HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-13SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
September 11, 2013 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
OATH OF OFFICE: Swearing in new Commissioner Ronald Malak
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, Charles
Stevenson, 1 Position Vacant, Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and
Chairperson Michael Draze
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of August 28, 2013. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk's office, or on the City's website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. Los Osos Valley Road _-_East of Highway 101. GPI 30-13: Review of the Bob
Jones Trail connection to the Octagon Barn within the creek setback area from Los
Osos Valley Road to the southern city limits; City of San Luis Obispo — Public
Works Dept., applicant. (Peggy Mandeville)
2. City -Wide. GPI 71-13: Review of Bicycle Transportation Plan update; City of San
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street,
during normal business hours.
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
Luis Obispo — Public Works Dept., applicant. (Peggy Mandeville)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
4. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Peggy Mandeville
usThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
city of Meeting Date: 9/11/13
An WIS ObiI pO Item Number: 1
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DEPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study
PROJECT ADDRESS: BY: Peggy Mandeville, Principal
Transportation Planner
No specific address, Phone Number: 781-7590
formerly 12510 Los Osos Valley Road e-mail: pmandeville@slocity.org
slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GPI 30-13 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director p D
RECOMMENDATION: As recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, adopt the
Resolution approving the Bob .Pones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study, preferred trail
alignment along the creek and creek setback exception based on findings.
SITE DATA
Applicant
City of San Luis Obispo
Representative
Bryan Wheeler, SLO Public Works
Kristin Maravilla, Alta Planning
Zoning
C/OS (Conservation / Open Space)
General Plan
Interim Open Space
Site Area
— 14 acres in City
Environmental
Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail
Status
Alignment Plan adopted by the
City Council on November 19,
2002 adequately addresses the
project's potential significant
environmental impacts.
SUMMARY
The purpose of this project is to develop a trail corridor plan and preferred alignment for the
segment of the 24-mile Bob ]ones City -to -Sea Trail between the Octagon Barn in San Luis
Obispo County and Los Osos Valley Road in the City. This study (Attachment 1, Executive
Summary, with the entire study available for review at www_ .bobionestr tilconnection.com)
identifies and recommends a specific trail alignment based on site analysis and public input
gathered through outreach efforts. Utilizing an extensive public outreach process, the effort has
identified a community supported preferred route plan and study (Trail Plan) that completes the
planning for this regional non -motorized transportation system. Property acquisition, final design
and construction will be part of future phases to follow the planning effort. The planning effort is
being funded through a Caltrans Community Based Transportation Planning Grant.
GPI 30-13 (Bob Jones Trail Octagon. Barn Connection Study)
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission's role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the
Zoning Regulations and General Plan policies. The Planning Commission will be the final
approval body for the trail alignment in the City, unless appealed to the City Council. The Board
of Supervisor's is the final approval body for the County portion of the trail.
The project requires an exception to the Zoning Regulation's Creek Setback requirement. From
the Zoning Regulations, Section 17.16.025.G, the intent of creek setback exceptions are:
"...to allow reasonable use of sites that are subject to creek setbacks, where there is no
practicable alternative to the exception. Generally, such exceptions are limited to small parcels
that are essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed with setbacks smaller than those
in subsection E of this section. In the case of pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, and bridges, the site
may be large, but there are no options for avoiding a crossing of the creek or encroaching into the
creek setback." Further, "pedestrian paths and bicycle paths require a discretionary exception [to
creek setback requirements]."
The Zoning Regulations (Chapter 17.16.025.G(4)) specify the Planning Commission must make
the following findings before any exception is authorized:
i. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to
scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement; and
ii. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies; and
iii. The exception will not prevent the implementation of city -adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and
iv. There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape or topography, which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
V. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege --an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
in the area of the project or downstream; and
vii. Site development cannot be accomplished with a redesign of the project; and
viii. Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
("Reasonable use of the property" in the case of new development may include less
development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an
already developed site, "reasonable development" may mean no additional development
considering site constraints and the existing development's scale, design, or density.)
The attached resolution (Attachment 9) includes staff s recommendation for approval of the
requested exception and details the required findings.
GPI 30-13 (Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study)
Page 3
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information/Setting
The project boundaries are defined by the existing planned connection points at the Los Osos
Valley Road Interchange in the City and the Octagon Barn in the County (Attachment 2, Vicinity
Map). The project in its entirety is located in both City and County jurisdictions. The city portion
of the preferred alignment is located on the open space parcel, formerly addressed 12510 Los
Osos Valley Road. The property is located along Los Osos Valley Road, with Highway 101 to
the west, and Los Verdes Park 2 residential development to the east. San Luis Obispo Creek
occupies the western border of the parcel. The parcel size is 13.6 acres with 7.9 acres in
agricultural use and 5.7 acres within a creek/riparian corridor.
There is intermittent row crop farming occurring on the parcel, with no permanent structures.
The parcel is identified as having important farmland classifications, including Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Significance, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. All soils
within the property have been identified as Important Agricultural Soils.
Preferred Alignment along Creek
Present Use & Development
Intermittent farming activities, riparian vegetation, creek
Topography
Relatively flat, partially in flood plain
Access
Los Osos Valley Road to the north, County trail connection to the
south
Surrounding Use/Zoning
North: Conservation / Open Space (C/OS)
South: County, Agriculture
East: Residential, Low Density, Planned Development (R-1-PD)
West: Commercial, Tourism, across Highway 101
2.2 Project Description
The proposed project is to develop a pathway connecting the City of San Luis Obispo with the
community of Avila Beach. This trail was first identified in the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan
and has been included in each subsequent update. This study develops the trail connection
between the city and county jurisdictions.
Through site analysis, the consultant Alta Planning + Design identified three possible alignment
options as viable connections through the corridor (Attachment 3, Overview of Alternatives).
Public input was solicited through three public workshops and a public opinion survey to
determine a preferred alignment based on a number of factors (Attachment 4, Alternatives
Matrix), including avoidance of natural resource impacts, positive trail experience and direct path
connectivity. The study concluded the preferred alignment as the east side of San Luis Obispo
Creek from Los Osos Valley Road to South Higuera Street, outside of the riparian habitat but
CPI 30-13 (Bob Jones Trail Octagon Bam Connection Study)
Page 4
within. the City 20-foot creek setback area (Attact neat 1, Page 1-21). This alignment occupies
one parcel in theCity and one parcel in the County; each Mader separate private ownership. The
I
op of bank for San Luis Creek is within the riparian corridor but the precise location has not
been surveyed. The proposed trail design would consist of a 12-foot wide asphalt paved pathway
with 2-foot graded shoulders and City standard riparian fencing which is consistent with other
sections of the Bob .;ones Trail (see figure below).
(aerial of aevelopea section of the Bob Jones Trail along San Luis Obispo Creep)
[Green Line: Bob Jones Trail/
[Blue Line: Center of Creelc]
The trail alignment would be located within a 20-foot wide easement utilizing approximately 0.4
acres of land thus reducing the agricultural use to approximately 7.5 acres. The trail would.
connect with the Los Osos Malley Road Interchange project at Los Osos Valley Road where an
at -grade crossing of Los Osos galley Load is planned.
.Any pathway through private property will require a willing seller. Since the project is located 01-1
privately owned lands, negotiations with willing property owners will deters-ine the final trail
location. ff casements for the preferred alignment cannot be secured, the. City and County nnay
pursue another alignment identified in the study.
GPI 30-13 (Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study)
Page 5
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
3.1 Site Plan: The preferred alignment of the Bob Jones Trail along San Luis Obispo Creek was
determined to be the most desirable due to the separation of roadway traffic, scenic qualities of
the creek habitat and the direct connection to other planned trail segments. The preferred
alignment is consistent General Plan policy to complete a safe, convenient, continuous bicycle
infrastructure networks 2 of pathways separate from roadways3. This proposed alignment is also
consistent with the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Preliminary Alignment Plan which was heard by the
Planning Commission on September 25, 2002 and approved by the Council on November 19,
2002 (Attachment 5, Council Resolution). Upon review of the preferred alignment, Bob Hill, the
City Natural Resources Manager, concurred with the placement of the trail alignment outside the
riparian corridor, but within the creek setback to avoid additional agricultural impacts.
3.2 Creek Setback Exception: The preferred alignment will place the trail directly adjacent to
San Luis Obispo Creek, within the minimum required 20-foot creek setback area, but outside of
the riparian corridor. This location within the standard creek setback area is the only alternative
which satisfies General Plan Policies for separate bicycle pathways, while also satisfying policies
to protect agricultural lands by allowing passive uses with educational opportunities4 5. The other
I CI L 7 Promote Alternate Forms of Transportation. San Luis Obispo should: Complete a network of bicycle lanes
andpaths, sidewalks andpedestrian paths within existing developedparts of the city by 2000, and extend the
system to serve new growth areas.
Z CI 4.0.3 Continuous Network. The City shall complete a continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways that
connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and with county bike routes as specified by the Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
3 LU2.3.2 Separate Paths. Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walkingpaths which are separate from
roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial centers, schools, parks and, where
feasible, other areas of the City.
4COSE 8.5.5 Passive Recreation, The City will consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or
significantly impact open space resources and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility
impacts, in accordance with an approved open space conservation plan. Passive recreation activities may
include: hiking, nature study, bicycle use, rock climbing, horseback riding or other passive recreational
activities as permitted and regulated in the Open Space Ordinance.
SCOSE 8.5.1 Public Access. Public access to open space resources, with interpretive information, should be
provided when doing so is consistent with protection of the resources, and with the security and privacy of
affected landowners and occupants. Access will generally be limited to non -vehicular movement, and may be
visually or physically restricted in sensitive areas. Public access to or through production agricultural land, or
through developed residential lots, will be considered only if the owner agrees (Land for active recreation is
typically designated "Park" in the General Plan Land Use Map). The City shall also designate open space
areas that are not intended for human presence or activity.
GPI 30-13 (Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study)
Page 6
pathway options would locate the pathway along two arterial roadways, or place the pathway on
agricultural land adjacent to residential uses, which may necessitate an additional buffer further
reducing the area available for agricultural uses6. This pathway location along the creek is also
the least intrusive to residential uses adjacent to the project site.
The intent of the pathway being located within the creek setback is consistent with allowing
passive recreational use in Open Space areas and satisfies the General Plan Goal to allow public
access to open space$. The proposed trail alignment is further consistent with the Preliminary
Alignment Plan for the Bob Jones City -to Sea Trail adopted by the City Council in 2002.
Adoption of this study by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and selection
of the creek -adjacent alignment as the preferred alignment would enable the City and County to
pursue public access easements. Concurrency for the preferred alignment has been expressed by
the City Bicycle Advisory Committee, the County Bicycle Advisory Committee, the County
Trails Advisory Committee, and the County Parks and Recreation Commission.
3.3 Other Site Improvements: Specific site improvements including lighting, landscaping and
signage will comply with the guidelines set forth in the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Preliminary
Alignment Plan.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is consistent with the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Bob Jones City -to -Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan, ER-48-01. Should unanticipated
potential impacts be identified in the future, further environmental analysis will be conducted.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT
At the beginning of the planning effort, staff contacted property owners that could potentially be
impacted by the project. Staff has received comments from two nearby property owners, one in
writing and one via email, regarding opposition to the alignment alternatives. Concerns include
ROW purchase for any trail alignment along S. Higuera, the decrease of agricultural lands and a
6 COSE 8.3.2 Open Space Buffers. When activities close to open space resources within or outside the urban area
could harm them, the City will require buffers between the activities and the resources.
7 COSE 8.4.2 Open Spaces Access and Restoration. The City intends to allow public access to open space that
fosters knowledge and appreciation of open space resources without harming them and without exposing the
public to unacceptable risk. The main goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal
ofproviding passive recreation where it will not harm the environment
a GOAL 8.4.2: Open Spaces Access and Restoration. The City intends to allow public access to open space that
fosters knowledge and appreciation of open space resources without harming them and without exposing the
public to unacceptable risk. The main goal is to protect open space and wildlife habitat, with a secondary goal
ofproviding passive recreation where it will not harm the environment.
GPI 30-13 (Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study)
Page 7
possible decrease in privacy for both off-street alignments. See submitted written comments
attached to this staff report (Attachment 6, Public Comments). Both property owners along the
preferred alignment have been notified of the Planning Commission meeting and that the
preferred alignment occupies a portion of their property. Neither have submitted written
comments as of the writing of this report.
The Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant included a strong public outreach component. A
website, www.bobjonestrailconnection.com, public workshops, stakeholder groups, farmer's
market outreach efforts, and an email notification list were among the outreach efforts. Through
these efforts, numerous people have been kept apprised of the project.
6.0 OTHER ADVISORY BODY ACTIONS
Attached are the recommendations from the County Trails Committee (Attachment 7) and the
County Parks and Recreation Commission (Attachment 8). At its July 18, 2013 meeting, the City
Bicycle Advisory Committee recommended approval of the study and the preferred alignment
along the creek. Additionally, the Committee recommended that the City analyze the potential
for a grade separated crossing at LOVR as a separate project. The County Board of Supervisors
is scheduled to act on the County portion of the project on September 10, 2013.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Adopt the staff recommendation and recommend that the City analyze the potential for a
grade separated crossing at LOW
7.2 Adopt another preferred trail alignment for the project.
7.3 Continue the project with preference to the preferred alignment identified, with direction
to staff on pertinent issues.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Executive Summary
2. Vicinity Map
3. Overview of Alternatives
4. Alternatives Matrix
5. City Council Resolution approving Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail
6. Public Comments
7. County Trails Committee Action
8. County Parks and Recreation Commission Action
9. Planning Commission Resolution
Attachment 1
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Project Overview and Alignment Alternatives
The goal of this planning effort is to develop a pathway corridor study (Study) for a half -mile
segment of the Bob Jones Pathvmy bet m—en the Octagon Barn Complex in San Luis Obispo County
and the south side of the US Highway 101/Los Osos Valley Road (City's Bob Jones US 101%LOVR)
interchange in City of San Luis Obispo. The approximately 11-mile Bob Jones City -to -Sea Bike
Pathway (Bob Jones Pathway) is an important regional pathway connecting San Luis Obispo and
Avila Beach that serves both recreational and transportation purposes. The completion of the Bob
Jones Pathway has been identified as a major goal for the City of San Luis Obispo (City) in addition
to being designated in City's transportation plans and various County of San Luis Obispo (County)
planning documents. Route planning has been approved or is currently in process for all sections of
the pathway with the exception of the Octagon Barn to LOVR section, which is the focus of this
planning effort.
This Study reviews multi -use pathvmy alignment alternatives and identifies a preferred pathway
alignment based on site analysis and public input gathered through various outreach efforts. The
Study Area sits along the City/County boundary and includes properties bemeen the southern end
of the City's planned Bob Janes Pathway alignment located north of the US 101/.LOVR interchange
and the northern end of the County's planned Bob Jones Pathway Extension #2 project which ends
at the Octagon Barn.
This Study presents alignment -specific pros and cons and potential solutions, associated vOth three
potential pathvuay alignments: an along San Luis Obispo Creek, and along agricultural and
residential lands, and along LOVR and. S. Higuera Street (see Figure 1-1).
This study is funded by a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Community -Based
Transportation Planning (CBTP) grant.
1.2 Policy Context
The City's and County's regulatory documents support the development of the pathway and
protection of agricultural and enN4romnental resources. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan and
San Luis Obispo Council of Government's 2010 Regional Transportation Plan -Preliminary
Sustainable Communities Strategy include a Class I pathway connection between LOVR and S.
Higuera Street. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan also calls for bike lanes on South Higuera
Street. One of the themes of the General Plan is to maintain a network of paths, sidewalks, and
bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and with County pedestrian and
bicycle facilities. The County's Parks and Recreation Element identifies the proposed Bob Jones
Pathway, stating it is to connect the City of San Luis Obispo to the community of Avila Beach in the
vicinity of San Luis Obispo Creek. The City's Bicycle Transportation Plan and Bab Jones City -to -Sea
Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan, as cell as the County's 2011 Public Improvement Standards
include path Any and on -street bikeway design standards applicable to the Bob Jones Pathway.
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-1
1 1 Executive Summary
OVervlew of preliminary pathway Alignment Alternatives
These alignments and combinations or variations of theem. were considered
as part of the gob Jones PathwaYOctagon Bam Connection Ptoject:
M Along San Luis Obispo Chak
firostThis alignment would ba W"le., have a minimal impact on nueby residences,
and be set batik from the street resaiting in less traffic noise and Improved safety.
Cam Pathway construction and operation could impact sensitive tesrruicCS along
the Creek and agricultural operations. would remove some fond from active
agriculture, and would require acquisition of access owr private agricultural land.
iX M Along Agricultural and lResidenti,aI Land
Pros: This alignment AVoids poteoilal Impacts to the creek and is set back from the
Meet resulting in less traffic noise and improved safety. Cons: The pathway would
require acquisition of access over private land, would remove some land from active
agricurture, and may impact adjacent residences,
■ M Along Las osos Valley Road and S. Higuera Stray;
Pros: This alignment avalds potential impacts to the creek. adjacent residents and
agricultural operations. Cans: Pathway users would be exposed to vehicular traffic
and would cross multiple driveways, resulting in a low quality pathway experience:
The right-of-way along Los thus Valley Road may riot be wide enough for a palhvpay,
The pathway would require acquisition of access dyer private land (though less than
the off street al Ignmentsl.
Potential
crossing .
locations
,
goo> _
N1111111111111104�
r � k- San Luis Obispo Qctagon Barn
—ie lirlla 8eadt
County pathway extension
s � (.Separate project; currently in
s~„ plan ning stages) r
cwr.natw..i� r� a
101 NON a
op
IL- Existing Bob
Jones Pathway
srr:.
Planned pathway extension
(Separate project)
yPL�ya „• -' �p5
A
Potential crossing
' f location
Figure 1-1; Bob Jones Pathway Preliminary Alignment Alternatives
Legend
bitting Pathway
■ Proposed Pathway
(Separale pmpo)
E istlng TfaTkc Signal
1-2 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
Planning documents that speak to agricultural resource protection include the County's General
Plan, "Right -to -Farm" Ordinance, and Agricultural Buffer Policy. County policy stipulates that access
trails shall stay as far away as reasonable from production agriculture, commercial activities and
residences (County Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.8) and shall not conflict with agricultural
resources (County General Plan Policy AGP 32). Additionally, the City's General Plan includes
resource protection. policies.
Environmental resource protections include the City's Zoning Regulations and the County's General
Plan, which include grading and building setback requirements for the creek. These documents also
protect riparian vegetation.
1.3 Existing Land Uses, Opportunities and Constraints
1.3.1 Land Uses within the Study Area
Land use categories in the Study Area include Agriculture Aithin the County and Open Space,
Interim Open Space, Low Density Residential Q dwelling units/acre), Medium Density Residential
(12 d Atlling units/acre), and Services and Manufacturing within the City (see Figure 1-2).
Development includes agricultural areas, residences, and commercial/retail development. The
preferred pathway alignmentmay traverse Agriculture (County), Interim Open Space (City), Open
Space (City), and/or Service Commercial (City and County) land use categories. Recreational
facilities, such as pathways, are an allowed use within these land use designations.
The Study Area includes portions of LOVR, S. Higuera Street, and northbound US 101 on and off
ramps (see Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3). LOVR has a northwest -southeast alignment connecting S.
Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo and the unincorporated community of Los Osos on the coast.
Within the Study Area, LOVR is a two- to three -lane arterial roadway with a 35 mile per hour speed
limit. LOVR includes an interchange with US 101 at the north end of the Study Area. South Higuera
Street has a northeast -southwest alignment and links the vWstern end of DoAVntowtn San Luis
Obispo with US 101 south of the City/County limit. Wthin the Study Area, S. Higuera Street is a
two- to four -lane arterial roadway with 45 MPH and 55 MPH speed limits in the City and County,
respectively. Class II bike lanes are designated on both roadways. Both roadways include
intermittent sidewalks and bike lanes.
San Luis Obispo Creek and its confluence with Froom Creek are located within the western portion
of the Study Area. San Luis Obispo Creek includes dense riparian vegetation. A portion of the Study
Area is within the floodplain for San Luis Obispo Creek and flooding has occurred during wet years.
Study Area topography is nearly flat to gently sloping.
The Study Area includes properties with important farmland classifications, including Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Significance, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land
(see Figure 1-4). Existing agricultural uses include rowcrops.
Cityof San Luis Obispo 1 1-3
I I Executive Summary
S
Vwnwny
10
9 itsA`
t
i
€
r P1 FBI°
a
,
f
WWI
�
s r
f }
.F
-
f
l�
i
i
'
€
eto
�
Z
m
3 i
'
yp« I
KY OMIT F<
3
E
i
LOT
hi a
s
t
L aY
3,
'
t
a F _
3P f �_( 14i S7 it �7 a
•..-• �6� ll(t {]il Ll asp, i
v
tf +Jf ;a ti,r �tf „
n s El
1t.
..'
a}
,-
5
iiil�'( CZB f .7}C YiLS ii'i M
... F
3
i. � }.1'. A 1�J�
.•.fl i �. i
00
r
t
Zoo ( .....,�,
�'
9
..... fclk
1
III d'= i;Gf.
S,
Figure 1-2. Land Use Designations and Circulation in the Study Area
1-4 1 August 2013
E.'
E
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
Rgurre 1-3. LOVRR and 5, KguGra Sweet Crross SGCV0rn5 A Mrough F
L U 121,
;E I r'..N ::L NoVVA ii a' v
Section A: Planned LOVR Improvements (facing east)
y ' 1 2'- 14 c'-" 6'
a
80" ROW
Section B: Planned LOUR Improvements (facing east)
,W
K RfK" L A M F ? 'AFL }�.�,°•,� R �ct. rAKE LANE,
. C El•` /a(.K
,,-$",ItLC�."n IAiV;��
60' ROW
Section C Planned S. Higuera Street Improvements (facing south)
l p.. 1 '<`
G� _i_ii\'I� ��1�f �L 1j.
60` ROW
Section D: S. Higuera Street Existing Conditions (facing south)
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-5
I I Executive Summary
MF
!K SE 1" 12' 11 2' 1 7' -71
61�a LANITz T "Vv ',.I, IUM. .L TH L tl, f* �: 1,KKf,
A NE
By ROW
Section F: S. Higuera Street Planned Left Turn Lane and Pathway Alignment (facing south)
so, ROW
Section F: S. Higuera Street Planned Pathway Alignment (facing south)
1-6 1 August 2013
M
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
E € €
F �E
€
3.1 t
i
-
..M
r
,.
jj
d
�
F,
1�
'sff
,
}
s�
,
.:
-�dl'IIC I.. F•:'IL L'.3 ;Emil
, L o FYItl;"HS �„ I1t] ii i "dr silSf
}..1. d r
j',u,,r i is In ..c_ t
nd
ti. E
IN
i
— A
..
Figure 1 -4: Arg iculturai and BiWO9icaI Resources within the Study Area
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-7
I { Executive Summary
1.3.2 Planned Improvements
Several projects are in planning stages in the Study Area, including:
• US 101/ LOUR Interchange. This project will widen LOVR from 2 to 4 through lanes from
South Higuera St. to west of Calle Joaquin and construct wide sidewalks and Class II bike
lanes along both sides of LOVR to remove gaps.
• Octagon Barn Center and Staging Area. The Octagon Barn Center will include a Bob Jones
Pathway Trailhead, restrooms, and 112 parking spaces. The project includes a southbound
center left -turn lane on S. Higuera Street into the project site.
• Buckley Road Extension. This project would extend Buckley Road from Vachell Lane to S.
Higuera Street and include a new, signalized intersection at S. Higuera Street. At this time,
neither jurisdiction is pursuing the roadway extension, which will most likely be
development driven.
• City's Bob Jones Pathway. The 2008 Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail Preliminary Alignment
Plan establishes the preferred alignment for a design of a Class 1 bicycle pathway within the
City of San Luis Obispo north of. LOUR.
• County's Bob Jones Pathway #2. Extension #2 is intended to go from Ontario Road to S.
Higuera Street, terminating at the Octagon Barn.
1.3.3 Public Access Acquisition
Each pathway alignment alternative requires public access acquisition. Lead agencies seeking to
implement a pathway on private land (or another agency's land) have several options to offer the
potential seller to allow access to the portion of the property needed for the pathway. These options
include fee purchase, easement, license, bargain sale and donation. They offer a range of conditions
for control of the land and assumed liability. Where payment for access is involved, the City and
County are required to pay fair market value.
1.3.4 Pathway User and Property Owner Concerns
Loss of Privacy. Pathway implementation may result in some loss of privacy for adjacent
residential landowners. Careful siting of the pathway, supplemented by existing or planned
vegetation, combined with adequate fencing and signage, and a program for public
information, maintenance and management could help protect the privacy and security of
adjacent landowners.
