HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 - OTHER-0495-2020 (Active Transportation Plan)
Meeting Date: December 9, 2020
Item Number: 4
Time Estimate:60
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the Active Transportation Plan
ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation
Manager
FILE: OTHER 0495-2020; EID 0496-2020 Phone: (805) 781-7590
e-mail: afukushima@slocity.org
VIA: Matt Horn, Public Work Director
FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1), recommending that the City
Council approve the Active Transportation Plan (Attachment 2) and adopt a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact (Attachment 3) for the project.
SUMMARY
Consistent with the 2014 Circulation Element Update to the General Plan, the City’s first Active
Transportation Plan to guide future transportation planning for both bicycling and walking and
other forms of human powered transportation has been drafted. This report provides an overview
of proposed policies, projects, and implementation strategies for Planning Commission and
community input.
At the November 30, 2020 meeting, the Active Transportation Committee held one of two
meetings on the Public Draft Active Transportation Plan. The Active Transportation Committee
recommended general support of the Public Draft subject to further discussion and refinement at
the December 3, 2020 meeting. Following the December 3rd meeting, staff will provide a
memorandum in the form of Agenda Correspondence to the Planning Commission that identifies
the ATC’s recommendation. A study session on the Active Transportation Plan with the City
Council will take place on December 8, 2020 (the night before this meeting). Staff will update the
Planning Commission during the meeting presentation on the input Council provides. At this time,
adoption of the Active Transportation Plan is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the City
Council on February 2, 2021.
1.0 COMMISSION PURVIEW
The Planning Commission will consider the Active Transportation Committee’s recommendation
regarding the Active Transportation Plan, review the project for consistency with applicable
policies and goals of the General Plan (see Attachment 4), and provide a recommendation to City
Council.
Item 4
Packet Page 187
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, City staff have been working on preparation of the City’s first Active
Transportation Plan—a plan that serves as both an update to the City’s 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan, as well as the City’s first comprehensive plan on pedestrian policies,
programs and infrastructure recommendations. The consolidation of the two modes (as well as
consideration for other human powered devices) into one plan serves to not only support the goals
of the 2014 General Plan Circulation Element to increase access and mode share for sustainable
transportation modes, but also to increase the City’s chances of competing for grants, especially
the highly competitive California Active Transportation Program, which in the last cycle provided
$440 million in funding and has contributed over $10 million toward bicycle and pedestrian
projects in the City.
The Draft Active Transportation Plan document is provided as Attachment 2 and is available for
public review at www.slobikewalk.org.
3.0 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
In the fall of 2019, City staff branded an outreach strategy known as the “Roll and Stroll” campaign
and held a series of both in-person and online community outreach activities for the Active
Transportation Plan. The community outreach is summarized in the draft Plan.
In-Person Activities
In person outreach included five pop-up workshops on weekends in neighborhoods throughout the
City, event booths at the SLO Farmers Market and Cal Poly University Union, as well as an open
house workshop at the City/County Library.
Online Activities
Online activities included a project webpage at www.slobikewalk.org, an online interactive
mapping tool, and an online Citywide Active Transportation Survey. The online Active
Transportation Survey was conducted to better understand existing travel behavior, major barriers
to active transportation, and what investments community members would like the City to
prioritize in order to increase access to walking and bicycling. Postcards were distributed to a
Item 4
Packet Page 188
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 3
randomly generated list of 4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey, which resulted
in 709 completed surveys, providing a statistically valid sample. Other community members were
also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey, although the results were not counted as
part of the statistically valid survey sample. An Interactive Online Mapping Tool was created to
provide participants with an opportunity to mark locations throughout the city to identify locations
of desired intersection crossing priorities, bikeway, and pedestrian facility improvements.
The input received as part of these public outreach activities was used to guide development of the
projects, policies, and programs included in the Draft Active Transportation Plan.
4.0 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SUMMARY
The Draft Active Transportation Plan at a Glance
The Active Transportation Plan is centered around four major goals:
1) Build It. The City can develop the physical infrastructure necessary to achieve this Plan’s
goals with an emphasis on priority actions to build a high-quality bicycle and pedestrian
network.
2) Safety. Active transportation can be safe with an emphasis on addressing infrastructure
needs, education, and partnerships.
3) Accessibility. Active transportation can be easy with an emphasis on user convenience,
accessibility, and connectivity.
4) Equity. Active transportation is for everyone with an emphasis on accommodating diverse
mobility needs and inclusive and collaborative outreach.
The structure of the Active Transportation Plan document is organized as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction - Introduces the Plan within the context of wider City policy and
explains what an Active Transportation Plan is.
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals - Captures the vision and goals of the Plan and identifies
performance measures to ensure that the City track progress and make the Plan vision a reality.
Chapter 3: Bicycling and Walking in the City Today – Presents an inventory of present-day
bicycle and pedestrian conditions.
Chapter 4: Community Engagement - Provides a summary of the community outreach activities
organized and facilitated by City staff, focusing on barriers to walking and bicycling.
Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects - Identifies recommended bicycle and
pedestrian projects that will enhance the biking and walking experience for San Luis Obispo
residents.
Chapter 6: Bicycle & Pedestrian Programs - Provides a description of bicycle and pedestrian
education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation programs.
Chapter 7: Implementation - Details a practical roadmap for implementing the proposals within
this plan including project details, cost estimates, and grant funding opportunities.
Item 4
Packet Page 189
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 4
Changes from the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan
In addition to adding a pedestrian component, the Active Transportation Plan proposes a new
approach to implementing projects compared to the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. This is in
response to public outreach results as well as input from the Active Transportation Committee.
Previous bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts have prioritized the implementation of striped
bike lanes and off-street shared-use paths such as the Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City-
to-Sea Trail. While all proposed shared-use paths and many other bicycle projects from the 2013
Bicycle Transportation Plan have been carried over to the Active Transportation Plan, the new
Plan has a greater focus on prioritizing projects that provide physical separation and safe crossing
opportunities along existing major city streets, which provides more intuitive routes with more
direct connections to key destinations that community members already travel to daily.
The Active Transportation Plan also incorporates new best practices and design tools that were not
approved for use in California or widely deployed at the time the previous Bicycle Transportation
Plan was adopted, such as protected bike lanes and protected intersections. Furthermore, the Active
Transportation Plan places more emphasis on investments that have the greatest potential to
increase bicycling and walking for transportation purposes, especially projects within the City
right-of-way that can be built more quickly, affordably, and minimizes the need for outside agency
approvals.
The Active Transportation Plan also incorporates proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements
identified in the San Luis Ranch and Froom Ranch Specific Plans as well as the Avila Ranch
Development Project.
Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Bicycling and Walking
To achieve the City’s Modal Split Objectives, public outreach and surveys were conducted to
identify the barriers to bicycling and walking. For bicycling, surveys showed that the perception
of risk with using higher-stress facilities is often the most significant barrier to bicycling for most
people. In order to develop a bicycling environment that will encourage more people to ride, it is
important to first understand the existing level of interest, ability and comfort of bicycling within
the community. While there are many diverse types of individuals who bike, including people who
have no other means of transportation, for the purposes of bicycle system planning the population
can generally be classified into four types of transportation bicyclists as shown below.1
1 The data are from a statistically-valid, household transportation survey mailed to city residents in the Fall of 2019.
The four types are a national best practice based on a study in the City of Portland, OR.
Item 4
Packet Page 190
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 5
For walking, types of pedestrians usually vary according to age and/or physical ability. Public
outreach results indicated drivers not paying attention, pedestrians not feeling safe, and time to
reach destination as the top concerns about walking today in San Luis Obispo. Survey results as
well as feedback from public workshops also indicated a concern about the need for more protected
crossings along high traffic roadways and more street lighting, especially near Cal Poly as a
particular barrier to walking.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Network
Based on safety concerns identified by the public related to barriers to walking and bicycling, a
level of traffic stress analysis was performed on the existing network to provide data on the public’s
comfort level using existing facilities.2 Provided with this data, staff worked with the Active
Transportation Committee to develop a proposed network of bicycle and pedestrian projects that
enhance user safety and comfort levels. Building off the proposed network from the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan, routes were identified that could include more separation from vehicular
traffic along roadways that are within existing city right-of-way. Several design strategies that
were not widely deployed in California (or approved by Caltrans) at the time the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan was adopted, include protected bike lanes3 (“cycle tracks”) and bicycle
protected intersections.4 Caltrans has since authorized the use of these design strategies and many
successful installations have been completed throughout California in recent years. While many
locations will require further analysis to ascertain whether a protected bike lane is feasible, the
Active Transportation Plan proposes protected bike lanes on most arterial routes.5 The Active
2 More information, methodology, and mapping on Level of Traffic Stress analysis are found on pages 50-53 of the
Plan (see Attachment 2)
3 A protected bike lane is defined by Caltrans as a bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation
required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not
limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
4 A protected intersection uses a collection of intersection design elements to maximize user comfort within the
intersection and promote a high rate of motorists yielding to people bicycling as well as reduce the crossing distance
for pedestrians.
