influence), OUI (operating under the influence), and DWI (driving while intoxicated) are the most common contributing factors across the City top collision types. From 2014-2018, 51 reported collisions in the City of Pismo Beach (one resulting in a fatality) involved alcohol or drug-impairment. The highest concentration of impaired driving collisions is in the vicinity of Dolliver/Hwy 1 near the downtown core, the next highest concentration of impaired driving collisions is in the vicinity of Shell Beach Road and Windward Ave. Both locations do have a higher relative proximity to alcohol serving establishments as compared to other locations in the City. Engineering solutions are much less effective at addressing impaired driving patterns. Education and Enforcement are the most effective disciplines for combating this systemic collision trend. “Drunk Driving “icon by Myly from the noun Project GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 29 8.3.1 Engineering Recommendations  Support Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Services Activities 8.3.2 Education Recommendations  Regularly engage with alcohol serving establishments in proximity of impaired driving collision concentrations such as Shell Beach Road and the downtown core. Utilize PD citizen volunteers for engagement where possible.  Engage with media regarding DUI collisions in the downtown core.  Consider wraps or public art on public trashcans and utility boxes on sidewalks for impaired driving education campaigns. 8.3.3 Enforcement Recommendations  Conduct DUI checkpoints within impaired driving collision concentrations. Advertise as required, engage with media outlets.  Increase perception of DUI enforcement presence and higher probably of being arrested if driving under the influence.  Continue to Prioritize patrols in high incidence areas during peak collision times of 7pm to 2am 8.3.4 Emergency Services Recommendations  Continue to conduct training targeted at responding to DUI collision and providing services to intoxicated individuals.  Consider prepositioning assets in downtown area and in the Shell beach area during peak DUI collision times of 7pm to 2am. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 30 8.4 Emphasis Area #4: Speeding Speeding is one of the top contributing factors for traffic collisions in the City of Pismo Beach. Speeding collisions most commonly occur along Dolliver Street, Price St., 4th St., and Five Cities Dr. Dolliver/Hwy 1, having the highest concentration of speeding related collisions, is under Caltrans Jurisdiction, although legislation has been adopted allowing the transfer of jurisdiction to the City. The corridor has state standard lane widths, relatively long straight sections, and limited intersection controls than what might otherwise be expected for urban built out areas. These conditions could allow drivers to feel more comfortable traveling at higher speeds despite frequent driveways and cross streets present along Dolliver Street Speeding behavior is most commonly resulting in rear-end collisions in the downtown core. Clipart obtain from <a href="https://www.clipart.email/">clipart.email</a> GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 31 8.4.1 Engineering Recommendations  Consider proceeding with Hwy 1 Right-of-Way acquisition from Caltrans as permitted through legislation.  Where lanes are 12’ or more consider narrowing travel lanes and utilizing excess space for such features as buffered bike lanes, wider parking stalls, or medians as space permits. At intersections consider bulbouts, traffic circles, and dedicated turn lanes.  Where possible create a perceived sense of narrowed roadway through pavement treatments, street trees, and other roadside features.  Consider the addition of turn lanes and other roadway features and striping that create horizontal deflection.  Consider raised intersections with decorative pavement treatments. 8.4.2 Education Recommendations  Consider entry monuments or other visual cues at Dolliver/Hwy 1 at Price and Dolliver/Hwy 1 near the Monarch Butterfly Preserve to mark and emphasize the transition from higher speed corridors into the lower speed downtown core areas of the City.  Consider the installation of speed feedback signs with photoflash simulation on approaches into areas with a high incidence of speed related collisions.  Regularly Initiate and Engage with local media outlets such as the Tribune, KSBY, Pismo Beach Civic News & Announcements, and City’s other own social media platforms to publish articles and interviews regarding where high speed collisions are occurring, the damages and injuries involved, and enhanced enforcement activities. 8.4.3 Enforcement Recommendations  Where possible Increase frequency and visual presence of patrol activity in high speed incident areas. Utilize PD citizen volunteers to increase presence.  Consider conducting and advertising periodic speeding checkpoints in high speed incidence areas.  Track speeding citation dismissals and trends, coordinate with San Luis Superior Court Commissioner and Overseeing Judges to resolve common dismissal patterns.  Establish/Maintain cooperative enforcement agreements with CHP, County Sherriff, and Arroyo Grande PD. 8.4.4 Emergency Services Recommendations  Continue to conduct training targeted at responding to speed related collisions  Consider prepositioning assets in close proximity to high incident areas. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 32 8.5 Emphasis Area #5: Access Management Another top collision trend in the City of Pismo Beach involves vehicles turning to/from private driveways that are in close proximity to other driveways or controlled intersections. This collision pattern is similar to Emphasis Area 2, Intersection visibility. However, the primary contributing factor here is the higher level of complexity and decision making required to navigate turning movements with a higher number of conflict points than drivers are typically accustomed to. “Access Management “icon obtain from USDOT GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 33 8.5.1 Engineering Recommendations  Develop and adopt access management standards or guidelines for new development and redevelopment which establishes: o Distance between controlled intersections and/or movement restrictions when distances can’t be achieved. o Maximizing feasible driveway spacing from other driveways and/or adjacent intersections. o Establishing provisions for restricting certain movements at driveways within close proximity to intersections or other driveways.  Consider requirements for shared driveways as part of redevelopment or new development applications to reduce access points along high incident corridors.  Consider the installation of turn restrictions such as medians along high incident corridors.  Consider provisions for U-Turns, Two-Stage left turn lanes, and other design features that allow drivers to complete turning movements and navigate a lower number of conflicts in multiple stages of their movement. 8.5.2 Education Recommendations  Include information regarding collisions at access points as part of development permit instructions and pamphlets.  Include access management guidelines into City’s development standards / policies  Encourage and incentivize cooperative access agreements across private property lines 8.5.3 Enforcement Recommendations  Support Engineering and Education Activities 8.5.4 Emergency Services Recommendations  Support Engineering and Education Activities GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 34 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR) HIGH INCIDENT LOCATIONS GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 35 9. High Incident Data Analysis (Systemic Safety Analysis Report - SSAR) 9.1 Top Locations and Recommended Projects All collisions within the City of Pismo were assessed for the number of collisions over the course of the last five years. The top five locations were ranked, prioritized, and individual collisions at those locations were analyzed for correctable patterns. Two intersections along Dolliver Street were identified in the top incident locations, after further analysis it was found that identical collision patterns also existed at other locations along the corridor, so the top five list was expanded to eight to include those as well. 9.1.1 Recommendations and Benefit-Cost Analysis The collision patterns have been evaluated at each of the top incident locations identified above. Countermeasures to those patterns have been developed as well as the preliminary estimated cost of those measures. The following sections of this report summarizes those results. One of the primary purposes of this report is to establish the City’s eligibility for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. HSIP grant funding is prioritized and awarded based on the economic effectiveness of the grant funding, which is established by a benefit to cost ratio. A summary of the benefit to cost ratios is also provided in the following sections of this report. Project cost estimates are calculated on a line item basis using the Caltrans Contract Cost Database. In some cases recent construction bids and benefit values are calculated based on Caltrans established countermeasure values. Under the current HSIP call for projects the minimum Benefit to Cost Ratio is 3.5. Rank Location # Collisions - 5 Yrs. #1 Dolliver/Hwy 1 & Ocean View Ave.29 #2 N. 4th St. & 5 Cities Dr.22 #3 Dolliver/Hwy 1 & Stimson Ave.18 #4 North Oak Park Blvd. & West Branch St.16 #5 Price St. & Hinds Ave.12 #6 Dolliver/Hwy 1 & Main St.8 #7 Dolliver/Hwy 1 & Pomeroy Ave.7 #8 Dolliver/Hwy 1 & Hinds Ave.7 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 36 9.1.2 Dolliver/Hwy 1 (Main St. to Ocean View Ave.) Ranks #1, #3, #6, #7, & #8 Collision Pattern Assessment North/South Side Street Traffic vs. East/West Main Street Traffic. Majority of Drivers from Side Street indicated that they did not see on-coming traffic from Main Street. Recommendations Install bulbouts and move side street stop bars forward to clear sight distance around parked cars and other visibility limitations. Bulbouts would also provide a secondary benefit of shortening of pedestrian crossings. The drawback is this would result in a potential loss of two parking spaces at each intersection. Alternative B is the removal of on-street parking in-lieu of bulbouts to improve sight distance, the drawback is this would results in a potential loss of more on-street parking, however the additional space resulting from parking removal could be used for intersection turn lanes. Segment Description Dolliver/Hwy 1 is a two-way one-lane highway that runs northwest/southeast through the center of the city from Price St. through the North Beach Campground area. The segment has class 2 bike lanes and on-street parking on both sides of the street. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 37 Dolliver Street & Ocean View Avenue shown to represent typical segment collision patterns STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP61'41'57'38'50'38'50'38'51'38'51'38'STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP51'38'51'38'STOPSTOPSTOPSTOP51'38'52'38'0 80'40'20'NFilename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 3 November 2020 - 4:13 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 11/03/2020 Source: GHD Exhibit A Dolliver St / Cabrillo Highway Bulb Out Alternative GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 39 9.1.2.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Bulbouts The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for installing bulbouts along Dolliver/Hwy 1 between Main and Ocean view. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $776,100 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,874,240 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The Resulting B/C ratio is 2.4. The current HSIP cycle program has a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5, therefore this project would not be competitive for HSIP funding at this time. However if Bulbouts along the corridor would be limited to Stimson and Ocean View Intersections the B/C Ratio would result in a significantly higher ratio and therefore would be a competitive HSIP application. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit STOPSTOP STOPSTOP STOPSTOP Exhibit B.1 Dolliver St / Cabrillo Highway Left Turn Pocket 0 100'50'NFilename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 26 October 2020 - 6:27 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 10/26/2020 Source: GHD GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 41 Dolliver/Hwy 1 (Main St. to Ocean View Ave.) 9.1.2.2 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Parking Restrictions/Restriping The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for restriping along Dolliver/Hwy 1 between Main and Ocean view. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $31,800 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $6,599,840 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The Resulting B/C ratio is 206.3. With a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5 to apply under the current HSIP cycle, alternative B would be a very competitive project for HSIP funding. Given the high B/C ratio of 244.6 the project could also include design/engineering costs as well as further associated improvements including roadway resurfacing to facilitate a more complete restriping and roadside sight distance clearing/reconfiguration of vegetation and street furniture. This project could also potentially be combined with alternative A, providing bulbouts at Stimson and Ocean View and parking removal at Main, Pomeroy, and Hinds. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit STOPSTOP STOPSTOP STOPSTOP Exhibit B.2 Dolliver St / Cabrillo Highway Right Turn Pocket 0 100'50'NFilename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 26 October 2020 - 6:29 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 10/26/2020 Source: GHD GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 43 Dolliver/Hwy 1 (Main St. to Ocean View Ave.) 9.1.2.3 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Right Turn Pocket The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for restriping along Dolliver/Hwy 1 between Main and Ocean view. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $25,900 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $1,874,240 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The Resulting B/C ratio is 72.4. With a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5 to apply under the current HSIP cycle, alternative B.2 would be a very competitive project for HSIP funding. Given the high B/C ratio of 72.4 the project could also include design/engineering costs as well as further associated improvements including roadway resurfacing to facilitate a more complete restriping and roadside sight distance clearing/reconfiguration of vegetation and street furniture. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 44 9.1.3 N. 4th Street and 5 Cities Drive Rank #2 The intersection at N. 4th St. and 5 Cities Dr. is located on the South East portion of the city near the Pismo Coast shopping plaza. Dedicated left and right turn lanes are provided at this intersection and the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. A striped pedestrian crossing is provided on the south and east sides of the intersection connecting both sides of the intersection. The predominant collision pattern involves sideswipe, rear end, and broadside collisions. The most common scenario is sideswipe collisions occurring as a result of improper turning/lane changing. Rear-end collisions are also a high frequency pattern at this location, the majority of the crashes were attributed to speeding. Dynamic speed feedback signs, signal ahead warning sign with beacons for the south bound and west bound approaches. Also upgrading signal heads from 8” to 12” indications and retroreflective back plates. Segment Description Collisions Pattern Recommendations GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 45 4Th Street and 5 Cities Drive collision patterns 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 5 5 5 43 3 4 Exhibit C Five Cities Dr and 4th St Proposed Countermeasures NOTES: INCREASE EXISTING 8" SIGNAL HEAD TO 12". INSTALL NEAR SIDE SIGNAL HEAD. INSTALL SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3) SIGN. INSTALL FLASHING BEACON TO SUPPLEMENT SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3) SIGN. INSTALL VEHICLE SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN. 1 2 3 4 5 Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 21 September 2020 - 3:50 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/21/2020 Source: GHD 0 200'100'N GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 47 N. 4th Street and 5 Cities Drive 9.1.3.