Security Considerations. Some meeting participants voiced concerns that the pathway
would enable the homeless to come closer to their properties and encourage other
undesirable activities, including crime. While these concerns are understandable, studies and
local observations show that providing public pathway access to an area that is otherwise
only accessible by trespassing on private property actually reduces the incidence of crime
and trespass beyond the pathway, The "Rail -Trails and Safe Communities" study found that
trail managers often utilize design and maintenance strategies (e.g., fencing and patrols) to
1-8 1 August 2a13
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
reduce the potential for crime. Careful siting of the pathway combined with adequate
fencing and `No Trespassing' signs would help protect the privacy and security of nearby
landowners.
Pathway User Safety and Emergency Access. A well -developed policy and practice for
pathwuy maintenance and use management may be the best means to protect public safety
and avoid use -related issues. This Study recommends lighting at roadway crossings to
improve visibility betxwen pathway users and motorists.
Private Property Owner Liability. In California, the California Recreational Use Statute
(RUS) (Ca1.Civ.Code § 846.1) is available to private landowners under certain circumstances.
The California RUS protects private landowners who allow the public to use their land for
recreational purposes.
1.3.5 Agricultural Resources
Important Agricultural Soil
Soil characteristics are critical for agriculture. All soils within the Study Area are identified as
Important Agricultural Soils (that is, those soils in the county particularly worthy of conservation
and protection) by the County. Soils within the Study Area are either currently under agricultural
production, are located along the edge of agricultural fields, or are disturbed by urban development.
Pathway projects can result in direct conversion of soils (generally limited), but also indirectly result
in a loss of soils if they bisect a parcel in such a way that leaves agricultural production infeasible.
County policy discourages the conversion of these soils to other uses or loss of these soils through
erosion or other disturbances.
Existing Agricultural Improvements
Based on a field survey along area roadways and use of aerial photos no barns or other agricultural
accessory structures are present along the preliminary pathway alignments; however, the Study Area
has a long history of agricultural production and is served by agricultural roads and wells. The former
alignment and bridge for S. Higuera, originally the state highway, is used on the parcel in the County
as an agricultural road and features electrical panels and other infrastructure.
Conversion of Agricultural Land and Impacts to Agricultural Operations
Pathways can impact agricultural lands through the conversion of agricultural land to non-
agricultural uses and through introduction of land use incompatibilities. Pathways typically occupy
narrow (e.g. 20 foot wide) linear corridors. Land use incompatibilities occur when land uses affect
the normal operations on agricultural land, including grading, plowing, use of heavy equipment, and
legal application of pesticides and other chemicals. This may also occur due to complaints regarding
dust, noise, and odors. In addition, when recreational pathways are located near agricultural areas,
there is at least a perceived threat of increased trespass, theft, or disturbance of the crops. Many
examples of �wll-used pathways along agricultural lands exist throughout the country. The pathway
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-9
1 1 Executive Summary
design and alignment should include measures to minimize conversion of agricultural lands and
potential incompatibilities.
1.3.6 Biological Resources
Sensitive Habitats and Species
Three sensitive habitats exist in the San Luis Obispo USGS quadrangle: Coastal and Valley
Freshwater Marsh, Northern Interior Cypress Forest and Serpentine bunchgrass. Northern Interior
Cypress Forest and Serpentine bunchgrass habitats wore not observed in the Study Area; however,
one small Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh area was identified on the east side of S. Higuera
Street, just across the street from the Octagon Barn entrance. Willowriparian forest habitat was
observed along San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries, just north of the Octagon Barn. A
potential wetland feature was also observed between San Luis Obispo Creek and the southwest
corner of Los Verdes #2.
The Study Area is within the south-central California coast region for steelhead trout (oncorhynchus
myhiss) and also within the range of the California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), both listed as
federally threatened species by the Endangered Species Act. San Luis Obispo Creek is considered
critical habitat for steelhead trout. San Luis Obispo Creek is known to support western pond turtle
(Emys marmorata) and Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa), both California species of special concern.
The Study Area also has the potential to support nesting migratory birds�raptors during the typical
nesting season (March -September) and roosting bats, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). No
special -status plant surveys were conducted as part of this assessment; however, surveys are
recommended during the typical blooming season. Special -status plant species with potential to
occur in the Study Area (based on soil, elevation, habitats, SWCA's experience in the area, and City
staff input) include Obispo Indian paintbrush (Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis) and adobe sanicle
(Sanicula maritima); however, the potential for presence of adobe sanicle is minimal.
1.3.7 Cultural Resources
As part of this Study, SWCA conducted a cultural resources records search, archival and literature
review, and initial Native American consultation in order identify the presence of known resources
and the general sensitivity of the Study Area for the presence of previously undocumented cultural
resources. The records search revealed the presence of three previously identified cultural resources
within a 0.25-mile radius of the pathway alignments; however, none of the three are within the three
proposed pathway alignment options as currently defined.
1-10 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
1.3.8 Public and Stakeholder Input
Figure 1-5 presents the timeline of the outreach efforts, which
includes property owner outreach, a Stakeholder Group, public
workshops, and a public opinion survey.
Property Owner Outreach
Between October and December 2012, City staff and consultants made
initial contact with property owners potentially impacted. by a
pathway alignment. The intent of these meetings was to discuss the
project, request participation in the planning process, and gain initial
feedback on location. of the pathway near their property and or the
acquisition of public access rights over their property for the pathway.
The property owners shoved varying degrees of support and shared
the following comments:
• Los Verdes #2 residents generally support the offstreet
pathway alignments andhave asked fora buffer between the
pathway and Los Verdes #2.
One property owner has communicated strong opposition to
both offstreet pathway alignments. Principal concerns include
loss of privacy and the potential for the pathway to enable the
homeless population to come closer to their home.
The property owner of the agricultural parcel within the
County, communicated he believes the pathway would make
the eastern portion of his 46.28-acre property (approximately
12.5 acres) unsuitable for the type of commercial farming
currently conducted there, stating safe food requirements
make it difficult to have a pathway along agricultural lands.
The property owner also states that farming of a different crop
which requires less spraying may be feasible in conjunction
with a pathway. Agricultural access must be maintained. Of
the two offstreet pathway alignments, he believes the
alignment along the creek would have the lesser impact on
agricultural operations.
• One property owner expressed concern that additional right-
of-way purchase or a pathway route along S. Higuera Street
may impact their business operations.
Figure 1-5.Outreach Efforts
Cityof San Luis Obispo 1 1-11
I I Executive Summary
Workshops and Stakeholder Group Meeting
Stakeholder Group Meeting, First Public Workshop, and Encore Workshop
The City hosted a stakeholder group meeting, public workshop, and encore presentation of the
public ,wrkshop in early December 2012. The project stakeholder group consists of owners of
adjacent or potentially involved property owners, as well as cycling and agriculture advocacy
organizations. At the stakeholder group meeting and warkshops, City staff and consultants
discussed the history of the Pathway Study and presented an overview of existing site conditions,
opportunities, and constraints to constructing the pathway segment. Attendees were asked to share
their opinions about the pathway under study and take a public opinion survey to relate their
preferences regarding the future pathway connection. Participants reviewed three preliminary
pathway alignments: one along San Luis Obispo Creek, one along agricultural and residential lands,
and one along LOUR and S. Higuera Street for discussion.
In general, attendees expressed support for the pathway and a preference for the alignment along the
creek stating this alignment would be the most scenic, have the best pathway experience and most
direct alignment, would not impact as many residents as the alignment along agricultural and
residential lands, and allows for a more direct connection -,vith the planned, signalized intersection at
Buckley Road.
Second Public Workshop
The City hosted a second public workshop on April 8, 2013 to present the pathway alignment
alternatives, public and stakeholder comments received to date, and the draft preferred alignment
along San Luis Obispo Creek. Approximately 40 people attended. Attendees were asked to share
their opinions on the draft preferred alignment and ways to improve all the alignments. In general,
attendees expressed support for the draft preferred alignment and S. Higuera Street crossing with a
pedestrian -actuated beacon. Attendees support a 12-foot wide path with post and cable or vwod and
wire fencing along the creek and stouter fencing along the agricultural parcels.
Public Opinion Survey
The City distributed a survey at the first stakeholder group meeting, public workshop, encore public
workshop, and at a Saturday farmers market to assess public preferences regarding the half -mile
future pathway connection. City staff also mailed copies of the survey to residents within one mile of
the Study Area. Approximately fifty-five responses were received as of May, 2013. Belowis a
summary of the collected responses_
• The considerations of highest importance include pathway connectivity and safety (759/6 of
respondents stated this as one of their top two considerations), pathway experience (67% of
respondents stated this as one of their top two considerations), and environmental resources
(47% of respondents stated this as one of their top two considerations).
• 75% of respondents stated the pathway should be a high priority for the City.
• 769/o stated they would use the pathway segment under study if it were built.
1-12 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
• Most respondents use the existing Bob Jones Pathway monthly (490/o) or weekly (16%).
• The most popular uses of the pathway include walking/running (64 % of respondents stated
they walk/run on the pathway), bicycling (5111/o), dog walling (13%) and with kids and
strollers (9%).
22% of respondents use the pathway for commuting or other non -recreational trips whereas
780/6 do not.
Advisory Body Meetings
Between May and July 2013, City staff and consultants presented the Draft Study, preferred pathway
alignment and S. Higuera Street crossing improvements to the County Bicycle Advisory Committee,
County Trail Advisory Committee, and County Parks and Recreation Commission (advisory bodies
to the County Board of Supervisors) and the City Bicycle Advisory Committee (advisory body to the
City Planning Commission). The advisory bodies received public comment, discussed opportunities
and constraints associated with pathway implementation, and made recommendations to their
respective County Board of Super-Osors or City Planning Commission for approval of the Study and
adoption of the preferred alignment.
1.4 Alternatives Analysis
1.4.1 Pathway Alignment Alternatives
Figure 1-6 through Figure 1-8 present opportunities and constraints associated with the pathway
alignment alternatives. Table 1-1 lists the pros and cons related to the pathway alignment
alternatives, including estimated costs.
1.4.2 Roadway Alignment Alternatives
The Study Area includes three potential pathway/roadway crossings: at the US 101/LOVR
interchange, at the LOVR/S. Higuera Street intersection, and in the vicinity of the Octagon Barn.
US 101/LOVR Interchange
The US 101/LOUR interchange crossing is outside the scope of this Study. A number of participants
involved in this Study have stated their preference for a pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing of LOVR
southeast of the on/off ramps to eliminate the need to cross at -grade. This option is not included in
the approved LOVR interchange design. Should funding become available, this option could be
implemented as the interchange has been designed to not preclude a future undercrossing. Caltrans
has communicated that input regarding an underpass should be gathered during this planning
process and prodded to Caltrans. Comments received will be forwarded to Caltrans for review
S. Higuera Street
Both off street pathway alignments would need a crossing of S. Higuera Street within the County
right-of-way near the Octagon Barn, South Higuera Street is a two-lane roadway at this location.
Table 1-2 presents a summary of the pros and cons associated with the crossing options.
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-13
I I Executive Summary
ragure 0-6: Upp®rtunities and Constraints Associated wft a
Pathway Alignment along Sara Wis Obispo Creel
1-14 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
Figure 1-7: Opportunities and Constraints Associated vi 4h a
Pathway Aiignment along Agricultural and ResWant°sal Lands
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-15
I J Executive Summary
Figure 1-aka Opportunities and Constraints Assoclated wr th a
Pathway Alignment along LOVIR and S. Hguera Street
1-16 1 August 2013
u
,3K 3'3,
C
U
.✓ L
N
V
G
:x
` N 6
b
b9
�tE'
ti
r
y J n ti
C
l�
C
zi
J
Cr 50
�vu
G
x
n
Ei
G
,��
p
n b-0
U
J
,� L
G ✓'
r '-' v r �' G
v
v •:-
el
a
�O r
G
C
G
v'
v r CA DJ
.� V
U
GVc.�J
FC
e
by .2�
u
L U
bO
u r=
u
3
a
bA
�
^�
np
G r
4_
cr
7-1 a
'L,
•�,
�' u ✓
�. • `ram, v "u
u G
u
s' �!'�'
,'�f
06
ri r
C
;
rum
r � ,� r.
r
C
'_ 0
w
'A.0
G b1J i
✓J b9 v
r �i•
cj
rJ bb
Uu c
G
yr
:r
.,L
.,
✓ 0. u71
' cn u
%
�uLKb'.
r
V
c
�
n
u �
r
•�
br
� u
u
u
c
u
±%
u c r
1
a pc
•i,
N
ILI
',
u
Zia a.:
u
w
C
�.'r
"
N _
u
— e"1 y
`0
•.s
.'.
c
u
nrWOM
ggg
Mi
ti
n
J
r '' C � '�
O n
r�
U
U
r,
- J
r
✓ -ti
�+ C yA U n, .0 U
u,
• �, C
u
','
v�i
,�
U u
r
,—
U
WNII
ti J
GJ GA
u
`ivl
r
bA N
u ^• cn ✓, r
n
w>
O
O u
"�
r
.. a
bA.c
�-, ,� L..
G�: rA
u
C bq
s
g
r J
✓
'r �-
a
a
�� €
k IM
fflUME
U
U
U
C
G to
r
r r'
U V
N
W
° � '��';
r•
r Ll
zS
U
r
) n
v
MW
RM
5 u
c
-71
.TI
ti N
❑
p
G
U J cJ
NFj
r
W C
al
U
U
iIT
r
E.
y
u u
�r
no
u
c
r
,6fEj b/J
i� G u
C r_�-��..
ii,--�44'
jN
MH
'"�
r
vn
✓
u
J
tfj
IW
L
•—
r
v i r ^, r" a
� U
G J
E�' ,E� ✓ U
� r U ��
��
y
U
QJ U
c u
u u✓
€ESE
�i
i
ct
en
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
1.5 Prefevred Alignment
1.5.1 Mi n ent Scofang
A set of symbols was developed to score the
pathvaay alignments based on City, County,
property owner, and public -.identified
considerations discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Each
consideration was scored according to the symbols
listed in the table to the right.
kza € €w# € a4r i'
s tick aP r Wt° E ', �rrt 3
e �a 6 ass
High. score
Moderate .score
Low score
Table 1-3 presents the pathway alignment consideration scores. This Study finds the pathwtiy
alignment along the creek to be the preferred. aligmnent. The creek alignment would remove some
land from agricultural, use and would likely impact agricultural operations; however, this alignine I
can be configured to allowthe continuation of agriculture and is anticipated to result ui a lower
impact to agricultural resources than the alignment along agricultural anct residential lands. The
creek aligimzent is anticipated to have the least impact on non-agricultural, private properties as it is
located. away from residential and commercial properties and. would not include d.rivetvay crossings.
The pathvNuy align.naen.t is beyond the ecl.ge of the predominant riparian. vegetation, lessening the
potential .for adverse impacts to environmental resources. TI-lis alignment proN�ides a snore direct
connection wth the Octagon Barn and US 101/10VR interchange than the alignment along LOVR
In
and S. Hig sera Street and :it is ,generally separated £rota motor vehicle traffic, thereby providing high.
pathway connectivity and safety. The aligniv,ent is anticipated to have a high quality pathway
experience because it Auuld be in more scenic setting and generally away from vehicular noise and.
exhaust.
Table 1-3: PathwavAlignrnent Scoring
5 �`J,sr✓ 0� ) >r'7 pCut
tf -k 3a{' ✓5 � � ^� Z)F &W
;
PRIME', i tE h f '., '�'
f ij a d f s ' i✓ $ � € R ?
i
j,€�
5;'L 2 ` n'iREE
Ni 3Y /% 9f $
�i' •.. t 7 } i�E.�#$�
-'°' 1X '�, f£Lyd`i
N
Avoids Impact on 'A.gric ultural.
Resources Operations
and
V1ini 1 Szes Acljacency w or
Iinpact on Residential and
Commercial Properties
Avoids Impact on Natural
Re
som-c es
Provides Pathway Connectivity
Sal-ety
and
Provides a Positive User
Expericnce
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-19
I I Executive Summary
1.5.2 Preferred Alignment Description
Pathway Alignment
Figures 1-9 and.1-10 showthe preferred pathway alignment and cross sections. From north to south,
the preferred pathway alignment vmufd connect with the south side of the US 10I/LOVR interchange
as part of the planned interchange improvements, continue along a 12 foot wide Class I pathway on
the south side of LOVR. At the south end of the bridge, the pathway would turn southwest to
continue along the creek. The preferred alignment follows the creek, outside the edge of the riparian
vegetation and within the creek setback. Near the former Highway 1 alignment (now an agricultural
access road), the pathway turns southeast toward S. Higuera Street. The preferred S. Higuera Street
crossing location is at the future S. Higuera Street/Buckley Road extension intersection.
PublicAccess Acquisition
The concept for acquisition of access for the pathway is to purchase easements on a willing seller
basis to allowfor the construction of the pathway on the two private properties. The terms of the
purchase of such an easement are not a part of this Study, and would be negotiated separately with
the owners. The objective wuuld be to support the continuation of agriculture on the properties.
Another option would be for the project sponsors to purchase the subject parcels at fair market value
and lease or sell the parcels to an agricultural operator, retaining an access easement for the pathway.
Such an arrangement to assure the continuation of agriculture to the maximum extent feasible would
be an inherent element of the pathway project, in order to address the policy consistency and
possibly as an environmental mitigation.
Pathway Cross Section
The pathway would comply with City and County standards. In the City, the pathway would be 12
feet wide with 2 foot wide graded shoulders and located within a 20 foot wide access easement. A 3
inch thick asphalt surface over. a 12 inch class II base with 13 foot wide biaxial geogrid is
recommended.
Pavement Markings and Signage
A centerline stripe on the path approach would help to organize path user traffic. Consistent with a
Bob Jones Pathway segment north of the Study Area, a solid yel.lowline may be used to separate the
two directions of travel where passing is not permitted (e.g., around curves) and a broken yellowlirre
may be used where passing is permitted. Additionally, two four -inch wide solid white lines centered
six inches from each edge of the pathway are recommended.
Entrance signs should include regulations, hours of operation (if any), and path speed limit. Multi-
use path signing and markings should followthe guidelines in the CA MUTCD and the City's Bob
Jones City -to -Sea Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan. The final striping, marking, and signing plan for
the path should be reviewed and approved by a licensed traffic engineer or civil eng ricer.
1-20 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
�t .; s iri1 !Yl citr tjYett +=i 3
f A�t'rt d k�vvvay t:lat Ir r eilt
Jones jiai (City of Suit tl€€> OWSFID) 1
q y
�+ -
`
� r uatlirection (epraic�r
i t t 3 t ..
- d j rid l r ]f 3ttut7
€
.; � � to -� { �a3iiitP di 4 ilii(� FrJIi iPYT ;Adl(�l R "g'1yt�
t C9 s� t�rt7S 111 j ki11 o gfMtNlii£.'iit s t tite gas oso%VAI
RIA/ US 101,
nr`
"if, ro,ir q?.,rxc
on and off ra op nfmr i--t loll
'� many
NMM i8€1f?
El tiJ tb 7 7 -
c � p to tay zers cj)mirl re souiil ijona a
t
at
I voila;d
AT
ad
€�
'fr �5ia�rlaf
�
Prop kra�fear
� ts
n
YpTt
VALLEY
4
" pre
we pthtea
,`
�4S[Jt7ii3et3t 3�Q€ig Sln"'
,.�
%Li,C obipo Creek,,""
AM,-;
,.
t'
47
aAKE
t,
Of i
t
aw�
E-
p
WA
T
�t t rE� ed•
=
I'eli IN t rS �r E�?fit Lr r
/�
. f qU anni t
PAU F L jus 3 i i 1Y hymn
;<tt3dl .:it�Li mum v=a lq'i,:€;<I, f �i�3'�i.. ei.�W
'
my k 1 Hlr,cP°_Ire tt
Non
Figure 1-9e Preferred Pathway ANgawnent
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-21
I I Executive Summary
Figure 1-10- Preferred Pathway Cress Sections
12 6 2 2, '
TWjNt
AN'
Section 1: Along LOVR over San Luis Obispo Creek (facing east)
0
f%i�TCAM,W't,
UNDE R514 C)AY 'fNJN I S
YY
1-4V
7777777777777�
W'I
F I E U ?VJHIPJ A
�EFK �.O PIR E
TB AU-
N -10 . , 1,"X ;,
P
Section 2: Along San Luis Obispo Creek (facing south)
-R
7
ei
80, Plow
Section 3: Along S. Higuera Street
(facing South)
1-22 ! August20113
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
Fencing
Fencing is typically used to separate a pathway from
adjacent private property and land. uses. Much of the
preferred alignment is along privately -owned farrnland
and a creek. The pathway would need to be fenced to
deter users from wandering onto these areas. Fencing
should be placed on the edge of the pathway corridor. A
four foot high fence is proposed along the creek side of
the path (see Fibre 1-11). The fence type on the
agricultural side is subject to negotiation with the
property owners and may include a sail foot high stock
fence with a four foot high panel of "hog wire" square
mesh at the bottom to deter clogs from entering the
as icultural lands.
City of Scm L11 is Obispo Typical Ripariarr
Corridor Fclldrlg: -{-foot )nigh split rail (top) and
So hiiguena Street Crossing Recommendations Ivood and'vire (bortom) fcr7ccs
The preferred crossing treatment at S. Higuera Street is
an at -grade crossing at the future Buckley Road
extension intersection. A grade -separated crossing of S.
Higuera Street was studied, but is not financially
feasible or environmentally suitable. As of June 2013, the
Buckley Road extension alignment and. S. Higuera Street
intersection location are to be determined such that the
exact pathway crossing location M11 be determined at
final design. pib r7e1-12show-sthepreferredcrossiing Pol:errtialfencctypecrlon.gagrailtrnaiproperties
location and a potential future configuration of S. (G-foot highissubicctto
H,ig sera Street that includes the planned left turn rregotiationagrinrltur-aipropclyolvncrs
pocket sen ng the Octagon Barn staging area (separate Figure 1-11 o Fencing Recommendations
project). The Coun.ty's Bob Jones Pathtivay extensiorl
project (also a separate project) .is show-n on the cast side of S. Hia rera Street.
To improve pathway user and motorist safety at the S. Higuera Street crossing until a traffic signal is
installed, the following inzpros-cmcnts arc recomrrrended:
Implement speed reduction measures along S. Higuera Street, such as speed feedback sighs,
additional, bike lane signs and pavement marl,<i.ngs, and speed limit pavement markings
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-23
I I Executive Surnmary
Install a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) or
similar user -actuated. flashing beacon to improve
visibility of the crossing'
® Install a high visibility crosswalk, PATH XING
pavement markings, and advance warning crossing
signage to alert motorists of the crossing
c Install stop signs along the path. at the crossing to
communicate that path users must yield to Apedestrian hybrid bcacol (also hnoaw)i as the
oncoming motorists High intensity Act ivatcd crossUVaIK (or
HAWK)) is a treatment that p rov ides p ositil%c
® Install nighttime lighting at the crossing location to stop control ill areas tiwithorit the highpedmr fart
improve Iisibility ofpathway users trWicvohw7csthat typicallywarrmnthe
itstallation of asig 4al
Photo source_ hrtp:l' f htva.dot.gov
The HAWK is a pedestrian -activated warping device located on the road side or on mast arias over midblock
pedestrian crossings. The beacon head comists of n%,o rcd lenses above a single yellow lens. The beacon head is
"dart." until the pedestrian desires to cross the street. At this point, the pedestrian wfll pusla an. easy to rcar:h
button that activates the beacon. Autoni.ated pedestrian detectors may be used in conj unction with push
buttons_ After dispia�> ng brief flashir_g and sready yellow intervals, the devise displays a steady red indication
to drivers and a "WALK" mclicaltion to pedestrians, allowing them to cross a Major roadway while traffic is
stopped. After the pedestrian please ends, the "'WALK" indication changes to a flashing orange hand to notify
pedestrians that their clearance time is eliding. Th.e hybrid beacon cl.isplays altemazing flashing red lights to
drivers while pedestrians finish their crossings before once again going dark at th.c conclusion of the cycle.
1-24 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
Figure 1-12: Preferred S. Higuera Street Crossing Location
It
As Table 1-9 slows, the preferred alignment along San Luis Obispo Creel.: and S. Higuera Street
crossing improvements are anticipated to cost apptoxilnately $773,400. Cost estimates do not
include costs associated with rightrof-way acquisition..
Table 1-4: Preliminary Cost Estimate - Pathway Along San Luis Obispo Creek and
At Grade S. Higuera Street Crossing Improvements
SITE PREPARATION
1
Mobili2ation
1
LS
$
3,000.00
S3,000
2
Cleaning and Grubbin;
46,400
SF
$
0.03
$1,400
3
F LcavItion
3,440
CY
$
15.00
g51,600
S,LO CITE' CLASS I BIKEWAY (7040)
4
3. AC
34,300
SF
h
2.90
$1o0,90C
5
12" Class IIbasc (under pavement)
34,300
SF
$
2.50
$$7,000
6
15" Class IIbasc shoulder
11,600
SF
$
3.13
s36,300
City of San Luis Obispo 1 1-25
I I Executive Summary
7 16' Widc Geogrid 46,400 SF 0 25 $11,600
n
rence
5,800
LF
%
9.00
$52,200
9
Striping (City 7040)
S.700
LF
°
0.60
$5,200
TRAFFIC CON-rRoL
10
City Removable Pollard (7335)
6
EA
$
360.00
$2,200
11
City Crosswalk Striping (7350)
800
SF
$
1.25
$1,000
12
Sign (City 7210)
8
EA
$
600.00
$4,800
13
HAWK Beacon System
1
EA
$
60,000.00
$60,000
14
Construction Area Signs
1
LS
$
5,maw
$5,000
MISCELLANEOUS
15
LID Ivfti;ation (4 .Foot vegetated strip)
11,600
SF
$
0.03
$300
16
Access Gate (16' sMng gate)
2
EA
$
1,000.00
$2,000
ll New Agricultural Road 83 CY $ 0.53 $48
18 City Bike Path Lighting (7905) 1 EA $ 1.,900.00 $1,900
19 Drainage (18" Culvert) 50 LF S 60.00 $3,000
Construction Cost $429,400
251'/6 Contingency $107,400
Total ConstructionCost $536,800
10% Survey, technical studies, design, permitting $53, 700
2Mb Fl riromnental Analysis and Documentation and Related Permits $107,400
151)6 Construction ]v(anagement/ Administration Cost $80,500
Total Cost $778,400
The CAN, and County ,,muld maintain the pathNvay and any associated facilities (e_g., fencing,
signacT6 -Mthin their respective jurisclicLions. :Routii�e maintenance costs for the half. -mile paved
pathway are estimated at approximately $9,200 per year (see Table 1-5).:Routine maintenance of the
Bob Jones Pathv,ay would iaclude: litter and trash removal; brush clearance, safety patrol, ,sign wo,1.,
special project and event Rork, and vandalism repair.
The above operation and.maintermiacc cost esti,rnate does not include costs associated with the S.
Hi(ue�ra Street roadway crossin-, which is estimated at $3,280 annually. Operation and maintcn-la
actnuies include sigh and pavement masking repair and placement and lighting and .HAWK beacon
maintenance.
Costs would increase if the City or County 'WCre to contribute to a reserve fund for pathway repair.
The Bob jmws Path-,vay is planned to have an asphalt surface, w)aich vcill needperiod.ic maintenance
over the liferinne of the project. As shownl in Table 1-5, periodic surface maintenance costs for a 1.2-
foot wide A.C. pathway andcosts to reconstruct the path«ay after 50 years are estin-tated. at
approximately $313,620, or $6,250 per year.
1-26 1 August 2013
Draft Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study
Table 1-5-Anticipated Operation and Maintenance
Routine Pathway Operation and Maintenance
Pall. 121nger II $3,550 Annually Cost to maintain a half -mile long
pathway.
Pa��1e Ramer Speclahst $550 Annually Cost to nlaiilltain a half mile lonb
Supervising Ranger
$300
Annually
Cost to maintain a half -mile long
pathway
Temp Staff
$1,250
Annually
Cost to maintain a ha][ -mile long
)athwa
Stipp]ies and services
$3,550
Annually
Cost to maintain a hay] f-mile Long
pathway
Total Annual Routine Pathway Maintenance Costs
$9,200
Annually
Roadway Crossing Operation and Maintenance
Sign replacement/repair
$2,400
Every 5-
Assumes signs vOl.l, he replaced
15 years
during this interval
Pavement marlung replaceiltcnt
$J 00
Leery 5-
Assumes pavement ivarldng mll
15 years
be replaced during this interval
I-1AWKbeacon maintenance
`52,200
Annually
Cost to maintain the HAWK
beacon, including signs, striping
and electricity
Ii.ghting at pathway crossing
$520
Annually
Annual. electrical costs of
$170/llght fi,' tMre pIUS $99 a11111-jal
repair and maunteiaan.ce l-cr, light
Total Annual Roadway Crossing Operation and
$3,280
Annually
Maintenance Costs
Pathway Surface Maintenance
1V11crosurtace
$9,500
at Year 10
$030 per 5F
Micros irface
$9,500
at Year 20
$0.30 per SF
Overlay
S95,040
at Year 30
$3.00 per SF
Microsurface
$9,500
at Year 40
$0.30 per SF
Reconstruct $190,080 at Year 50 $6.00 per SF
Total Pathway Surface Maintenance Cost over 50 $313,620
Year Period
Average Annual Investment for Pathway Surface $6,250
Maintenance
'County of San. Luis Obispo, 2013.
City of San Luis Obispo, 2013. Assumes 12-foot -�vidc asphaltpatlnvay.
Next steps after Study approval include public I.iglit-4--v-gray research and property negotiations,
partnership agreements, site survey, preliminary design, technical studies, en»irol]Mc!ntal studies and.
documentation, fu,riding, casement/access acquisition, perm:i.ts, construction docun.leilts, bidding and
contracting, and construction.
Cityof San Luis Obispo 1 1-27
1 J Executive Summary
1.8 Funding Options
The federal transportation law, MAP-21(MmIng Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century), signed into
lawin July of 2012 and replacing the longstanding SAFETFA-LU transportation bill, is the largest
source of pedestrian and bicycle facility funding in the United States. The federal government funds
transportation projects and programs in part through taxes and fees related to use of the
transportation system.
The most likely funding sources for the Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection include:
Federal funding (MAP-21), Bicycle Transportation Account, and TDA Article 3, and General Funds.
Most funding sources are competitive and pro, dde funding for up to 80 percent of construction costs.
1-28 1 August 2013
City/CountyBob Jones Trail Connection
E � ,
f -
{{
F
dos ,
Osas 11 Y, Rya
€
,
E f
C�
7
! 3
f
�Unpia nnedy
E
€
€
n ®n cti®1tJ
E
E
E
E
�#
E �
E E ,
E
t E
E
�
a j/ LIt7?If
City
101
M:
Octagon
Barn
E
CITY JURISDICTION,
A
County 00UNTYJURIS®ICTION
Continuation
Df Trail South
0 0.
MME
MMME3EI-1-
0 Attachment 5
RESOLUTION NO. 9390 (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO
ADOPTING A PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT PLAN FOR THE BOB JONES CITY -TO -
SEA BIKE TRAIL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to create a comprehensive network of
multi -use paths, consistent with its adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2002) and General
Plan Circulation Element (November 1994); and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies Class I bike paths being
developed adjoining segments of San Luis Obispo Creek south of the downtown, and along
segments of Prefumo Creek west of Route 101; and
WHEREAS, in October 1999 the City Council authorized staff to distribute Request for
Proposals (RFPs) to solicit the services of qualified consultants to prepare a preliminary
alignment plan for segments of the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail; and
WHEREAS, in response to the City's RFPs and after a competitive selection process, the
City hired the RRM Design Group to prepare the desired route plan; and
WHEREAS, in 2000 RRM Design Group published the draft preliminary alignment plan
for this bike trail and the plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's Parks
and Recreation Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Architectural Review
Commission (ARC); and
WHEREAS, at its November 5, 2001 meeting, the ARC found that Initial Environmental
Studies and Mitigated Negative Declarations published by the Director Of Community
Development for this project has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the preliminary alignment plan and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration on December 11, 2001, and directed staff to forward the plan to
the Planning Commission for its review and recommendations, with special emphasis on the
project's compatibility with natural resources; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed a revised
preliminary alignment plan that significantly reduced creek setback encroachments and
recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Preliminary
Route Plan, with revisions.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
R 9390
Resolution No. 9390 (2002 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1: the Preliminary Alignment Plan and project description for the Bob Jones
City -to -Sea Bike Trail, as presented in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference,
is hereby adopted, as amended to:
1. Show the bike path's alignment located fully outside the creek setback
along Prefumo Creek; and
2. Include language in the plan that states: "The City may consider
alternative path alignments as changes in land use and environmental
conditions occur over time."
SECTION 2: The project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 98-01) adequately
addresses potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, includes
mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce to insignificant levels impacts associated with the
project, and is hereby adopted.
Upon Motion of Council Member Ewan, seconded by Vice Mayor Marx, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ewan and Schwartz, Vice Mayor Marx, and
Mayor Settle j
NOES: Council Member Mulholland
ABSENT: None , (,'" 1 pig �U�
\(�`
The foregoing resolution was adopted this e' ay of Desemb;�Wl .
ayor Allen K. ettle
A'
Lee Price, C.M.C.
City Clerk
APP VED TO FORM:
Jeffrey G. cnse ,City ttorney
Attachment 6
Sims
WARREN A. SINSHEINIER III
OfColmsvl:
❑AVID A, JUHNKE
ROBERT IC SCHdL3ELHUT
afNI.: R. NIOVOR
SINSHETMER JUHNICE MCIVOR 8 STROH, ,.0
K. ROD IN BAGGETT
HERBERT A. STROH
DAVID S. HAMILTON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
,
KEVD. ELDER
M
E-Mail;
KElder@sjmslaw,com
March 1,.2013, Client, 1395.002
Kristin Maravilla VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Planner/Designer kristinmaravilla(ii)altaplanning.com
Alta Planning + Design
2560 9"' Street, Suite 212
Berkeley, California 94710
Re: Ed and Mary Weipert:
Comments to Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection Study
Dear Ms. Maravilla:
Please accept these comments to the Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Study, submitted on
behalf of Ed and Mary Weipert,
Personal Comments.
The Weiperts are opposed to the placement of the trail over the Ruffin and Hiyashi
parcels, whether the path is along the creek or along their. property. The Weiperts choose to live
in their home in large part due to its privacy, and want to continue to enjoy the privacy they paid
for with hard work.
The desire for privacy has increased due to the onset of Mr. Weipert's illness, which
makes it difficult for him to get around, and prevents him from driving. Therefore, the property
is his refuge, and placing the path along either the creek or their property will be a serious
disruption to the peace he finds in this refuge.
The Weipert's don't understand why such an invasion of their, privacy is considered, why
so much farm land and habitat will be disturbed, at great public expense, all for a trail of
approximately 4/5ths of a mile long. They believe the money would be better spent improving
existing trails and building trails along Los Osos Valley Road and Higuera Street.
The Weipert's also submit the following General Comments and Specific Comments
about the study.
General Comments.
It is important to note as a threshold issue that unless the County of San Luis Obispo (the
"County") is willing to essentially waive in total the required 200-foot setback between row
1010 Peach St., P.O. Box 31, San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 ph: 805.541.2800 Fax: 805.541.2802 mail@sjnislam,.com www.slmslaw.com
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page 2 of 9
crops and pathways, there is no way to place a path across the Hiyashi parcel, whether the path is
along the creek or along the proposed residential course.
The study mentions that the extent to wluch the 200-foot setback may be encroached is
undetermined, Is that because there is no precedent for such encroachment in the County, or
because there are no set mechanisms in place to make such a determination? It is counter-
productive to choose an option that cannot possibly.be used.
It is also important to note that both the City and the County have many policies stating
that the preservation of agriculture is very important. The study goes on to state how those
policies can be circumvented or compromised. This seems an extreme course to take for a path
that will be about three-quarters.of a mile long at best.
Unless the County is willing to waive all or nearly all of the 200-foot agricultural setback
requirement, and unless both the City and County are willing to place a heavy burden on the
agricultural viability of the parcels, it seems that placing the path along the creek or along the
residences is not feasible.
The same arguments hold true with respect to the creek setback. Both the City and the
County have policies in place aimed to preserve the natural state of creeks by requiring setbacks
from the top of the creek bank. The study then uses every opportunity to note that the creek
setback requirements can be encroached, if there is no alternative course.
Why would the City or the County consider so many exceptions to their stated policies
when there is an alternative: Los Osos Valley Road ("LOVR") to Higuera Street.
It would be better to build Class I paths along LOVR and Higuera, and require the
eventual developer of the Hiyashi parcel to include a Class I. path when the property is
developed. That way there will be Class I paths over the Hiyashi and Ruffino parcels, and over
LOVR and Higuera.
The course of the path shouldn't be thought of as a place holder for some future date,
rather it should be something that can realistically be sited on the property Linder current
conditions.
In sununary, the study seems to promote the path that will do the most damage to the
agricultural and natural resources, require the most exceptions to City and County policy, while
ignoring a viable alternate — one that will have bike lanes anyway — LOVR to Higuera Street.
This is especially noteworthy with respect to the City. The City's general plan calls for
an agricultural gateway to the City, to recognize the City's agricultural heritage and on -going
importance to the City. In light of that policy, why is the City even considering a path through
agricultural land at the gateway to the City?
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page 3 of 9
The area is of prime importance in protecting and preserving a greenbelt in that it is the
last section between 101 and Higuera that is not developed, and in City control. The County
may or may not keep. that area open, as development along Buckley Road may come with the
road extension. Keeping this parcel in agricultural production for as long as possible squares
with City's policy of defining an urban boundary — yet .the City seems to be willing to abandon
that policy at every turn.
Specific Comments.
Why are there no policy guidelines regarding placement of the path on LOVR to
Higuera?
Section 1.1.1 City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, top of page 1-4.
This section states that the City allows discretionary exceptions to the 20-foot setback
from the creek, where there is no practicable alternative.
• The study should note that there is an alternative route along LOVR to Higuera.
Section 1.1.2 County of San Luis Obispo, page 1-4.
The County General Plan:
• Discourages conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.
• Encourages recreational uses on privately owned lands on a case -by -case basis,
where such uses are compatible with agricultural resources.
• Approval on a "case -by -case basis usually implies a need for extraordinary
reasons for approval.
Keeping in mind the Colunty's criteria for converting agricultural land to non-ag:
• Our understanding is that Mr. Hiyashi believes that fanning operations are fairly
constrained now. A path on either side of his parcel will further constrain the
operation, and may mean the parcel won't be viable for commercial agricultural
uses.
• Mr. Hiyashi's belief is based on a reduced parcel, but also because it will be more
time and cost intensive to plan around spraying, dealing with dust, etc. for path
users. Signs and volunteers can only do so much.
Bottom line:
Complying with a 30-foot creek bank setback and a 200-foot agricultural setback
means a path through the agricultural land is not compatible with agricultural
uses.
The non -compatibility issue should receive more discussion as it is clear that
without the near abrogation of the County setbacks, the path cannot be sited on
the agricultural land.
Section 1.1.2, San Luis Obispo County "Right -to -Farm" Ordinance page 1-6.
This section briefly discusses what the ordinance states.
0 That use of land for agricultural operations "is a high priority and favored use."
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page 4 of 9
That when non-agricultural uses occur near agricultural uses, the public
complains.
Will posted signs really stop users from complaining about dust and pesticides?
Section 1.1.2, Agricultural Buffer Policy, page 1-6.
• This section states that it is the County's policy to provide a buffer between
agricultural lands and land used for non-agricultural uses.
• The buffer between pathways and row crops is 200 feet.
• This means that either the land is no longer used for farming, or a large exception
is obtained.
Section 2.1, Land Uses within the Study Area, page 2-1.
• The section states that the project "would potentially require" approvals from
multiple agencies, compliance with various policies and programs, and
compliance with land use standards.
• "Would potentially require" should be "will require." There is no doubt that
where creeks, wetlands and agricultural land are involved, multiple agencies and
approvals will be required.
• The section should also "reference that multiple studies will be performed to
attempt to acquire the approvals, particularly if the path runs along the creel. An
environmental impact report ("EIR") is also likely if the path runs along the creek.
Section 2.2.2, Octagon Barn Center, page 2-8.
• This section describes the Octagon Barn Center and Staging Area.
• The study should note that the land and barn itself have been taken out of
agricultural use, and is now meant to be used for teaching about the importance of
agriculture to SLO County.
• Interesting that the proposed trail head, on land celebrating the agricultural
heritage of the City and County, may be across the street from a link to a trail that
causes more agricultural land to go out of production.
Section 2.23, Buckley Road Extension page 2-9.
• This section states that the extension is tied to build out of the Avila Ranch
Industrial Subdivision and Planned Development.
• The planned development is 121 acres and has 19 industrial lots.
• Preservation of agricultural land in this area is even more important, as the green
belt and buffers at the City/County border will be greatly reduced when the
industrial park is built out.
• The continued and future need for a buffer, or the effect of a loss of a buffer,
should be discussed in the study,
Section 2.3.1, Sidepath_Considerations page 2-11.
• The last bullet point states that attempts to require bicyclists to adhere to certain
rules pertaining to driveways is not appropriate and "typically not effective."
• What other rules do cyclists typically ignore?
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page 5 of 9
Are there other areas where cyclists typically ignore warnings or rules? If so, they should
be noted, as each of the three proposed alignments will require that cyclists comply with
warnings and or rules. In particular, it is proposed that volunteers help close the trail when the
farmer is spraying pesticides. What if the volunteers don't show up? Will cyclists (and
pedestrians for that matter) honor closed gates and/or posted no entry signs? Will the farmer be
forced to postpone spraying if the requisite volunteers are not present?
Has consideration been given to the route most people will travel from the City to access
the Octagon Barn?
• Many joggers and cyclists use Higuera now.
• Will they all travel on the path, or take the path of least resistance and come
straight down Higuera?
• Shortest route for many will be straight down Higuera,. regardless of whether the
Bob Tones trail goes along the creek in the study area.
• Especially commuters to the industrial park when it is built out.
Section 2.3.2 Access on Private Property, page 2-11.
Policy is to refrain from placing recreational facilities on private land, unless the owner is
a willing seller. What does "willing seller" mean?
• Does it mean an offer is made to purchase, and a yes or no answer is received?
• Does it mean a seller worn down after years of negotiations and promises that
mitigation measures will work?
• At what point does a willing seller, such as a farmer, know with certainty what
restrictions (e.g., public notice before spraying) must be complied with as part of
a sale?
• Other?
Section 2.4.L Loss of Privacy, page 2-14.
• States there may be some loss of privacy for the residents located along the
potential pathways.
• States that careful siting could help mitigate loss of privacy.
• There is little flexibility in where the path may be sited on the ag land (if it can be
sited at all without destroying the viability for agricultural production).
• Screening fences or other artificial barriers will take away the open space and
natural privacy that each land owner paid for. This should be noted.
• Siting the path along Higuera provides maximum privacy.
2.4.2 Security Considerations page 2-15.
• The Weiperts are skeptical about any homelessness or crime reduction attributes
of a trail.
• If the trail is placed along the creek, will it just push the homeless out, or make it
easier to access the encampment? The homeless use that route now without a
trail.
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page 6 of 9
• Crime reduction studies and anecdotes provided in the study may or may not be
analogous to this situation.
Will the homeless encampment be " dayiighted" as it is some way off of the
proposed creek trail?
• If not, crime reduction unlikely.
• The study should be more balanced in its assessment of crime reduction.
2.4.3, Lighting Design and Pathway Access after Dark, paize 2-17.
• This section states that it is a possibility that the path could include lighting.
Lighting will reduce the open space, natural setting, of the area, and reduce the
ability of the area to act as part of the greenbelt or buffet.
• It is unlawful to enter open space lands during most night time hours, so lighting
should be unnecessary.
• Lighting will also decrease privacy.
Negative aspects of lighting should be noted in the study, and that it shouldn't be
needed as access is prohibited when it's dark.
2.5, Agricultural Resources page 2-17.
• States that the Study Area includes irrigated vegetables and row crops, and that
the City and County encourage conservation of ag lands and important
agricultural soils.
• It should be noted that the maximum setbacks are required due to the type of use
of the land.
Section 2.5.1 Important Agricultural Soil page 2-17,
The last sentence states that County "policy encourages recreational uses on
privately owned lands where such uses are compatible with on- and offsite
agriculture."
• The note should include that such use is acceptable only if there is no other
option, on a case -by -case basis,
Here, we have an option — LOVR to Higuera.
2.6.2, Federal, State and Local Policies and Regulations, page 2-21.
• This section lists the myriad agencies that will be involved if the path is placed
along the creek or affects wetlands.
As noted above, approvals will be required, not potentially required, from several
agencies if the path is placed along the creek or affects wetlands.
• Agencies will be involved with wetlands assessment and mitigation if path placed
along the residential neighborhood and Weipert home.
What is the likelihood that an EIR will need to be prepared? .If an EIR is required, the
cost estimates in Section 3 regarding studies are probably quite low.
• The possibility of an EIR and the time and cost ramifications should be addressed
in the study.
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page ? of 9
Section 3.1.1, Alignment Overview (Creek Path) page 3_1.
• This section states that the creek setback can be encroached upon when the
setback will adversely affect the agricultural viability of a site.
• Encroachment on creek setback is meant to benefit a . icultural uses not public
uses.
• The County agricultural setback is 200 feet.
• Even if the creek setback is eliminated, the ag setback will still be 200-feet from
the path.
• Under what circumstances will the County reduce the setback to basically zero?
• This should be addressed in the study, and accurately reflect the intended uses of
encroachment for agricultural purposes.
The combination of any creek setback with any ag setback will likely mean the ag parcel
is not viable.
If placed along the residential parcels, is it realistic that the County will grant an
encroachment into the ag set back far enough (e.g., 100 feet) that the course won't
mean the end of ag on the parcels?
Realistic discussions of the sheer size of the encroachment into the ag setback,
and whether that is even a possibility, need to be included here, and not glossed
over.
As stated in the study, any path through the ag parcels will create challenges for the
viability of the parcels to say the least.
• Therefore, if it is not reasonable, under any circumstances, for the path to go
through the ag parcels due to the size of the County ag setback, then those options
should be shelved.
It should not be assumed that if the City and County approve one of the ag related
paths, that a way will be found to make it work.
And that is what we seem to be headed towards, because some bike lanes will be
provided on LOVR and Higuera regardless of whether a Class I path is sited over
the ag land.
There is much discussion in this section about how the setbacks and farmer related
burdens can be worked around.
• The same effort should be placed on how the LOVR to Higuera routes can be
made feasible.
If significant fencing will be required along the ag route, why not go along LOVR
to Higuera, and use an equally decorative fence and screen system to make that
route as pleasurable as it sounds like the ag routes will eventually become if they
were to be used.
• Otherwise, the City and County should be honest and state that they don't really
care about the viability of the ag parcels.
Section 3.1.1 Agricultural Resources and Operations page 3-3.
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page S of 9
• This section states that a primary concern in relation to the course of the pathway
is its potential impact on agriculture.
The path cannot reasonably be placed through the ag parcels without obliterating
either the setbacks or the economic viability of the parcel for ag use.
• One principle or the other must go.
■ If impact on agriculture is truly a primary concern, the clear choice for the path is
along LOVR to Higuera.
Section 3.1.1 Impact on Farm Operations, page 3-3.
• This section states that there are measures that could reduce the ag setback, but it
is "undetermined" how far the buffer could be reduced by such measures.
• Why is it undetermined?
• Is there any history of complete removal (or nearly complete removal) of an ag
buffer for a pathway in SLO County?
• Is there any way that such a reduction in the buffer would at all comport with the
many stated policies regarding preserving ag viability?
• The study should discuss whether waiver of the ag buffer is feasible, and whether
it is responsible to suggest siting the path in ag land.
Pages 3-4 and 3-5 extensively discuss how the public might be accommodated with
regard to farming operations. Little is provided about how this will affect the farmer. .
• Requiring a spraying schedule or notice to volunteers adds cost (whether in time
or money) to a farming operation, and adds to the burden the ag parcels must
bear.
Items not addressed in this section:
• Will the City and County indemnify farmers against claims brought by the public?
• The section states notices are sufficient to negate claims based on willful or
malicious conduct, but what if the farmer is sued anyway?
• Will the City and County guaranty that'no restrictions will be placed on when and
how (other than in compliance with law) the farmer may spray and otherwise
work the land?
• No restrictions on when the trail will be closed?
• What if volunteers are supposed to monitor compliance with closures, but no
volunteers show up? Will the farmer be forced to suspend operations?
• How are the volunteers protected from spraying?
If these questions (and probably others) are not answered, how can a farmer know what
farming operations will be allowed?
The study should provide a more balanced picture of how a farmer might be impacted.
Kristin Maravilla
March 1, 2013
Page 9 of 9
Section 3.1.2 Route along Agricultural and Residential Lands a e 3-6.
• This section discussed issues with respect to siting the path along the residential
and ag land route.
• All of the same comments apply with respect to the County ag setback as apply
with the creek course.
• A 200 foot setback will destroy the viability of the ag parcels.
• The County will need to choose between principles: Does agriculture really
matter? Or are the setbacks unnecessary?
Section 3.1.3 Route along LOVR and S. Higuera Street, page 3-10.
• Are there policies that would prevent or inhibit siting the path on LOVR and
Higuera?
Section 3.I.4, Preliminary Cost Estimates, page 3-14
• As noted above, if an EIR is a possibility, a cost estimate should be provided.
Table 3-5: Pathway Alignment Alternative Matrix page 3=17.
• The cons column for the creek route, third bullet point, should say "will" impact
agricultural operations, or "likely to." Using "may" is not accurate.
• It seems clear from the descriptions that the farmer will need to adjust operations
in some way if the path is along the creek or the residential properties.
We hope the City and County will thoughtfully consider the impact a trail along the creek
or the residential parcels will have on the Weiperts and on the viability of continued agricultural
production.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
SINSHEIMER JUHNKE McIVOR & STROH, LLP
ClKE IN D. ELDER
KDE:ggf
KAWeiper-0002 Land UselCovrFrS.TMS117Maravil]aK-030113.doe
cc: Ed and Mary Weipert
Bryan Wheeler (via e-mail)
Mandeville, Peggy
From: Wheeler, Bryan
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:03 PM
To: Mandeville, Peggy
Subject: FW: Bob Jones Octagon Barn Connection Meeting
From: Bill Thoma
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:45 PM
To: Wheeler, Bryan
Subject: RE: Bob Jones Octagon Barn Connection Meeting
Bryan, This meeting is scheduled at the same time as the City Land Use and Circulation Element update for which I am
on as task force for. I can't be at both. I do want to follow this item however. Are these two advisory bodies going to
take public input? How can I do that without being there and having to write a laborious letter? I want to make it clear
that I am not in favor of the LOVR/South Higuera Option. It does not sound like that option is going to get a lot of
traction anyway. I agree with all of the arguments against that option that are in the study including the issue of
driveway crossings and the need to buy right of way. I really do not want to give away that 6 feet of land on my
property as it will restrict development of my lot in the future. Also, the parking lot on the PGE property just north of us
(we are 4313 south Higuera St. ) has many cars in that parking lot so the exit and entrance into that lot plus the number
of comings and goings from our property every day will be a huge impact on the trail and/or on us. We also take semi -
truck deliveries numerous times a day, so truck traffic crossing that trail would also be an issue as they back in and as
they load and unload materials and equipment. The creek option is by far the BEST solution and your preferred
option. I want to encourage my support for the creek alignment option as the only option that will make any sense for
the trail. No one will use the trail on South Higuera except for experienced bicyclists as it will not be safe for families
and younger, less experienced bikers. I hope that you will let me know (if I can't be there) if there is any support
developing for the south Higuera Option that crosses in front of our property. Thank you. If you wish to talk about it
more, please call me. Sincerely, Bill
From: Wheeler, Bryan [mailto:bwheeler sloci .or ]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Bob Jones Octagon Barn Connection Meeting
All,
The first advisory bodies to hear the preferred alignment for the Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn Connection will be the
County Trails Advisory Committee and the County Bicycle Advisory Committee.
A joint meeting of these two groups is scheduled for Tuesday, May 14th, at 6:00pm. The meeting is held at the San Luis
Obispo County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, in Room 161/162.
Additionally, the Draft Alignment Study has been posted to the library section of the project website at
www.bobionestrailconnection.com.
Bryan Wheeler
Engineer —Transportation Division
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
919 Palm St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7178
Attachment 7
June 6, 2013
Bryan Wheeler
Engineer — Transportation Division
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, 93401
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
The San Luis Obispo County Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) strongly supports
the recommended alignment for the proposed section of the Bob Jones Pathway
connecting the Octagon Barn to Los Osos Valley Road as presented at the joint
San Luis Obispo County Trails Advisory Committee and Bicycle Advisory
Committee meeting.
The Preliminary Design Concept for this section of the Bob Jones Pathway
thoroughly considered the alternative routes including their strengths and impacts.
The proposed alignment for this last remaining section of trail will provide a high
quality user experience with manageable environmental and agricultural impacts.
Completion of the Bob Jones Pathway to connect the city of San Luis Obispo to
Avila Beach is a project with broad based community support, and the
recommended alignment along San Luis Obispo Creek will provide the user
experience that is so enjoyed on the existing sections of this trail.
The San Luis Obispo County Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) strongly
recommends that the crossing of LOVR be a below grade crossing, not a signaled
crossing, ensuring a safe connection for the Bob Jones Pathway trail users.
Sincerely,
Katby L611gacre, 60"-chair
Helene Finger, member
San Luis Obispo County Trail Advisory Committee
Page 1 ofAtta�chment 8
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday, July 25, 2013
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Deanne Gonzales
Kenny Dahlen
Chairperson Connie O'Henley
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Pandora -Nash Karner
Bruce Hilton
STAFF PRESENT: Curtis Black, Shaun Cooper and Mike Mesker
1. Pledge of Allegiance This is the time that is reserved for the flag salute.
Chairperson O'Henley leads the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Public Comment This is the time set for public comment on items that do not appear on the
agenda.
Chairperson O'Henley opens the floor to public comment.
Mr. Shaun Cooper spoke.
Mr. Dave Yelton of Los Osos spoke.
Ms. Caroline Van Winkle of Morro Bay spoke.
3. Commissioners' Adjustments to Agenda This is the time set for any proposed adjustments to
today's agenda.
There are no adjustments to today's agenda.
4. Commissioners' Comments and Outreach This is the time set for Commissioner remarks on their
outreach efforts since the previous meeting.
Commissioner Dahlen wanted to commend staff on the condition of Heilmann and Shandon Parks
Commissioner Gonzales had no report this month due to vacation.
Chairperson O'Henley spoke about a recent trip to Lopez where she stayed at a horse campsite and
had kudos for the staff and thanked everyone who attended Supv. Teixeira's memorial and encouraged
everyone to attend the fundraiser for the Supervisor's family this Saturday.
5. Approve Draft Minutes From Previous Meeting This is the time set for consideration and
acceptance of the previous meeting minutes.
Commissioners reviewed the minutes from the previous meeting. A motion was made.
Motion by: Deanne Gonzales
Second by: Connie O'Henley
Page 2of3
COMMISSIONERS
AYES
NOES
ABSTAIN
RECUSE
O'Henley, Connie
x
Gonzales, Deanne
x
Dahlen, Kenny
x
COMMISSIONERS ACCEPT THE JUNE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
6. Trails Advisory Committee Report This is the time set for a report on the latest Trails Advisory
Committee meeting. This item is skipped when no meeting has occurred.
There is no report this month.
STAFF REPORTS: Request to recommend a preferred route to the Board of Supervisors for the
section of the Bob Jones Pathway connecting the Octagon Barn to Los Osos Valley Road, based on
the City of San Luis Obispo's study. District 3
Mr. Shaun Cooper, Senior Parks Planner, introduced representatives from the City of San Luis Obispo
who gave a presentation on the joint study to determine a preferred alignment of a segment of the
Bob Jones City to Sea Trail and asked Commissioners to provide a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors for the preferred alignment. They answered Commissioners questions.
Chairperson O'Henley opens the floor to public comment.
Ms. Lea Brooks of the SLO County Bicycle Coalition spoke in support.
Mr. Myron Amerine of San Luis Obispo spoke in support.
After more discussion a motion was made.
Motion by: Kenny Dahlen
Second by: Deanne Gonzales
COMMISSIONERS
AYES
NOES
ABSTAIN
RECUSE
O'Henley, Connie
x
Gonzales, Deanne
x
Dahlen, Kenny
x
COMMISSIONERS ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF A PREFERRED ALIGNMENT.
8. STAFF REPORTS: Discuss preparation of the PRC Annual Staff Report.
Mr. Curtis Black, Deputy Director -Parks, introduced a discussion on the preparation of the PRC Annual
Report. After discussion it was decided that Chairperson O'Henley and Commissioner Gonzales would
work on a draft report.
9. Deputy Director -Parks' Report This is the time set for the Deputy Director of Parks report.
Mr. Curtis Black updated Commissioners on the implementation of the Camava reservation system;
the booth at the Mid State Fair; and answered Commissioner's questions.
10. Approve letters of donation This is the time set for the Chairperson to acknowledge and accept any
Letters of Donation received.
There are no Letters of Donation to approve.
Page 3 of 3
11. Adiournment Adjourn Meeting
Having no further business the meeting is adjourned.
Attachment 91
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING THE BOB JONES TRAIL OCTAGON BARN CONNECTION STUDY AND
PREFERRED TRAIL ALIGNMENT ALONG THE CREEK WITH A CREEK SETBACK
EXCEPTION, AS REPRESENTED IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
(GPI 30-13)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to create a comprehensive network of
multi -use paths, consistent with its adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2007) and General
Plan Circulation Element (November 1994), and
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Bob Jones City -to -Sea Bike Trail Preliminary
Alignment Plan because it identifies a Class I bikeway being developed adjacent to San Luis Obispo
Creek south of the downtown and
WHEREAS, the City's 2011-13 Financial Plan included the Bob Jones Trail Octagon Barn
Connection project to identify the path alignment that will connect City and County sections of the
Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail, and
WHEREAS, Alta Planning + Design consultants developed a draft Bob Jones Pathway
Octagon Barn Connection Study and the document and its recommendations were reviewed and
recommended for approval by the City Bicycle Advisory Committee, County Bicycle Advisory
Committee, County Trails Committee and County Parks and Recreation Commission, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 11, 2013, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under GPI 30-13, and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the 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 Commission makes the following
findings:
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
GPI 30-13 (formerly 12510 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 2
1. The preferred alignment shown in the Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection Study is
the best alternative for the connection because it provides a path along the creek while
minimizing the impacts to agricultural lands.
2. The preferred alignment adjacent to San Luis Obispo Creek complies with the City's General
Plan goals and policies.
3. The placement of the trail within the setback satisfies each of the findings in 17.16.025.G.4(d)
of the City's Zoning regulations:
i. The location and design of the trail will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality,
and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement,
being located outside of the riparian corridor because it is located outside of the creek's
vegetated riparian corridor; and
ii. The exception will not limit the city's design options for providing flood control measures
that are needed to achieve adopted city flood policies because the trail will be designed
considering the potential for flooding; and
iii. The exception will allow for the implementation of city -adopted plans which include the
development of bike paths within the creek setback; and
iv. There are special circumstances that apply to the site in that the overall Bob Jones City -to -
Sea Trail was planned to follow San Luis Obispo Creek; and
V. The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege because other sections of the
Bob Jones City -to -Sea Trail are located within the creek setback; and
vi. The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area of the project or downstream; and
vii. Developing the trail within the creek setback will minimize the potential impacts to the
remainder of the parcel; and
viii. Relocation of the trail outside of the creek setback would fiuther limit the use of the
property by the owner.
Section 2. Environmental Review. Environmental impacts for the project are consistent with
the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the existing Bob Jones City -to -Sea
Bike Trail Route Plan, ER-98-01. The alignment will avoid impacts to the riparian habitat along San
Luis Creek. Additional environmental review will be conducted if potential impacts not previously
addressed are identified.
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby approve the Bob Jones Trail
Octagon Barn Connection Study, preferred trail alignment along the creek, and creek setback
exception subject to the following condition:
1. The design of the pathway fixtures shall be consistent with existing sections of the Bob
Jones Trail system within the city limits, and comply with the design guidelines
contained within the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan for creekside bicycle facilities.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
GPI 30-13 (formerly 12510 Los Osos Valley Road)
Page 3
On motion by , seconded by and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1 lth day of September, 2013.
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
ClAty of Meeting Datea Septembers 11, 2013
IMNQ@ SAn W I OBISPO Item Number: 2
PLANNING COIF✓TMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJTECI Review of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Ilan Update
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide
v
BY. Peggy Mandeville; principal
Transportation Planner
Phone Number: 781-7590
E-mail: pmandeville@slocity.org
slocity.org
FILE NUMBER. GPI/Eli 71-13 FROM. Doug Davidson, Deputy Director � s
REC®1VlMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve the Bicycle Transportation
Plan Update as forwarded by the Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) with minor revisions
proposed by staff and adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project.