5 See plan figures 19-22 on pages 97-100
Item 4
Packet Page 191
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 6
Transportation Plan also identifies information on existing sidewalks and areas where there are
gaps in the sidewalk network to be completed.6
Existing and Proposed Bicycle and Shared Use Network
Facility Type Existing (miles) Proposed (miles)
Shared Use Path 11 31
Bicycle Lane 37 13
Bicycle Route 26 0.4
Neighborhood Greenway 0.5 10
Protected Bicycle Lane 0 25
In addition to proposed bikeways, outreach results indicated that getting across large arterial streets
was a barrier for both walking and bicycling; therefore, the Active Transportation Plan identifies
almost fifty locations citywide for crossing improvements7. While each location will require
further analysis prior to implementation, the improvements are categorized into locations of major
and minor crossings. Possible improvements at major crossing locations could include
roundabouts, flashing beacons, or a new tool known as a protected intersection. Possible
improvements at minor crossing locations include curb ramps, crosswalk striping, bike boxes, and
curb extensions, or other improvements.
Additional Pedestrian Amenities
In addition to the bicycle and pedestrian network,
the Active Transportation Plan identifies projects
and programs to enhance the walking experience.
In conjunction with the COVID-19 economic
response campaign known as Open SLO, the City
installed approximately 40 parklets citywide. The
Active Transportation Plan builds on this success
and provides guidance for a sustained parklet
program. Other programs include
recommendations to bring an Open Streets event
(also known as Ciclovía) to San Luis Obispo,
continued support for a citywide bike share system,
and recommendations to incorporate public art and
placemaking streetscape enhancements as part of future active transportation projects.
Prioritization of Projects
Given that the Plan proposes over 240 projects, and acknowledging that there are limited financial
resources to spread among all city infrastructure projects, it is imperative that the bicycle and
pedestrian projects identified in this Plan are prioritized based on their greatest potential to increase
bicycling and walking safety, access and connectivity, and ultimately—mode share. Therefore, the
bicycle and pedestrian network projects were evaluated against a set of criteria and scored.
6 See Plan figure 24 on page 105.
7 See plan figures 19-22 on pages 97-100
Item 4
Packet Page 192
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 7
The following criteria were used to prioritize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects:
x Ridership/Usage Potential
x Safety/Collisions
x Equity: Improve access for Disadvantaged and Low-Income Community Members
x Community Input
x Existing Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
x Proximity to Key Destinations: Schools (K-12 and Cal Poly), Parks and Open Space, Retail
and Employment Centers, Downtown, Senior Housing & Supportive Facilities
The projects have been categorized into the following categories:
x Tier 1: The highest-priority projects with the greatest potential to increase the number of
people bicycling and walking. The City will actively pursue funding for these projects first.
The Plan proposes that the City endeavor to complete the Tier 1 network by 2030 to be
consistent with Climate Action Goals to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions in the City.
x Tier 2: Moderate-priority projects that play an important role in the future bicycle and
pedestrian network, but with less potential than Tier 1 projects to increase bicycling and
walking. These projects will be pursued as funding opportunities arise, but not at the
expense of delaying Tier 1 projects.
x Tier 3: Lower-priority projects that help complete the bicycling and walking network but
are not likely to generate measurable increases in bicycle and pedestrian trips. These
projects will be funded primarily through grants and where required as a condition of
approval for new development projects.
Individual bikeway and pedestrian projects were reviewed, evaluated, and prioritized by City staff
and the City’s Active Transportation Committee based on the prioritization criteria listed above.
In selecting the Tier 1 network, staff and the Active Transportation Committee focused on creating
a cross-town network of interconnected routes that present the greatest potential to generate
increased bicycle and pedestrian mode share and reduce existing collision trends. Using data
extracted from the City’s Travel Demand Forecasting Model, various route combinations were
evaluated until a refined network of nine priority corridors was selected (see Figure 1 below).
These Tier 1 priority corridors have potential to serve roughly 70% of citywide trips, at least for a
majority of the trip length. The remaining Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects improve bicycle and pedestrian
circulation, but to a lesser extent than the Tier 1 network.
Item 4
Packet Page 193
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 8
Figure 1. Tier 1 Projects (routes and crossing improvements)
Additional Pedestrian Specific Improvements
In addition to the bikeways, shared-use paths and crossing improvement projects identified as part
of the Tier 1-3 networks, the Active Transportation Plan also proposes to actively pursue
opportunities to construct other pedestrian-specific improvements, such as sidewalk repairs and
construction of new sidewalks, upgrades to curb ramps to bring them up to current Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and installation of additional street lighting.
To complete the pedestrian network, approximately 27 miles of new sidewalk would need to be
constructed to fill in all the existing sidewalk gaps throughout the city. In addition, the City has
thousands of intersection corners that would need to be reconstructed to meet current ADA
standards, and several hundred new streetlights would need to be installed for each street and off-
street path to meet the City’s current Engineering Standards. Many of these improvements will
ultimately be installed as a requirement of future land use development/redevelopment projects,
while others will be installed as City-initiated capital improvement projects. In lieu of mapping
every location where the City would construct these facilities, the Plan outlines methodology for
prioritizing City-initiated installation of these pedestrian improvements based on factors such as
collision history, pedestrian activity, and proximity to key destinations such as schools (including
Cal Poly), parks, the downtown core, and senior living facilities.
Item 4
Packet Page 194
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 9
Implementation
The Active Transportation Plan will be built over a number of years depending on funding and
staffing resources, focusing first on the Tier 1 projects that have the highest potential to increase
walking and biking. Throughout the implementation process, staff will continue to work with
critical partners and the community to gather input. Implementation of the Plan will be incremental
but is guided by established policy to continue to prioritize funding toward meeting the City’s
goals for increasing bicycling and walking.
Leveraging Funds and Projects
Often times, the costs associated with individual active transportation projects can be reduced
significantly by incorporating them into larger infrastructure projects, particularly roadway
resurfacing projects. These projects require coordination and planning and focus on leveraging on-
going or planned projects to build active transportation projects with an economy of scale.
Quick-Build
Quick-build projects are semi-permanent improvements that can be designed and implemented
quickly, often utilizing lower-cost interim materials, such as flex posts, curb stops or paint, in lieu
of more costly permanent materials. Quick-build strategies also provide the flexibility to test and
refine designs before committing to more substantial infrastructure investments. An example of a
quick-build strategy is the recent installation of bike lanes on Higuera Street in the downtown. By
first installing the bike lanes in paint at a cost of around $15,000, the city is able to test the viability
of the design before committing to a more permanent installation.
Projects Built as a Condition of Development
An additional opportunity to fund projects is to ensure the City works with developers to pay for
or implement active transportation projects that are necessary for their new developments. The
City has been successful in doing this through the construction of new projects by a developer or
through the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program, which collects a fair share fee from
development throughout the city to help fund significant roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
improvement projects. These opportunities create a “win-win” scenario for the community and the
developer as it provides a necessary treatment to improve the community while providing
transportation options for the residents, workers and visitors of the development and potentially
reduces vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gases.
Measuring Progress Towards Implementing the Plan
Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will be vital in achieving the goals of the Active
Transportation Plan. The following matrix summarizes the proposed ways the City will measure
progress towards implementing the Active Transportation Plan, with a summary report to be
presented every other year to the Active Transportation Committee and made available to
community on the City’s website.
Item 4
Packet Page 195
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 10
Performance Measure Goals
Goal # Goal Measure Current Goal Status (Baseline)
1
The share of citywide commute trips made by
bicycling to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030
Current Mode Share:
x Bicycle - 8.3%
x Walk - 7.2%
x Drive Alone - 67.7%
2
Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan
and General Plan Mode Share Objectives,
decrease the share of total citywide trips made
by single-occupant auto to 50% or less by 2030
Current Mode Share:
x Drive Alone - 67.7%
3
Achieve Platinum Level status as Bicycle
Friendly Community by the League of
American Bicyclists
Gold Status
4
Continue progress towards the City's Vision
Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and
severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75%
reduction by 2030.
Three-Year Total (2015-2017):
x 3 fatal collisions
x 43 severe injury collisions
5
Complete installation of the Active
Transportation Plan's Tier 1 bicycle and
pedestrian network by 2030.
6.5% of the ultimate Tier 1 network
currently in place:
x 0% of new low-stress
bikeway mileage
x 0% of new enhanced
pedestrian/bicycle
crossings
6
Consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element policies, strive to allocate
transportation funding across various
transportation modes approximately
proportional to the General Plan Modal Split
Objectives
Baseline to be set in 2021
7
Double the mode share for all bicycle and
pedestrian trips for public K-12 schools in the
city
Baseline to be set in 2021
5.0 POLICY CONTEXT
The recommendations of the Active Transportation Plan support the current Sustainable
Transportation Major City Goal identified in the 2019-21 Financial Plan. In addition, the Active
Transportation Plan implements many of the goals, objectives policies and programs of both the
City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery.8 The General Plan Land
Use and Circulation Elements identify a multitude of goals and policies promoting bicycling and
walking and reducing community dependence on single-occupant automobile trips. Similarly,
8 The Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery can be found here:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/office-of-sustainability/climate-
action/climate-action-plan-1949
Item 4
Packet Page 196
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 11
reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related greenhouse gas emissions through improving
access and use of sustainable transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling, is one of the
most important goals identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. In
turn, one of the key Foundational Actions identified under the Connected Community Pillar of the
Climate Action Plan recommends that the City “Complete the Active Transportation Plan and
begin implementation immediately” (Connected 2.1). A fundamental objective of the Active
Transportation Plan is to provide the policies, programs and infrastructure needed to increase the
number of trips completed by active transportation modes, supporting the City’s General Plan and
Climate Action Plan Modal Split Objectives to reach 20 percent of citywide trips by bicycle and
18 percent by walking, carpool and other sustainable transportation options.
General Plan Consistency:
In addition to the Circulation Element goals listed above, the Active Transportation Plan
implements multiple other Circulation, Conservation and Open Space, and Land Use Element
goals, objectives, policies, and programs (see Attachment 4 for a complete listing).
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study / Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Plan (Attachment 3). An
extended public review period for the Initial Study / Negative Declaration is November 19 through
December 31, 2020.
The Active Transportation Plan is a program/policy-level document, which means it does not
provide project-specific construction details that would allow for project-level CEQA analysis.
Specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and adoption of the ATP would not
authorize any development. Information such as precise project locations, project timing, funding
mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings will be
required in order for future “project-level” CEQA analysis to occur. Under CEQA, a programmatic
document is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and/or
for a project that will be implemented over a long period of time. Therefore, the Initial
Study/Negative Declaration was prepared at a “program-level,” which is appropriate. The Initial
Study does not identify any potentially significant impacts that would occur as a result of adoption
of the Active Transportation Plan.
7.0 CONCURRENCES
Over the past two years, spanning at least 17 meetings, the Active Transportation Committee
(ATC) has provided valuable input on the Active Transportation Plan. At the November 30, 2020
meeting, the Active Transportation Committee held one of two meetings on the Public Draft Active
Transportation Plan. The Active Transportation Committee recommended general support of the
Public Draft subject to further discussion and refinement at the December 3, 2020 meeting.
Following the December 3rd meeting, staff will provide a memorandum in the form of Agenda
Correspondence to the Planning Commission that identifies the ATC’s recommendation.
Item 4
Packet Page 197
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan
Page 12
In addition, the Parks and Recreation Commission has provided valuable input on the Draft Plan.
The Draft Plan has also been circulated to members of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task
Force for input. Any input provided by committee members will be received as part of the public
comment period of the Draft Plan.
The Administrative Draft Active Transportation Plan was provided for internal review by several
City departments, including City Administration, Fire and Police Departments, Community
Development, Construction Inspection, Office of Sustainability, and the Community Development
Department (planning and development engineering groups).
Other community groups have helped shape the Active Transportation Plan including the SLO
Chamber of Commerce, Downtown SLO, RISE SLO, SLO County Public Health Injury
Prevention Committee, SLO County Healthy Eating-Acting Living Coalition, Bike SLO County,
Save Our Downtown, SLO U40, Cal Poly ASI, and others.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the project with specific direction to staff on pertinent issues.
2. Recommend denial of the Active Transportation Plan, however staff does not recommend this
as it would be inconsistent with the General Plan and the Climate Action Plan for Community
Recovery.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.READING FILE - Public Draft Active Transportation Plan
3.San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Initial Study Negative Declaration
4.ATP Consistency with General Plan Policies List
Item 4
Packet Page 198
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-20
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE AND
ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT; AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED DECEMBER 9, 2020 (CITYWIDE, OTHER
0495-2020 EID 0496-2020)
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
recommended general support of the Public Draft Active Transportation Plan subject to future
discussion and refinement at the Active Transportation Committee meeting of December 3, 2020.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing by teleconference on December 9, 2020, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under OTHER
0495-2020 and EID 0496-2020, City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works, applicant; and,
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings regarding the project:
1. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will promote the public health, safety, and
welfare of persons working, living, or travelling in the City by providing a network of
convenient pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs.
2. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will further General Plan goals to reduce
single-occupancy motor vehicle use by supporting and promoting alternatives such as
walking, using transit and bicycles.
3. The proposed Active Transportation Plan will provide new and improved bicycle and
pedestrian facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to
complete a network of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways that connect
neighborhoods with major activity centers and routes outside of the city.
Item 4
Packet Page 199
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project’s
programmatic Initial Study / Negative Declaration adequately evaluates potential environmental
impacts of the project.
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend Council
approve the Active Transportation Plan and adopt of the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 9th day of December 2020.
____________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 4
Packet Page 200
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
San Luis Obispo Active
Transportation Plan Initial
Study Negative Declaration
NOVEMBER 2020
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
919 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by:
Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
617 W 7th Street, Suite 1103
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Item 4
Packet Page 201
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
1
INITIAL STUDY – NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title:
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager
(805) 781-7590
Afukushima@slocity.org
Project Location:
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) applies to all areas and plans/projects within the
City of San Luis Obispo limits. Figure 1 shows the regional location, and Figure 2 shows the plan location.
Regional Location and Setting
The City of San Luis Obispo is located in the Central Coast Region of California along U.S. Highway 101 (U.S.
101), approximately 230 miles south of San Francisco and 190 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. San Luis
Obispo is accessible via U.S. 101 from the north and south, State Route 1 (SR 1) from the northwest, and State Route
227 (SR 227) from the south.
Local Setting
The City is characterized by a mild Mediterranean climate that is moderated by the influence of the Pacific Ocean,
located approximately 10 miles to the west. The City receives approximately 20 inches of rain annually, 287 sunny
days per year, with a July high temperature of 74°F and a January low temperature of 43°F.
The City encompasses approximately 10.7 square miles of land in a narrow valley between the coastal Santa Lucia
Mountains on the east, which reach an elevation of up to 3,000 feet, and the Nine Sisters volcanic hills on the west.
The San Luis Obispo Creek bisects the City and is a defining feature of the Downtown District. The City also has a
permanent open space greenbelt at its edges.
Surrounding Uses
The City is surrounded by unincorporated San Luis Obispo County land characterized by agricultural uses
(vineyards, field crops) and open space containing oak woodland and grasslands habitat. Distinctive facilities and
land uses proximate to the City include California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), Cuesta
College, and San Luis Obispo Military Camp to the north, San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and numerous
vineyards and wineries to the south, Los Padres National Forest to the east, and the Irish Hills to the west.
Item 4
Packet Page 202
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
2
Figure 1- Regional Location
Item 4
Packet Page 203
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
3
Figure 2- Plan Setting
Item 4
Packet Page 204
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
4
Existing Setting
Historical and Demographic Setting
The history of San Luis Obispo dates back to 1772 when Junipero Serra founded Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. The
City was officially incorporated in 1856. According to the City’s General Plan Annual Report, the City’s population in
2019 is 46,802. Since 2011, the population in the City has grown by around 1,500, an average rate of 0.4 percent per year,
while the County of San Luis Obispo also grew at an average rate of 0.4 percent per year during this period.
Existing Plans and Documents
City San Luis Obispo General Plan – Circulation Element
The City of San Luis Obispo updated the Circulation Element of its General Plan in 2015 The City's general plan guides
the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The general plan is published in separately
adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. This Circulation Element describes how the city plans to
provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and
beyond. The General Plan Circulation Element provides the foundation policies for walking and biking in the City of San
Luis Obispo. Within section 1.7 there are two main policies that provide the context of bicycle and pedestrian planning,
C 1.7. Transportation Objectives:
1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Table 1) and depend less on the single‐
occupant use of vehicles.
2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and support
programs that reduce the interregional use of single‐occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative
forms of transportation.
Additionally, bicycling and walking policies are shown in sections four and five of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan. These desired mode splits and policies are at the very core of the ATP and established the importance of walking
and biking in the City of San Luis Obispo. These are ambitious goals that require substantial investment, coordination and
planning; the ATP will act as guidance for proposed projects and programs to achieve the goals and mode share set by the
City Council and established in the City’s General Plan.
San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan
Compared with the 2012 Climate Action Plan (CAP), the 2020 CAP Update puts more emphasis on carbon-free electricity
and General Plan transportation mode split. Measures from the 2012 CAP Update were removed and replaced with new
foundational actions and supporting measures. The CAP Update builds upon the goals of the 2012 CAP and is based on a
more recent inventory for the City. The CAP Update is organized into six pillars, each of which includes a long-term goal,
measures, and foundational actions. Altogether, these measures and foundational actions are intended to reduce
communitywide greenhouse (GHG) emissions by 43 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and by 66 percent below 1990
Table 1- Desired Mode Split
Item 4
Packet Page 205
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
5
levels by 2035, which provides substantial progress toward meeting the City carbon neutrality goal while exceeding in
time the State carbon neutrality goal.
A major part of GHG emissions are from the transportation sector. To meet the emissions goal outlined in the CAP there
needs to be a significant reduction in transportation emissions to 26%. To achieve that reduction there needs to be a large
shift in single occupancy vehicle trips to active transportation trips both walking and biking. The ATP will play a pivotal
role as a guiding document to implement a well-connected and safe active transportation network.
Proposed Projects with Completed Environmental Documents
The following proposed projects in the ATP are already approved projects and have adopted environmental documents
with corresponding impacts and required mitigation measures. These projects are approved, but have not yet been
constructed, which is why they are included in the ATP.
1) Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration)
2) Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft to Pepper Street (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration)
In addition, the City Council has approved the San Luis Ranch and Froom Ranch Specific Plans, and Avila Ranch
Development Plan, which contain proposed projects identified in the ATP. The ATP includes the infrastructure projects
identified in these Specific Plans and Development Plan to ensure consistency among plans. Upon approval of the Specific
Plans and Development Plan, the City certified associated Environmental Impact Reports, which identify potential impacts
and required mitigation measures.
These environmental documents referenced above are available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 and online
at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents
The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, and online at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area-
plans/san-luis-ranch
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, and online at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area-
plans/froom-ranch
The Avila Ranch Development Plan is available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, and online at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area-
plans/avila-ranch
General Plan Designations and Zoning:
Item 4
Packet Page 206
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
6
The Active Transportation Plan would be implemented throughout the City and would occur in all General Plan
designations and in all zoning designations.
Description of the Project:
The ATP (Attachment 1) will be the guiding document for active transportation in the City of San Luis Obispo. The 2020
ATP will supersede the existing 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan as the planning document that provide
recommendations for the improvements to walking and bicycling in San Luis Obispo. The ATP contains various programs,
policies, and recommendations pertaining to the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ATP proposes expansion
of and improvements to the City’s existing shared-use paths, bike lanes and routes, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle
bridges, and crosswalks. The proposed networks are designed to build upon existing shared-use paths; to connect regional
routes and paths; to provide access to key destinations; and to serve as recreational assets.
The City of San Luis Obispo has a legacy of promoting active transportation, resulting in the City being a great place to
walk and bike. The San Luis Obispo ATP will make existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities safer and will increase
connectivity to key destinations within the City. The recommendations included in this Plan are meant to enhance non-
motorized travel infrastructure and create more travel options for the residents of San Luis Obispo.
The Goals of the Active Transportation Plan:
x Increase the number of trips completed by biking and walking.
x Provide a network of safe, efficient, and enjoyable facilities to support walking and bicycling.
x Provides active transportation connections to community destinations such as employment centers, schools,
grocery and shopping centers, senior facilities, recreation centers, and transit stops.
x Reduce air pollution, asthma rates, and greenhouse gas emissions.
x Ensure that disadvantaged communities are actively engaged in the planning process and help shape the projects
in their neighborhoods.
Outreach to California Native American Tribes
Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example,
the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate Native American Tribes about the project
consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. There was no response or
requests for consultation from the native American Tribes that were provided the notification.
Item 4
Packet Page 207
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
7
Program vs Project Level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis
The Project (under CEQA), is the adoption of the proposed ATP for the City of San Luis Obispo. The ATP is a
program/policy-level document, which means it does not provide project-specific construction details that would allow
for project-level CEQA analysis. Furthermore, specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and adoption
of this CEQA document would not authorize any development. Information such as precise project locations, project
timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings will be required in
order for future “project-level” CEQA analysis to occur. Therefore, this CEQA document has been prepared at a “program-
level.” Under CEQA, a programmatic document is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large
project and/or for a project that will be implemented over a long period of time. This CEQA document, prepared at a
program level, is therefore adequate for adoption of the ATP by San Luis Obispo City Council.
Required Approvals:
City of San Luis Obispo
Required approvals include:
Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan Initial Study -Negative Declaration.
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
No other agency approval is required.
Item 4
Packet Page 208
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
8
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
“Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
܆ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
܆ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ܆ Tribal Cultural Resources
܆ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ܆ Noise ☐ Wildfire
܆ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ܆ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
܈
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or
habitat (see attached determination).
܆
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
܆
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Item 4
Packet Page 209
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
9
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.܈
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
܆
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. ܆
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
܆
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
܆
November 13, 2020
Signature Date
For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
Item 4
Packet Page 210
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study / Negative Declaration
10
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Item 4
Packet Page 211
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c)
The San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation/Open Space and Circulation Elements identify viewing corridors and
scenic roadways with high or moderate value as well as visual landmarks. The applicable goals and policies from
these City General Plan elements include:
▪ 9.1.1 Preserve Natural and Agricultural Landscapes: The City will implement the following policies and will
encourage other agencies with jurisdictions to do likewise:
□ Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be maintained in their
current patterns of use.
□Any Development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually subordinate to and
compatible with the landscape features. Development includes, but is not limited to buildings, signs (including
billboard signs), roads, utility and telecommunication lines and structures. Such development shall:
− Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent.
− Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting.
− Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect the setting, including the historical
pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its setting.
− The City’s non-emergency repair, maintenance, and small construction projects in highly visible locations, such as
hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could be affected, shall be subject to at least “minor or
incidental” architectural review.
▪ 9.1.3 Utilities and Signs: In and near public streets, plazas, and parks, features that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or
obstruct views shall be avoided. Necessary features, such as utility and communication equipment, and traffic
equipment and signs should be designed and placed so as to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros
or surrounding hillsides, or farmland, consistent with the primary objective of safety. New billboard signs shall not be
allowed, and existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon as practicable, as provided in the Sign Regulations.
▪ 9.1.5 View Protection in New Development: The City will include in all environmental review and carefully
consider effects of new development, streets, and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the
Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines,
and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines.
Item 4
Packet Page 212
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
12
▪ 9.2.1 Views to and from Public Places, including Scenic Roadways: The City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources from public places and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places
include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In
particular, the route segments shown in Figure 10 are designated as scenic roadways.
□ Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views.
□ Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views, consistent with
safety needs.
□ Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall be clustered to facilitate
viewing of the distant features.
□ Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be considered “sensitive” and
require architectural review.
▪ 9.3.5 Visual Assessments: Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects affecting important scenic
resources and views from public places.
▪ 9.3.6 View Blockage along Scenic Highways: Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant
impact.
▪ 9.3.9 Undergrounding Utilities: Place existing overhead utilities underground, with highest priority for scenic
roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts.
The ATP would not involve land use or zoning changes. As a policy document, the ATP would not result in impacts
related to scenic vistas and visual character. However, implementation of proposed projects in the ATP such as
bicycle and pedestrian paths, sidewalks, grade separated crossings and bicycle and pedestrian supporting
infrastructure may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. However, discretionary development
would be required to adhere to City development regulations and General Plan policies, including San Luis Obispo
Street Tree Ordinance No. 1544, to retain character of the City and minimize environmental impacts. In addition,
discretionary development would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and other applicable regulatory
land use actions prior to approval. Thus, the ATP would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic
vistas and visual character or scenic quality.
d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any proposed
bicycle or pedestrian facilities are subject to conformance with the City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements
which set maximum illumination level and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve
night time views. All bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the plan will be required to conform to standards of the
City’s Nigh Sky Preservation Ordinance. Class I shared use path lighting is required to comply with City standards. Any
lighting placement is required to comply with the policies in the Active Transportation Plan which calls for lighting
along creeks to be designated to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot
be mitigated. Additionally, the pedestrian lighting recommended in the ATP will meet the City standards and match
existing pedestrian lighting. The project does not have the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area. Less than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 213
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
13
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) e) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, but future development of project
components contained in the ATP could potentially impact areas used for agricultural purposes or which contain prime
farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide important, forest land, or involve a Williamson Act contract.
Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify the
potential impacts to these areas and mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level.
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling
in San Luis Obispo. It is intended to be a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete
network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations
around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms,
material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that
specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis, as
necessary. In cases where proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located in areas which contain agricultural or
forestry resources, impacts and mitigations measures would be identified to reduce impacts to less than significant. Less
than significant impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 214
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
14
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than significant.
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
f) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
g) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
h) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
i) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct air quality impacts, but future development of
project components contained in the ATP could create a less than significant impact due to construction or maintenance
activities. Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the City would
identify the potential air quality impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to a less than significant
level.
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling
in San Luis Obispo and increasing use of those transportation modes. The goal of the ATP is to encourage and increase
bicycle ridership and walking trips which can replace existing driving trips that would be a net benefit to air quality.
The ATP itself does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor does it result in other
emissions such as odors.
Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types
of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual
projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary
Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the C ity’s
General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. Adoption of the ATP alone would not create any air quality
impacts because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any
development. Less than Significant Impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 215
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
15
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) e) f) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, but future development of project
components contained in the ATP could potentially affect protected biological species and/or habitats. Construction and
operation of trails, paths, signage, etc. may occur in biologically sensitive areas. Individual projects would be subject to site-
specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify the potential presence of endangered or listed species and
mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. All construction-related potential impacts
resulting from construction run-off would be addressed through adherence to the City’s MS4 General Stormwater Permit from
the State Water Board.
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in San
Luis Obispo. It is intended to be a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails,
walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual
project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and
ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the
implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis, as necessary. In cases where proposed bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are located in areas which contain riparian habitat, or are located within creek setbacks, creek setback regulations of
the City’s Zoning Regulations would apply. In addition to standard City policies and regulations, the previous 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP) includes policies and standard mitigation for locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of
biological impact to less than significant levels. While this ATP supersedes and replaces the 2013 BTP, it carries forward all of
its policies and standard mitigation for locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impacts to less than
significant levels.
Item 4
Packet Page 216
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
16
Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan
and other relevant regulatory documents. Adoption of the ATP alone would not create any biological impacts because specific
development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 14.01 Historic Preservation Ordinance requires designation of historic
resources and sites. According to the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element there are five historic
districts that include a multitude of Master and Contributing List Historical Properties. In addition, significant historic
and prehistoric sites have been identified in the Downtown and Old Town Historic Districts, and throughout the City
limits. The ATP proposes bicycle and pedestrian projects throughout the City. Adoption of the ATP alone would not
have a significant impact on any identified historical properties or historic or prehistoric sites because specific
development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development.
Additionally, as part of the required environmental clearance for the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities
including but not limited to shared use paths and grade separated crossings, consistency with the City’s Archaeological
Resource Preservation Guidelines will be required, which would include additional surveys and evaluation for areas
identified as Sensitive. If potential cultural resources are found during construction, the City’s Guidelines require that
construction ceases until a qualified archaeologist determines the extent of the resources, and the Community
Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 217
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
17
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) The City of San Luis Obispo has demonstrated its commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy through
many efforts. The City has adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, per San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code Chapter 15.02, which requires efficiency measures to reduce energy use, and provide energy reduction benefits.
The ATP does recommend projects and lighting to support walking and biking throughout the community. The amounts
of energy needed during construction and operation of lighting is minimal and would not result in significant energy
needs. In addition, any use of energy for construction projects would be temporary and not result in significant
environmental impact. The ATP is a programmatic document. During construction of all facilities, the implementing
agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary, including an evaluation of potentially significant
environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
13 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iv. Landslides? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 4
Packet Page 218
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
18
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a.i) ii) iii) iv) b) c) d)
The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should
be expected during the life of the proposed structures. San Luis Obispo is located in a seismically active region and is identified
as a Landslide Zone by the California Department of Conservation. In 2014, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
(LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks prior to a disaster event and fully cover the necessity to address seismic and geological
hazards. In addition, all development projects are required to conform to applicable provisions of the current California Building
Code.
The ATP is a programmatic and guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. As a
policy document, the ATP would not directly require ground disturbing activities. However, implementation of the bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure in the ATP may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. The ATP includes proposed
shared use paths, sidewalks and other bicycle and pedestrian supportive infrastructure. As such, the ATP could result in
construction-related soil erosion and topsoil loss impacts associated with such installations. However, discretionary development
would be required to conduct geotechnical studies and adhere to related geology and soils recommendations prior to final siting
and construction as part of a site-specific CEQA analysis. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and the presence of unstable soils.
Less and Significant Impact.
e) The ATP does not include the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No Impact.
f) The ATP is a programmatic document. During construction of all facilities, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific
CEQA analysis as necessary, including an evaluation of potential impacts to paleontological resources. Less than significant
impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 219
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
19
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,8 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
a) b) The City of San Luis Obispo has recently adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which provides Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
thresholds, policies, and transportation mode share goals for the City. The ATP will be the guiding document to improve
the mode share of walking and bicycling and increasing these two modes would reduce GHG citywide. The City’s General
Plan and CAP have the stated goals of having the mode share of 20% for bicycling and 18% for walking and other forms
of transportation. The ATP’s goal is to provide the recommended projects, programs and policies to achieve those mode
share goals. The ATP complements and facilitates the applicable GHG plans, policies and regulations; therefore, the ATP
will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases. No impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: No Impact.
.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 4
Packet Page 220
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
20
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) In 2014, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks of those hazards.
The ATP is a programmatic document and would not expose the public to hazardous materials and does not require
or involve the use, transportation, disposal or emissions of hazardous materials. Individual projects such as the
construction of bike and pedestrian paths, sidewalks, or supporting infrastructure would be subject to site-specific
environmental review, at which time the City would identify the potential exposure of the public to hazardous
materials but would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant impact.
e) The ATP is a programmatic document and would not in itself result in airport related safety hazards. The bicycle and
pedestrian facilities recommended in the plan which may be within the airport land use area would be subject to site-
specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify any potential impacts and would reduce any
impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant impact.
f) The ATP does not impede access for emergency response because it is a programmatic document. The ATP does not
involve site-specific development, nor would it facilitate new development that would interfere with adopted
emergency plans. Individual projects such as Class I shared use paths, sidewalks, or other bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure from the ATP would undergo site-specific CEQA analysis. Therefore, the ATP itself would result in a
less than significant impact related to impairment or interference with implementation of an emergency response or
evacuation plan.
g) According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), San Luis Obispo is not located in
designated California Fire Hazard Severity Zones,49 or in State Responsibility Areas. No impact associated with
wildland fires would occur. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the urban reserve consists of low
to moderate fire hazard rates. High and extreme fire hazard rates closely surround the San Luis Obispo urban reserve.
However, according to CalFIRE, there are five areas categorized as very high fire hazard severity zones within the
local responsibility area (LRA). However, these areas are located on the outer fringes of the city boundaries and the
ATP does not propose specific development or other physical changes to the environment through would be put at
risk in the case of a wildland fire. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less than significant impact related to risks
associated with exposure to wildland fires.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: No Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 221
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
21
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c i) ii) iii) iv) d) e) The ATP is a programmatic document and does not propose development or changes to land use
and zoning, in addition the City is not located within designated seiche or tsunami zones. Thus, the ATP itself would
not result in construction or operational impacts related to alterations in polluted runoff. Implementation of proposed
projects contained in the ATP may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment including Class I paths,
sidewalks, or other pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Construction of infrastructure development and redevelopment
could result in erosion and potential redirect of flood flows or drainage patterns; however, implementation of proposed
actions would not include large-scale construction within San Luis Obispo. Additionally, discretionary development
would be required to undergo CEQA review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation, including the
implementation of a SWPP and compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations once project details
and locations are known. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-than-significant impact related to polluted runoff.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 222
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
22
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
2 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
a) b) ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in San
Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails,
walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. The
ATP is in alignment with existing land use plans, polices and regulations and will have no impacts to land use planning.
No impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: No Impact.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
a) b) The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan does not identify any mineral resources or mineral resources recovery sites
within the City and no impacts would occur to mineral resources. No impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: No Impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 223
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
23
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
6 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
12 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
d) a) b) c) The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is the only public airport or airstrip located in San Luis Obispo.
The airport and adjoining Airport Safety zone are located in the southern portion of the City limits, at 975 Airport Drive.
Adoption of the ATP alone would not expose people to unacceptable noise levels and would not generate noise levels in
excess of the City’s Noise Ordinance because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not
authorize any development. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will
conduct site-specific CEQA analysis, as necessary. The ATP is a programmatic document containing proposed projects
and programs that are consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. Some of the proposed projects including
but not limited to bike and pedestrian trails in the ATP are within the vicinity of the airport, which may result in a
temporary increase in groundborne vibration or noise levels during construction. However, discretionary development
would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required
to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Additionally, the ATP encompasses a suite of
opportunities that would decrease motor vehicle traffic and traffic-related noise. As such, implementation of the ATP
would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-than-
significant impact related to noise.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
3 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Item 4
Packet Page 224
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
24
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
a) b) The ATP is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails,
walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. The
ATP will help connect existing and future housing to community destinations. The ATP will not induce population growth
or displace people or housing. No impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: No Impact.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Police protection? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Schools? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Parks? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Other public facilities? ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
Adoption of the ATP would not affect population or employment growth and would not result in growth that would require the
assemblage of additional fire or police resources, or the expansion of any schools or other public facilities. The proposed adoption
of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, however future development of project components contained in the ATP
(trails, bridges, small structures, etc.) could potentially increase the need for security for pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing these
facilities. Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the implementing agency
would identify the potential public service-related impacts.
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in City.
It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and
bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Furthermore,
implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other
relevant regulatory documents.
Adoption of the ATP alone would not create any public service impacts because specific development is not being proposed
under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. No impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 225
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
25
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: No Impact.
16. RECREATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
5 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) ATP is intended to increase the pedestrian and bicycle recreational opportunities for the residents of the City and thus will
have a beneficial impact on recreational facilities and opportunities. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate
vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable
connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing,
material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that
specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as
necessary. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
1 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 4
Packet Page 226
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
26
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) The transportation goals, policies and thresholds are determined by the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and
supported by the City’s Climate Action Plan. The ATP proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking
and bicycling in the City. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete
network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations
around the City. The projects and programs recommended in the ATP are intended to improve access and use of
transportation modes other than the automobile, which is anticipated to reduce citywide vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
For this reason, proposed ATP would result in a less than significant impact per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b).
Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(c) generally applies to most bicycle projects as it qualifies them
as a minor alteration of the existing highway because it repurposes space in the existing paved roadway through
placement of striping, landscaping, and posts that are all considered exempt activity under CEQA, and does not expand
the physical area which could contribute to a physical impact to environmentally sensitive resources (i.e., biology,
geology cultural, historic, etc.), nor does it substantially alter the existing use of the street.
The proposed ATP would not result in direct physical changes, however future development of project components
contained in the ATP (trails, bridges, small structures, etc.) could potentially impact existing roadways and
intersections. For instance, if new crosswalks or bicycle lanes are proposed, these projects could require additional
project-level analysis to determine their impacts to (and safety from) roadway and vehicular activity. Additionally,
construction activities will require various vehicular trips to and from the various project sites. However, these will
be minimal and temporary. In the event that partial or full road closure is necessary during project construction, the
contractor will be required to adhere to any and all regulations from the local jurisdiction, Caltrans and/or other
regulatory agency. Individual projects would be evaluated by the City Public Works and Fire Departments for
consistency with applicable engineering standards and emergency response policies. In addition, individual projects
would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the implementing agency would identify the
potential transportation-related impacts. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with
the goals and policies under the General Plan, and other relevant regulatory documents. Based on these considerations,
the proposed ATP is considered to result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 4
Packet Page 227
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
27
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, on September 8, 2020 potentially affected Tribes were formally notified
of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. The City of San Luis Obispo has
provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate Native American Tribes about the project consistent with
City and State regulations including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. There was no response or requests for
consultation from the native American Tribes that were provided the notification.
The ATP is a programmatic document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus,
the ATP itself would not result in construction or operational impacts related to tribal cultural resources. As a policy
document, the ATP would not directly require ground disturbing activities. However, implementation of projects
identified in the ATP may result in infrastructure development and redevelopment such as bicycle and pedestrian
paths, sidewalks, grade separated crossings that could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. As part of the
required environmental clearance for the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities including but not limited to
shared use paths and grade separated crossings, consistency with the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation
Guidelines will be required, which would include additional surveys and evaluation for areas identified as Sensitive. If
potential cultural resources are found during construction, the City’s Guidelines require that construction ceases until
a qualified archaeologist determines the extent of the resources, and the Community Development Director approves
appropriate protective measures. In addition, as required by CEQA, project-specific tribal consultation would occur
during the review of any project requiring preparation of an Initial Study. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-
than-significant impact related to tribal cultural resources.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 4
Packet Page 228
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
28
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) e) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, however future development of
project components contained in the ATP (trails, bridges, small structures, etc.) could potentially utilize non-potable
and or recycled water during construction, and for potential irrigation. Once the various project components are in
operation, waste water and solid waste generation will be limited mostly to construction activity. Individual projects
would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the implementing agency would identify the
potential utility-related impacts. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding
mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At
such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific
CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals
and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. Less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 7 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
7 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
a) b) In 2014, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks prior to a disaster
event and to identify fire high risk and evacuation plans. The proposed ATP will not affect emergency response or propose
structures that will have occupants that could be affected by wildfires. No impact.
c) d) The ATP does recommend Class I shared use paths that may require associated infrastructure. Individual project details
such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately
construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the
implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP
Item 4
Packet Page 229
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
29
would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan, the 2014 LHMP and other relevant
regulatory documents. Less than significant impact
Mitigation Measures: None are required.
Conclusion: Less than Significant.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the
City of San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network
of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City.
Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of
equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are
implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of
the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory
documents. The ATP will be essential in providing guidance to achieve the General Plan mode share goals, CAP GHG levels
and overall goals and policies supported by City planning documents. Less than significant impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 230
San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan – Initial Study Negative Declaration
30
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the
City of San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network
of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City.
Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of
equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are
implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of
the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory
documents. The ATP will be essential in providing guidance to achieve the General Plan mode share goals, CAP GHG levels
and overall goals and policies supported by City planning documents. In fact, the cumulative impact of all of these projects and
programs is the to reduce overall vehicle miles travels and an increase use for both walking and biking. Less than significant
impact.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the
City of San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network
of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City.
Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of
equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are
implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of
the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory
documents. The ATP will be essential in providing guidance to achieve the General Plan mode share goals, CAP GHG levels
and overall goals and policies supported by City planning documents. No impact.
Item 4
Packet Page 231
31
22. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
23. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, 2015
2. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use, 2014
3. City of San Luis Obispo Housing, 2015
4. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space, 2012
5. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation 2001
6. City of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2014 City of San Luis Obispo Noise, 1996
7. City of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2014
8. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, 2020
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines
11. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance
12. Airport Land Use Plan, 2015
13. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/education/geologicmaps/apfaults.php
Attachments
1. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan
Item 4
Packet Page 232
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
The Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the City’s General Plan policies because of its
promotion of sustainable transportation, land use principles, and conservation. The Active
Transportation Plan establishes a program for future implementation of projects that would facilitate
the goals and strategies adopted in the City’s General Plan.
The Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the following General Plan policies:
Circulation Element
CE 1.6.1. Transportation Goals
1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing
dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal
health standards for air quality.
2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding
buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation.
4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will
cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians.
6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation.
9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
CE 1.6.2 Overall Transportation Strategy
Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by:
2. Funding alternative forms of transportation;
4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes;
5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways;
7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety.
CE 1.7.1. Encourage Better Transportation Habits
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Table 1) and depend less
on the single-occupant use of vehicles.
Table 1 Mode Split Objectives by Percentage of City Resident Trips:
Motor vehicles: 50%
Transit: 12%
Bicycle: 20%
Walking, Carpool, and Other Forms: 18%
Item 4
Packet Page 233
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and
support programs that reduce the interregional use of single-occupant vehicles and increase the use
of alternative forms of transportation.
CE 1.7.2 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation
San Luis Obispo should:
1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing
developed parts of the city by 2035, and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction
programs.
4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than
the single-occupant vehicle
CE 1.7.3. Manage Traffic
San Luis Obispo should:
3. Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing road system and
reducing air pollution and traffic congestion.
4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of transportation throughout
the city and connect with Regional Routes and Highways.
5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak
traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe
conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists.
6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently
served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections.
CE 1.7.5. Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation.
San Luis Obispo will:
1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Table 1 and bi-annually
review and adjust transportation programs if necessary.
CE 2.1. Traffic Reduction Policies
2.1.1. Multi-level Programs
The City shall support county-wide and community-based efforts aimed at substantially reducing the
number of vehicle trips and parking demand.
2.1.3. Work-based Trip Reduction
The City shall encourage employers within the city limits and work with the county to work with
employers outside of the City limits to participate in trip reduction programs.
Item 4
Packet Page 234
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
2.1.4. Downtown Congestion
Within the Downtown the City shall establish and promote programs aimed at reducing congestion in
a way that supports the long-term economic viability of the downtown.
2.1.5. Long-term Measure
The City shall support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality
degrades below legal standards or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue
more stringent measures to achieve its transportation goals.
CE 2.2. Traffic Reduction Programs
2.2.1. Agency Cooperation
In coordination with county agencies, the City shall support efforts in establishing county -wide trip
reduction programs.
2.2.2. City Trip Reduction
The City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City employees.
2.2.3. Large Employers
The City shall work with employers to establish a voluntary commuter benefit options program that
provides commute options for employees.
2.2.4. Incentives for Educational Institutions
The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to
provide incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.
CE 4.1. Bicycle Policies
4.1.1. Bicycle Use
The City shall expand the bicycle network and provide end-of-trip facilities to encourage bicycle use
and to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.
4.1.2. Campus and School Site Trips
The City shall encourage the use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational
facilities.
4.1.3. Continuous Network
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county
bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way in the
City as they become available.
4.1.5. Bikeway Design and Maintenance
The City shall design and maintain bikeways to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable.
4.1.6. Bikeway Development with Road Improvements
The City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan when:
A. The street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to its cross-sectional design; or
Item 4
Packet Page 235
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
B. The street section is being changed as part of a development project.
4.1.7. Education and Safety
The City shall support education and safety programs aimed at all cyclists and motorists.
4.1.8. Bicycle Transportation Coordinator
The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle
transportation plan policies and programs.
4.1.9. Traffic Law Compliance
The City shall continue to seek compliance with its traffic laws through enforcement and education.
4.1.10. Right-of-way Acquisition
The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right-of-ways needed to implement the projects
identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan.
4.1.11. Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation
The City shall support allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement bicycle
transportation policies and programs.
4.1.12. Bike Parking
The City shall facilitate development of conveniently located bike parking so as not to impede
pedestrian walkways.
4.1.13. Campus Coordination
The City shall consider the Cal Poly and Cuesta Master Plans to better coordinate the planning and
implementation of safe and convenient bicycle access and facilities to local college campuses.
CE 4.1. Bicycle Programs
4.2.1. Bike Share
The City shall evaluate a bike share program in coordination with Cal Poly and other educational
institutions.
4.2.2. Bicycle Transportation Plan
The City shall maintain and regularly update its Bicycle Transportation Plan as needed to reflect
changes in state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of
this Circulation Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan shall consider Safe Routes
to School.
4.2.3. Campus Master Plans
The City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to de-emphasize the use of automobiles and
promote the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans.
4.2.4. Zoning Regulations
The City shall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for secured bicycle
parking and ancillary facilities.
Item 4
Packet Page 236
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
4.2.5. Railroad Bikeway and Trail
The City should obtain railroad right-of-way and easements to establish a separated bike path and
pedestrian trail through San Luis Obispo.
4.2.6. Bicycle Friendly Community
The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a
gold level designation.
4.2.7. Regional Coordination
The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county
bikeways to support a regional bicycle network.
4.2.8. Bicycle Licensing
The City should consider expanding and maintaining its bicycle licensing program to address bicycle
loss, theft, and safety problems.
CE 5.1. Walking Policies
5.1.1. Promote Walking
The City shall encourage and promote walking as a regular means of transportation.
5.1.2. Sidewalks and Paths
The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network connecting residential areas with major
activity centers as well as trails leading into city and county open spaces.
5.1.3. New Development
New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans,
programs and standards. When evaluating transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal
Level of Service analysis.
5.1.4. Pedestrian Access
New or renovated commercial and government public buildings shall provide convenient pedestrian
access from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from driveways and vehicle entrances.
5.1.5. Pedestrian Crossings
To improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections, the City shall institute the
following:
A. Install crossing controls where warranted by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street.
B. In the downtown, install traffic-calming features such as textured cross walks and bulb-outs, where
appropriate.
C. On Arterial Streets, Parkways or Regional Routes with four or more travel lanes, install medians at
pedestrian crossings where roadway width allows.
5.1.6. Downtown Commercial Core
The City shall require that pedestrian facilities in the downtown be designed in accordance with the
Item 4
Packet Page 237
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines to allow a clear path of travel and include conveniently
located rest areas with shade and seating.
5.1.7. Sidewalks
As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider neighborhood character
including topography, street design, existing density and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing
the installation of sidewalks.
CE 5.2. Walking Programs
5.2.1. Downtown Pedestrian Plan
The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage walking and to
expand facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The plan shall include
pedestrian safety assessments in accordance with State and Federal guidelines.
5.2.2. Pedestrian Network
For areas outside of the Downtown, the City shall implement its program for the installation of a
continuous and connected pedestrian network giving areas with the heaviest existing or potential
pedestrian traffic priority in funding.
5.2.3. Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance
The City shall continue to implement its annual program of enhancing existing curbs with ADA
compliant ramps.
5.2.4. Safe Routes to School
The City shall continue to coordinate with SLOCOG and local schools to pursue Safe Routes to School
programs and grant opportunities.
5.2.5. Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a
citywide Pedestrian Plan.
CE 6.1. Multi-Modal Circulation Policies
6.1.1. Complete Streets
The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and
travel for users of all abilities including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists.
Conservation and Open Space Element
COSE 1.6 The Ahwahnee Principles.
Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected and
interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by
being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees and lighting, and by discouraging high-speed
traffic.
Item 4
Packet Page 238
EID 0496-2020, Active Transportation Plan, Attachment 4
COSE 2.2.4 Promote walking, biking and use of public transit use to reduce dependency on motor
vehicles.
City actions shall seek to reduce dependency on gasoline- or diesel powered motor vehicles and to
encourage walking, biking and public transit use.
COSE 2.3.3 Alternative transportation/land use strategies.
Implement public transit-, bicycle- and pedestrian-oriented land use and design strategies in new
development, as described in the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to reduce
the number of single-occupant trips in fossil-fueled vehicles.
COSE 4.4.1 Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly design.
Residences, work places and facilities for all other activities will be located and designed to promote
travel by pedestrians and bicyclists.
COSE 4.4.2 Alternative Transportation.
The City’s transportation and circulation systems shall foster travel by modes other than motor
vehicles, including walking, bicycles and public transit.
Land Use Element
LU 2.2.4. Neighborhood Connections
The City shall provide all areas with a pattern of streets, pedestrian network, and bicycle facilities that
promote neighborhood and community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths
of adequate width, connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial
services and public open space to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the city.
Connectivity to nearby community facilities (such as parks and schools), open space, and supporting
commercial areas shall also be enhanced, but shall not be done in a method that would increase cut-
through traffic
LU 2.9. Reduced Automobile Dependence in Downtown
The City shall encourage the development of Downtown housing that minimizes the need for
automobile use and minimizes the storage of vehicles in surrounding neighborhoods.
LU 3.3.1. New or Expanded Areas of Neighborhood Commercial Use
The City shall provide for new or expanded areas of neighborhood commercial uses that:
D. Have safe and pleasant pedestrian access from the surrounding service area, as well as good
internal circulation;
LU 7.10. Development Before Annexation
B. Any development within the urban reserve approved by the County prior to annexation should
comply with City standards for roadway cross-sections, bus stops, walking and bicycle paths,
landscaping, view protection, setbacks, preferred site layouts, and architectural character.
LU 10.4. Encouraging Walkability
The City shall encourage projects which provide for and enhance active and environmentally
sustainable modes of transportation, such as pedestrian movement, bicycle access, and transit
services.
Item 4
Packet Page 239
1
Active Transportation Plan
Planning Commission: December 9, 2020
Luke Schwartz
Transportation
Manager
Adam Fukushima
Active Transportation
Manager
Commission Purview
Consider the Active Transportation Committee (ATC)
recommendation regarding the Plan, reviewing the
project for General Plan consistency and providing a
recommendation to the City Council.
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution recommending that the
City Council approve the Active
Transportation Plan and adopt a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for the
project.
Why are we creating an Active
Transportation Plan?
First comprehensive plan on both bicycling
and walking transportation (CE Policy 5.2.5)
Increase readiness for State grants which
have added a focus on Disadvantaged
Communities
Plan at a Glance
Foundational Principles:
Sustainability & Climate Action
Equity
Community Resilience & Economic Vitality
4 Major Goals:
1.Build it
2.Safety
3.Accessibility
4.Equity
Structure of the Plan
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
Chapter 3: Bicycling and Walking in SLO Today
Chapter 4: Community Engagement
Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle and Pedestrian
Projects
Chapter 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs
Chapter 7: Implementation
Appendices: Detailed Project Information and Design
Guidelines
Changes from the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan
Pedestrians!
New design tools and best practices
Protected Bike Lanes
Protected Intersections
New Crossing Devices (RRFBs,
HAWKs)
Focus on intuitive routes with more
direct connections to key destinations
Climate Action Plan Goals
•Goal of carbon neutrality
by 2035
•Transportation largest
producer of GHG
•C.A.P. Pillar #4
(Connected Community)
•Achieve GP Mode
Split Goals by 2030
Climate Action Plan Goals
8%
7%
Active Transportation Plan is an
important blueprint towards
achieving our Climate Action
goals
Barriers to Walking?
Barriers to Bicycling?
Types of Bicyclists in SLO
60% of SLO
Residents
Would Bike
More If More
Low -Stress
Routes and
Crossings Were
Available
Bicycle Facilities Toolkit
New to the Design
Toolbox:
Protected Bike Lanes
New to the Design Toolbox:
Protected Intersections
Bike and Ped Network
Over 240 projects of routes and crossing
improvements
Existing and Proposed Bicycle and
Shared-Use Path Network
Facility Type Existing (miles)Proposed (miles)
Shared Use Path 11 31
Bicycle Lane 37 13
Bicycle Route 26 0.4
Neighborhood
Greenway
0.5 10
Protected Bike
Lane
0 25
63 Crossing Improvements
30 Grade Separated Crossings
Total Cost Estimate: $50 million (low) -$406 million (high)
Project Prioritization
Priority Funding
Tier 1 Highest-priority projects
with the greatest potential to
increase bicycling and
walking
Actively pursue
funding for these
projects first
Tier 2 Moderate-priority projects
that play an important role in
the future bike and walk
network but with less
potential than Tier 1 projects
Pursue as
opportunities arise
but not at the
expense of delaying
Tier 1 projects
Tier 3 Lower-priority projects that
help complete the bike and
walking network but not
likely to generate
measurable increases in
bike and walk trips.
Mostly through grants
and where required
as a condition of new
development
Tier 1 Network: Highest priority with
greatest potential to increase citywide use with
potential to be built in a timely manner
70-80%
trips
Safety and
collisions
Disadvantaged
communities
Outreach
results
Pavement
Projects
Destination
Proximity
Tier 2 and 3 Projects
Prioritization
Factors
Proximity to Key Destinations
Schools
Parks and Open Space
Cal Poly
Downtown
Retail and Employment Centers
Transit Connections
Senior Services
Pedestrian Project Prioritization
Similar to Tier 2 bikeway prioritization
Additional Pedestrian Specific
Improvements
New Pedestrian
Programs and Goals
Continue ongoing safety and education campaigns
Parklets: Provides design guidance on parklets and
recommends establishing a formal parklet program
Safe Routes to School: Proposes that the City will
create a SRTS Plan for every K-12 School
Supporting Open Street Events Such as Ciclovia
Neighborhood Traffic Calming, public art, and
placemaking opportunities.
Implementation
Plan will be built over a number of years depending on
funding and staff resources through the 2 -year budget
process
Leveraging Funds: Incorporate improvements as part
of larger roadway resurfacing projects.
Quick-Build: semi-permanent projects that can be
designed and implemented quickly, often with lower -cost
materials
Projects Built as a Condition of Development:
Transportation Impact Fees which collect fair share
funding from development
Performance Measures
Face-to-Face Activities
Neighborhood Pop -ups at:
Lucy’s Coffee Co.
Lincoln Deli
Nautical Bean-Los Osos Valley Road
Vons in Marigold Center
Cal Poly
Downtown Farmers Market
Face-to-Face Activities
Open House Workshop at the SLO Library
Online Activities
Active Transportation Committee
Input: Over 19 Meetings
In person meetings or other input
Cal Poly ASI and Administration
Save Our Downtown
SLO RISE
Downtown Association
SLO U40
HEAL-SLO
SLO Chamber of Commerce
And many others
General Plan Consistency
In addition to goals on mode share targets, the Active
Transportation Plan implements over 65 goals,
policies, and programs from the following GP
Elements:
Circulation Element
Conservation and Open Space Element
Land Use Element
Environmental Review
An Initial Study Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact
Plan is a program/policy-level document which does
not provide project-specific construction details for
CEQA analysis. Any projects in the Plan would have
to undergo project level CEQA analysis.
The Initial Study does not identify any potentially
significant impacts that would occur as a result of Plan
adoption.
Response to Questions
Why Does the Plan Prioritize Protected Bike Lanes Over
Shared-Use Paths, Low-Stress Neighborhood Streets and
Recreational Facilities ?
Bob Jones Trail
(LOVR to
Octagon Barn)
Bob Jones Trail
(Prado to
Downtown)
RRST (Amtrak
to Pepper St)
Why Not In Tier 1
Network?
•Right-of-Way
(numerous land
owners, including
UPRR)
•Creek Impacts
•Lack of connectivity
to destinations
•Personal security
concerns
•Constructability
challenges –
challenging to build
in a timely manner
Bob Jones Trail
(Western Spur)
Response to Questions
•Why does the Plan not include more emphasis on active
transportation within the Downtown Core?
•Considering the current economic environment, why is
the City prioritizing millions in spending on bike and
pedestrian projects?
•Will individual neighborhoods be able to provide input
on specific projects identified in the ATP?
•Have the effects of the ATP on auto traffic circulation
been considered?
•How does the Plan accommodate the needs of seniors,
young children, and those with disabilities —many of
whom will likely have to rely on automobiles for
transportation?
Concurrence
Active Transportation Committee
(Dec 3, 2020):
Recommended adoption of the Active
Transportation Plan and that staff
consider comments provided by the
ATC for inclusion into the plan where
feasible.
ATC Comment Themes
1.Improve clarity of maps and ability to “zoom in”
2.Additional explanation of plan concepts including
the project tiers
3.Refinements to how causes of collisions are
described as well as language describing Vision
Zero
4.Comments on ways to improve the organization
and flow of the plan
5.Requests to add or change certain photos to
illustrate key concepts
Council Study Session (Dec 8, 2020)
More info on wayfinding signs
Questions on how to integrate bike racks with public
art as well as opportunities to integrate any proposed
projects with beautification efforts
More description on how bicycling and walking
projects can benefit each other.
Add a policy or discussion on neighborhood
compatibility when initiating proposed projects
Strong support for opportunities to provide lighting
More explanation of how sidewalks are built in
neighborhoods
Public Draft
www.slobikewalk.org
Public Review Period:
11/19/20 –12/31/20
Email Comments to
afukushima@slocity.org
Active Transportation Plan
Schedule
Public
Review Draft
Until Dec
31st
ATC
Dec 3
Council
Study
Session
Dec 8
Planning
Commission
Dec 9
Council
Adoption
Feb 2
Recommendation
Adopt a resolution recommending that the
City Council approve the Active
Transportation Plan and adopt a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for the
project.