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis - Signal Upgrade The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for signal upgrade at N. 4th St. and 5 Cities Dr. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $135,900 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $3,701,835 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The Resulting B/C ratio is 27.2. The current HSIP cycle program has a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5. With a B/C ratio of 27.2 the proposed signal upgrades and speed feedback device would be a competitive HSIP project. With a high B/C ratio of 27.2, design/engineering costs could also be included and the project would remain competitive for HSIP funding. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 48 9.1.4 North Oak Park Blvd. and West Branch St. Rank #4 The intersection at W. Branch St. and N. Oak Park Blvd. is located at the border of the City of Pismo Beach and City of Arroyo Grande near the north-bound entrance of US 101. The intersection has a dedicated left and right turn lane, and shared through lane along W. Branch St. and N. Oak Park Blvd. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. A striped pedestrian crossing is available on the east side of the intersection connecting both sides of the intersection. The predominant collision pattern involves broadside, rear-end, and sideswipe collisions. The primary contributing factor was speeding, however, most collisions also involved another hazardous violation such as talking on the phone while rear-end collisions happened because of an unsafe speed. Dynamic speed feedback signs, signal ahead warning sign with beacons for the south bound and west bound approaches. Also installation of retroreflective back plates on the signal heads. Segment Description Recommendations Collision Pattern GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 49 Branch Street and Oak Park Boulevard collision patterns 3 1 1 2 3 2 150'125'150'100'0 100'50' Exhibit D N. Oak Park Blvd and Branch St Signal Modification Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 16 September 2020 - 5:12 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/16/2020 Source: GHD N NOTES: INSTALL NEAR SIDE SIGNAL HEAD. INSTALL FLASHING BEACON TO SUPPLEMENT SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3) SIGN. INSTALL SIGNAL AHEAD (W3-3) SIGN. 1 2 3 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 51 North Oak Park Blvd. and West Branch St. 9.1.4.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Signal upgrades The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for signal update at N. Oak Park Blvd. and W. Branch St. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $85,200 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $298,973 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The Resulting B/C ratio is 3.5. The current HSIP cycle program has a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5, therefore the project would be eligible for submittal under the current cycle however it would not likely compete well with other applications. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 52 9.1.5 Price St. and Hinds Ave. Rank #5 The intersection at Price St and Hinds Ave is located on the northeast side of the downtown. Price St. is a two-way, two-lane road with on-street street parking on both sides of the road. Hinds Ave. is a one-way, two-lane road with on street parking on each side of the road going north and two-way one-lane going south. This intersection is controlled by a traffic signal. North/South Price Street traffic Vs. west side Hinds Street Traffic. The most common scenario for sideswipe crashes is that the majority of Drivers from Hinds St indicated that they did not see on- coming traffic from Price St. While rear-end collisions happened because of unsafe speed. To convert one of the East and West bound through lanes to make room for intersection turn lanes, two-way left turn lanes on the approaches, and potentially bike lanes striping. Up and Down stream segments do have one lane in each direction, therefore it’s likely this would not impact on operations however that should be verified. Segment Description Recommendation Collision Pattern Assessment GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 53 Price Street and Hinds Avenue collision patterns STOP11'12'11'5'2'8'64'0 100'50'NExhibit E Price St and Hinds Ave Left Turn Pocket Alternative Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 21 September 2020 - 11:42 AM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/21/2020 Source: GHD GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 55 Price St. and Hinds Ave. 9.1.5.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Restriping The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for restriping at Price St. and Hinds Ave. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $24,400 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $300,001 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The Resulting B/C ratio is 2.3. The current HSIP cycle program has a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5. With a B/C ratio of 12.3 the proposed restriping would be an eligible HSIP project. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 56 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR) SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIONS GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 57 10. Site Specific Locations 10.1 Summary of Site Specific Location and Recommended Approaches In addition to high incident locations within the City, six locations were evaluated for potential eligibility for HSIP funding. These six intersections were identified by City staff based on potential growth in traffic as a result of development and new connections within the vicinity as well as feedback City staff has received from the public regarding locations that should be considered for further safety improvements and connectivity. This list is provided below. These projects have been evaluated following the same methodologies as the high incident locations. The estimated costs are also based on Caltrans Construction Cost Database and crash reduction measure benefits are calculated based on values adopted within the Caltrans HSIP analyzer. GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 58 10.1.1 Price St / Mattie Rd Intersection and segment Locations #1 & #2 The intersection at Price St. and Mattie Rd. is located north of downtown Pismo Beach. The pedestrian crossing at the intersection crosses Price St. and is controlled on all sides by a traffic signal. Mattie Rd. is a two-way, two- lane road that runs northwest and southwest crossing under Hwy 101. A pedestrian sidewalk and a class 2 bike lanes were recently constructed been constructed along this undercrossing segment There were five collisions recorded at Price St. and Mattie Rd. Intersection from 2014 to 2018. However, no pattern among these five collisions could be identified, each were unique. There were no collisions along Mattie Rd. from Price to NB 101 ramp under US 101 from 2014 to 2018. While there was no discernable collision pattern at this intersection and corridor, it is anticipated that the volume of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle traffic will increase as a result of improved connectivity along price street and the new Pismo Preserve recreation area. The improvements recently constructed provide improved multimodal connectivity, as volumes increase overtime its recommended that the NE corner of Price St and Mattie Rd be adjusted to provide better clearance for bicycles and that the signing and striping at the undercrossing be upgraded consistent with National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommendations. Segment Description Recommendation Collision Pattern Assessment 0 80'40'20' Exhibit F Price St and Mattie Rd Specific Area #1 & #2 Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 21 September 2020 - 12:03 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/21/2020 Source: GHDNNOTES: REMOVE PAVEMENT STRIPE ROADWAY WIDENING FOR 5-FOOT CLASS II BIKE LANE RECONSTRUCT SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMP TO PROVIDE 5- FOOT CLASS II BIKE LANE AT INTERSECTION APPROACH RELOCATE SIGNAL POLE INSTALL BICYCLE TREATMENT INSTALL CROSSWALK 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 60 10.1.1.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis-Restriping and sidewalk The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for restriping and sidewalk along Mattie Rd. and Price St. And Mattie Rd. intersection. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $80,500 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. Under HSIP benefit values are only provided when the proposed project addresses existing collisions correctable by that project. Because no correctable collisions associated with this project were identified, the calculated traffic safety benefit under HSIP methodologies results in $0 and would not be eligible for HSIP funding. However, this does not mean that the project has no value outside the HSIP funding program. The project does functionally improve safety by enhancing bicycle clearances as well as delineation and warning markings. While there is no value benefit under HSIP program this project would likely have benefit value under other funding programs such as the active transportation programs. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 61 10.1.2 Beachfront Promenade (Main St. to Edgewater Hotel) An extension of the beach front promenade north from Main St. to the stairs near Wadsworth St. and the Edgewater Hotel. There is currently no walkway in this area, and no collisions related to vehicles with bicycles or pedestrians occurred from 2014 to 2018. Extend the current boardwalk along the beach front from Main St. to Wadsworth Ave. maintaining current beach access for the adjacent housing and hotel properties. Segment Description Collision Pattern Assessment Recommendation 0 100'50' Exhibit G Beachfront PromenadeN Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 16 September 2020 - 5:01 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/16/2020 Source: GHD GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 63 10.1.2.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Beachfront Promenade from Main St. to Cypress St. The cost estimate provided to above represents the preliminary line item cost for Beachfront Promenade from Main St. to Cypress St. Line item costs are based on prior extensions of the boardwalk and adjusted by CPI in addition to the Caltrans contract costs data base. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. Because there is no discernable collision pattern that would be addressed by this improvement this project would not be eligible for HSIP grant funding. Construction Cost Estimate GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 64 10.1.3 Sidewalk and Bike lane under US 101 (Mattie Rd. to Shell Beach Rd.) Extension of the sidewalk on the northwest end of Mattie Road to Spyglass Drive under US 101 to Shell Beach Road including crosswalks and bike lanes. Currently there are no sidewalk or bike lanes on either side of the segment. There are no reported collisions at the connection between Mattie Rd. and Shell Beach Rd. under the US 101 from 2014 to 2018. Install bike lanes and a pedestrian sidewalk on one side of the segment identical to the improvements recently constructed at Price St and Mattie Rd. Segment Description Collision Pattern Assessment Recommendation STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOPSTOP STOPSTOPSTOP 0 80'40'20' Exhibit H Spyglass Dr Pedestrian Improvement N Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 16 September 2020 - 5:34 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/16/2020 Source: GHD GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 66 10.1.3.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Sidewalk and Restripe The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for sidewalk and restriping along Spyglass Dr. between Mattie Rd. and Shell Beach Rd. Line item costs are based on construction bids for the recently constructed Price and Mattie project as well as derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $172,300 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $0 because there have been no collision occur at the site. The Resulting B/C ratio is 0. Because there is no discernable collision pattern that would be addressed by this improvement this project would not be eligible for HSIP grant funding. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 67 10.1.4 Shell Beach Rd. (Spyglass Dr. to Terrace Ave) Extension of Shell Beach Road streetscape to include pedestrian path/sidewalk on north side of Shell Beach Road beginning at Terrace Avenue to Spyglass Drive. Currently, part of the sidewalk is incomplete. There were 3 vehicle collisions recorded from 2014 to 2018. However there was no discernable pedestrian collision pattern along Shell Beach Rd. Complete gaps in sidewalk connectivity and add a bike lane on the east side along this segment while removing and replacing the existing deteriorated sidewalk. Segment Description Collision Pattern Assessment Recommendation Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 16 September 2020 - 5:17 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/16/2020 Source: GHD Exhibit I Shell Beach Rd Specific Area #5 N 0 120'60' GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 69 10.1.4.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Sidewalk on Shell Beach Rd. The cost estimate provided on the right represents the preliminary line item cost for sidewalk along Shell Beach Rd. from Spyglass Dr. to Terrace Ave. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 50% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $273,000 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $0 because there have been no collision occur at the site. The Resulting B/C ratio is 0. Because there is no discernable collision pattern that would be addressed by this improvement this project would not be eligible for HSIP grant funding. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 70 10.1.5 Sidewalk on Coburn Lane (sidewalk along Coburn Lane to existing sidewalk on Shell Beach Rd.) The segment is located along the south side of Coburn Lane that connects to the existing sidewalk on the south side of Shell Beach Road. Which includes an incomplete section. There were no collisions recorded collision at this location from 2014 to 2018. However, incomplete sidewalk connections may lead to pedestrians walking in the roadway or shoulder. It’s recommended that this gap in the sidewalk be completed. Construct sidewalk along the missing gaps of this segment. Due to the lack of collision history the project would not qualify for HSIP funding, the project may however compete well with under other grant programs such as Active Transportation or State Highway Account. Other options include investigating a nexus for requiring construction as a condition of developing adjacent parcels. The City should also consider adopting construction of sidewalk gaps into its development impact fee program as a potential funding source. Segment Description Collision Pattern Assessment Recommendation STOP 0 80'40'20' Exhibit J Coburn Ln Sidewalk Extension N Filename: N:\US\San Luis Obispo\Projects\561\11203763\Digital_Design\2669L001.dwg Plot Date: 16 September 2020 - 5:24 PM Date Report No. Project No.City of Pismo Beach Pismo Beach SSAR 11203763 R11203763RPT001 09/16/2020 Source: GHD GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 72 10.1.5.1 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis – Sidewalk on Coburn Ln. The cost estimate provided above represents the preliminary line item cost for new sidewalk along Coburn Ln. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. Cost Estimates should be updated at 20% design. The total cost of this project is estimated at $24,000 which does not includes the design/engineering costs. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $0 because there have been no collision occur at the site. The Resulting B/C ratio is 0. Because there is no discernable collision pattern that would be addressed by this improvement this project would not be eligible for HSIP grant funding. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 73 10.1.6 Price Canyon Rd. and Bello St The intersection at Price Canyon Rd. and Bello St. is located northeast of downtown Pismo Beach. The intersection is an uncontrolled intersection with a dedicated right turn lane on Bello St. and a dedicated turn pocket on Price Canyon Rd. A class 2 bike lane can be found heading northeast bound along Price Canyon Rd. Price Canyon Rd. is a two-way, one-lane road that runs northeast and southwest while Bello St. is a two-way, one-lane road that runs east and west. . There were four collisions recorded at Price canyon Rd. and Bello St. intersection from 2014 to 2018. The predominant collision pattern involved vehicles turning from Bello to Price Canyon resulting in a broad side collision. The most common scenario for broadside crashes is that the majority of drivers from Bello St. indicated that they either did not see or miss judged on-coming traffic from S. West Bound Price Canyon Rd. Although this location does not currently rank as a high collision incident location, an increase in traffic volumes and potentially collisions following the same pattern could occur after the Bello bridge is opened. Its recommended that the intersection’s operations and safety be studied after the Bello bridge is opened. Collision Pattern Assessment Recommendation Intersection Description GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 74 Price Canyon Road and Bello Street collision patterns DRAFTData Disclaimer ** Insert text as required by data custodian **** Remove only if not required by data custodian ** EXHIBIT K Project No.Revision No.-11203763 Date 11/20/2020 CITY OF PISMOPismo Beach SSAR/LRSPPaper Size ANSI A o Data source: . Created by: jramirez2C:\Users\jramirez2\Desktop\11203763_Bello&Price_Signal Exhibit.mxdPrint date: 20 Nov 2020 - 13:24 Bello St and Price Canyon Rd Signal Exhibit N.T.S GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 76 Cost Estimate and Cost/Benefit Analysis- Signalize and modification of the Intersection The cost estimate provided to the right represents the preliminary line item cost for intersection modification and signalization of the intersection. Line item costs are derived from Caltrans contract cost data base for District 5. The intersection has significant underground and overhead utility conflicts which are roughly represented in this cost estimate. Utility coordination should occur prior further design and costs estimated at 50% progress. The total cost of this project is estimated at $423,300 which does not includes the design/engineering cost. The estimated benefit of these improvements is $107,300 based on the State adopted HSIP Cost Benefit Calculator. The resulting B/C ratio is 0.3. The current HSIP cycle program has a minimum B/C ratio of 3.5. With a B/C ratio of 0.3 the proposed intersection modification would not be eligible for HSIP funding program. Construction Cost Estimate Total Cost & Benefit GHD | City of Pismo Beach SSAR & LRSP | Page 77 11. Evaluation and Implementation This LRSP / SSAR is a living document, the list of high incident locations and recommended countermeasures should be updated every two years to coincide with the City’s Capital Improvement Budget and HSIP grant cycles for potential inclusion or overlap. Updated high incident list and recommended safety measures should be presented to key stakeholders and the City’s Traffic Safety Committee and for review and feedback then submitted to the City Council as an information item for review and to provide an opportunity for public feedback. The list of top citywide systemic collision patterns and countermeasures should be updated approximately every five years in order to utilize the latest data and detect trends or to modify action items if it is not working. Similarly, top systemic patterns and updated emphasis areas should be presented to the City’s Traffic Safety Committee and City Council. Grant Funding Although this LRSP/SSAR is primarily a requirement for HSIP funding, this document should also be referenced for potential applications to Active Transportation Program (ATP), Regional State Highway Account (RSHA), Congestion Management and Air Quality (CMAQ) and other funding sources that are available. Fee Programs When updating fee programs or developing/updating development reimbursement agreements this plan and its recommendations should be considered for inclusion. City Capital Improvement Program The project and priorities identified in this plan should serve as a source for Capital Project Request consideration as well as a cross reference for other capital projects that could be leveraged to implement the recommendations provided by this plan. For example a roadway resealing project may provide an opportunity to revise a corridor lane re-configuration by installing proposed striping from this plan as opposed to replacing prior striping. Development Review With implementation of SB 743 traffic safety will have much more focus in development review and environmental impact reports. Development projects should be crosschecked against the high incident locations and patterns identified in this report and future updates to help identify potentially significant traffic safety impacts, and corresponding mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval.