Buellton planners outline two-year general plan update and near-term SR‑246 traffic-calming options

Buellton city leaders and planning consultants on Thursday laid out a roughly two‑year update to the city’s general plan and presented near‑ and intermediate‑term options to calm traffic on State Route 246 (Highway 246), including paint-and-sign treatments, signal timing changes and possible lane reconfigurations, while stressing that Caltrans approval is required for work on the state highway.

The update will produce new, integrated land‑use, circulation and urban‑design guidance intended to shape the next 10–25 years of growth and to coordinate with the Highway 246 traffic‑calming program. Jean Ward, a Civic Solutions consultant, told the council and planning commission that the general plan “is the overarching long‑range planning document” required by state law and should set the city’s priorities for the next decade or two. David Sargent of Sargent Town Planning said the team’s vision is to preserve Buellton’s “small‑town” character while improving walkability, bike connections and the downtown experience.

Why it matters: Highway 246 is Buellton’s main east–west thoroughfare and currently functions as a fast connector that divides parts of the city. Consultants said slowing and calming 246 could improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, better connect the four commercial quadrants bisected by the highway and help concentrate community activity in the Avenue of the Flags and a proposed downtown hub. George Reiner of KOA emphasized that “Caltrans has to approve anything done on SR 246,” and that design work must follow the Caltrans Highway Design Manual or be justified in a formal design‑standards decision.

Most important facts: The consultants described a three‑tier approach—near term (paint, signs, bollards and high‑visibility crosswalks), intermediate (curb relocations and refuge islands) and longer‑term projects (larger curb changes or bridges that would require right‑of‑way and major funding). Two conceptual cross‑section options for SR‑246 were shown: both aim to reduce vehicle speeds and add protected bike lanes where feasible; one option would retain two through lanes with narrower lane widths (about 11 feet) plus buffered bike lanes, while the other would use a single through lane in each direction in mid‑block sections with turn pockets at intersections. Consultants said swept‑path analyses show STAA‑size trucks can be accommodated on 11‑foot lanes but that Caltrans will scrutinize departures from its standards.

Community engagement and near dates: The team said the general plan process will take about two years, that an online visioning survey remains open through May 14 (236 responses reported at the meeting) and that the first community workshop is scheduled for May 29 at Oak Valley Elementary School’s multipurpose room, 6–7:30 p.m. Staff and consultants asked the public to take the survey and attend the workshop.

Concerns and tradeoffs discussed: Council members and commissioners repeatedly returned to three themes—safety, sequencing and accountability. Members praised the vision for a more walkable downtown and river/creek trail connections while urging realistic short‑term deliverables so the public sees progress. Several speakers cautioned that narrowing lanes or rechannelizing 246 will require careful coordination with Caltrans because SR‑246 is an STAA local route used by interstate‑sized trucks. Consultants also highlighted signal synchronization and timing changes as a practical near‑term tool to lower speeds and improve both safety and traffic flow.

Public comment: Residents, former commissioners and longtime local participants urged the council to prioritize public safety, called for better pedestrian crossings and river/creek trails, and recommended measuring progress against prior vision work. A resident who identified himself as John Dorer urged placing public safety higher in planning priorities. Former Planning Commissioner Will Romano and resident Nancy Dorwin asked the city to track likely bike‑lane usage and to watch sightlines (for example at the Zaca Street monument) as landscaping and medians are added.

Next steps: Staff and consultants will produce more detailed illustrations and technical analyses for the two SR‑246 options, prepare supporting material for Caltrans review, and refine proposed general‑plan policies and implementation programs. The public workshop (May 29) and the survey (closes May 14) were emphasized as the immediate opportunities for community input.

Ending: Consultants and staff said many major infrastructure ideas (for example, a pedestrian bridge over U.S. 101 or larger curb and right‑of‑way changes) are long‑term and costly, but they recommended protecting potential crossing locations in current planning and development decisions so future projects remain feasible. The team asked the community to remain engaged so that the general plan can be “actionable” rather than a document that sits on a shelf.