. �.
Applicant
City of San Luis Obispo Public
Works Department
Representative
Peggy Mandeville, Principal
Transportation Planner
Zoning
Citywide
General Plan
Citywide
Environmental
A Negative Declaration is
Status
recommended for adoption
T
Pian Update
The City of San Luis Obispo adopted its first Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) in April of
1985. Since that original adoption, the City has adopted updates to the Plan in 1993, 2002, and
2007 to comply with State standards. By complying with State standards, the City is eligible to
apply for State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) grants; a key source of funding for City
bicycle facilities. To remain eligible for BTA grant opportunities, in 2011 the Bicycle Advisory
Committee initiated this update. The State's deadline for completing the update is December 1,
2013. A copy of draft Plan was distributed to Commissioners in July and can be viewed on the
City's website at www.slocity.org �p blicworks .
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
On September 3, 2002 the City Council expanded the Planning Conunnission's role to include
review of transportation projects and plans including the Bicycle Transportation Plan (see
Attachment 2). The purpose of the Planning Commission's expanded role was to increase the
GPFER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 2
level of discourse regarding parking, transportation and access issues citywide.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Description
The Public Hearing Draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update represents a comprehensive
update to the adopted 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Notable changes include:
Plan Format — Plan topics are now organized in chapters rather than appendices. The Plan's
objectives and policies are found within these chapters and glossary definitions are found
topically on the page sidebars. Plan chapters and project areas can be located using graphical tabs
at the tops of the pages. For locating Plan requirements relative to the California. Streets and
Highways Code Section 891.2, a separate contents page has been included.
Implementation Actions — These have been added to identify implementation steps associated
with Plan policies. They are found in the policy sections of each chapter where a relationship
exists with the stated policy. They are also compiled in Appendix B, "Implementation Actions
Matrix".
Project Ranking and Presentation — The same criteria established in the 2007 plan has been used
to rank projects, but only the project's overall rank (First, Second, Third) is included in the 2013
presentation (Appendix A). Included in the "Bicycle Transportation Network" chapter is a
discussion of the top two ranked projects by facility type. Graphics are now included to visually
orient the location of each project in the City. Projects are presented in groupings by City
location (Central, Northern, Eastern, Southern, and Western).
2007 BTP Accomplishments and 2013 BTP Modifications — Appendix G "Accomplishments and
Updates", provides a detailed listing of bicycling related City accomplishments resulting from
the 2007 Plan and a listing of changes proposed in the 2013 Plan. Because the document has
been reformatted and reorganized, a legislative draft document could not be produced. To assist
in the review of the proposed changes, strike through and underline notations were utilized
where simple language changes are made and diagonal labels were applied to identify new and
modified language and projects. A total of twelve (12) new projects and sixteen (16)
modifications have been proposed as described below:
Page New Projects
A-17 Jennifer Street Bridge access to Morro Street Bicycle Boulevard
A-27 Boysen Ave. connection to North Chorro near University Square
A-28 Santa Rosa grade separated crossing at Boysen
A-32 North Chorro intersection enhancement
A-35 Hwy 101 bike exit near Cuesta Park
A-69 Southwood shared lane markings
A-71 Spanish Oaks underpass ramp
A-87 Class II connection to Prado if a roadway is developed
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 3
A-90 LOVR grade separated crossing east of LOVR interchange
A-106 Industrial to Bougainvillea connection
A-107 Industrial to Tank Farm connection
A-126 Madonna Inn to Laguna Lake connection
Page Modified Projects
A-16 Leff Street Bicycle Boulevard moved to Islay Street,
A-31 Tassajara shared lane markings replaced proposed bike lanes
A-34 Cuesta Park undercrossing includes an exit from Hwy 101
A-44 Railroad Safety Trail -Taft to Phillips realignment
A-45 Railroad Safety Trail- Phillips to Marsh realignment
A-46 Railroad Safety Trail- Marsh to Amtrak Station realignment
A-49 French Hospital bikeway refinement
A-54 Sinsheimer Park bikeway connections now consistent with park master plan
A-55 Duncan to Laurel Lane bikeway connection added
A-66 Ella Street bicycle boulevard added an optional route
A-96 South Hills/Margarita Area connection includes unpaved option
A-108 Tank Farm Class I bikeways on both sides of roadway
A-110 Unocal Collector Class I bikeway if no road developed
A-115 Buckley Extension to include Class I bikeway
A-123 Laguna Lake Class I bikeway-B realignment
A-124 Laguna Lake Class I bikeway-C realignment
Finally, the proposed 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update contains all the information
required by Section 891.2 of the Streets and Highways Code for State certification (see Page iii
in the Table of Contents of the draft Plan).
2.3 Project Statistics
Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics
Facility
Existing Mileage
Proposed Mileage
Total Mileage
Class I Bike Paths
7.2 (22%)
26.1
33.3
Class II Bike Lanes
29.7 (62%)
17.9
47.6
Class III Bike: Routes
Sharrows
Boulevards
Subtotal
20.6 (100%)
2.9 (58%)
0.5 8%
24.0 (75%)
0
2.1
5.9
8.0
20.6
5.0
6.4
32.0
Total
60.9 (54%)
52.0
112.9
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan map changes will improve bicycle circulation in the
City by creating additional facilities and improvements to existing bicycle facilities. Many of the
changes are meant to improve connections making it easier to bicycle from home to school,
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 44
work, commercial centers and downtown. The proposed projects shown on the map are fully
described, mapped and ranked in Appendix A. Although the total cost of all projects exceeds
$64 million, several costly projects are not needed if other projects are constructed. For instance,
the Plan includes two grade separated crossings of Highway 101 connected by bicycle
boulevards; one north of Santa Rosa Street and one south of Santa Rosa Street. With the
completion of one of these facilities, the other is not needed. Another example is the Railroad
Safety Trail. The Plan still includes a bikeway along the railroad corridor should the railroad's
position on the use of their property change. Realizing it may not, the Plan also includes an
alternate route outside of Union Pacific right of way.
The proposed policy changes strengthen existing policies that promote bicycling, bicycling
safety, and bicycling education. The changes also include the addition of implementing actions
that establish specific direction to be taken to implement Plan policies. Appendix B contains a
matrix on the action items identifying the responsible party and how the action will be
implemented.
3.1 General Plan Consistency:
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update implements the following Circulation,
Conservation and Open Space, and Land Use Element goals, objectives, policies, and programs:
CI L5 Transportation Goals Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
CI 1.7 Promote Alternate Forms of Transportation. San Luis Obispo should: Complete a
network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed
parts of the city by 2000, and extend the system to serve new growth areas.
CI4.0.1 Bicycle Use. Bicycle transportation should be encouraged.
C14.0.2 Cal Poly Trips. At least 33% of all Cal Poly trips should be made by bicycle by the
year 2000.
CI 4.0.3 Continuous Network. The City shall complete a continuous network of safe and
convenient bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity centers and with county
bike routes as specified by the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
CI 4.0.4 New Development New development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage,
parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and standards.
CI 4.0.5 Bikeway Desi n. Bikeways should be designed and maintained to improve bicycling
safety, convenience, and encourage people to use bicycles to commute to work or school.
CI_.. 4.0.6 Bikeway Development. Bikeways designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan
GPUER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 5
should be established when: a) the street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to
its cross sectional design; or b) the street section is being changed as part of a development
project; or c) the construction of bike lanes or paths are called for by the City's Capital
Improvement Plan_
CI 4.0. 7 Arterial Streets. All arterial street projects should provide bicycle lanes. Residential
Arterials may or may not be able to accommodate bike lanes; the evaluation of bike lanes on
these streets will consider the neighborhood context.
CI 4.1.1 Incentives Cal Poly and Cuesta College shall be encouraged to provide incentives to
all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation.
CI 4.1.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan. The City will update its bicycle plan consistent with the
objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation Element. The Bicycle Transportation
Plan shall establish official city bike routes.
CI 4.1.5 Zoning Regulations, The City will modify its zoning regulations to establish
standards for the installation of lockers, and secured bicycle parking, and showers.
CI 4.1.6 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.
CI 4.1._7 Funding; Priority. The City will give a high priority to using street funds for ongoing
maintenance of bicycle lanes and paths or other public bicycle facilities.
CI 7.0.3 Neighborhood Traffic Management. The City should ensure that neighborhood traffic
management projects _.. allow for convenient through bicycle or pedestrian traffic.
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.
COSE 2.3.3 Alternative transportation/and 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, workplaces 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
GPI/ER 71-13 (Bicycle Transportation Plan Update)
Page 6
transit.
LU Community's Goals, City Form. San Luis Obispo should provide a safe and pleasant place
to walk and ride a bicycle, for recreation and other daily activities.
LU 2.3.2 Separate Paths Within the major expansion areas, bicycle and walking paths which
are separate from roadways should connect residential areas with neighborhood commercial
centers, schools, parks and, where feasible, other areas of the City.
3.2 Revisions Proposed by Staff: Minor revisions proposed by staff will be presented to the
Commission at the meeting.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental initial study was prepared for the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update.
The initial study identifies that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
5.0 PUBLIC INPUT
The Bicycle Advisory Committee spent 12 public meetings developing the 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan over a 2-year period. The Committee's May 2011 meeting was specifically
advertised to announce the kickoff and solicit input from the public. In addition to considering
requests from the public, the Committee considered input from SLOCOG's annual unmet bike
needs requests, input received from other agencies such as the County and Caltrans, and
comments received as part of the City's Bicycle Friendly Community award renewal in 2011.
Input concerning City priorities gathered as part of the City's FY 2013-15 Financial Plan process
was also considered. Finally, several members of the public and organizations such as the San
Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition provided input on the Plan Update.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Continue review of the project with direction to staff on pertinent issues. Depending on
the type and scope of the changes, the project's environmental document may need to be
amended to reflect these modifications.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Initial Environmental Study and Proposed Negative Declaration
2. City Council Report Expanding the Planning Commission's Role
3. Planning Commission Resolution
Previously distributed to Planning Commission and available for review on the City's website and at the
919 Palm St. Public Works counter: 2013 Public Review Draft of the Bicycle Transportation Plan
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER 71-13
1. Project Title: 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
2, Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Brian Leveille
bleveille@slocity.org
(805) 781-7166
4. Project Location:
Citywide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
Contact: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner
pmandeville@slocity.org
(805) 781-7590
6. Description of the Project: The project is a comprehensive update to the 2007 Bicycle
Transportation Plan (BTP). The Bicycle Transportation Plan was originally adopted in April,
1985. Since adoption, the plan has been updated in 1993, 2002, and 2007. As with previous
updates, the recommended modifications to the 2007 plan are intended to comply with State
standards in order to be eligible for State Transportation Account (BTA) grants which are a key
source of funding for City bicycle facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation
Plan is used for the planning, development, and maintenance of bicycle facilities and activities in
San Luis Obispo and in adjoining County jurisdiction that is within the City of San Luis
Obispo's Urban Reserve (anticipated outward limit of City growth).
CITY or SAN Luis OBISpo
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Copies of the public hearing draft of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update can be found
on the City of San Luis Obispo's website:
http://www.sloci!y.org/publieworks/documents.asp#bicycle
The main elements of the recommended update include:
New Projects — Eleven new projects are included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan update. The
projects are listed below with corresponding page number in the Public Hearing draft 2013 Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Proiect Name:
page:
Jennifer St. bridge, access to Morro St. Bicycle Boulevard
A17
Boysen Ave. Connection
A27
Santa Rosa at Boysen, Grade Separated Crossing
A28
North Chorro Intersection Enhancement
A32
Cuesta Park/Loomis St. S. Bound Hwy. 101 Exit
A35
Southwood Sharrows
A69
Spanish Oaks Underpass Ramp
A71
Class II Connection to Prado (Part of Bob Jones Trail)
A87
LOVR grade separated crossing east of LOVR interchange
A90
Industrial to Bougainvillea
A106
Industrial/Tank Fann Class I Bypass
A107
Madonna to Laguna Lake Traverse, Class I Path
A 126
Plan Format — Plan topics are now organized in chapters rather than appendices. Objectives and
Policies are found within chapters and definitions are included on page sidebars. Plan requirements
relative to California Streets and Highways Code are included in a separate contents page.
Implementation Actions — Implementation actions have been added to identify steps needed to
implement Plan policies. Implementation actions are located in policy sections for each chapter
where a relationship exists with the stated policy.
Project Ranking and Presentation — The Plan update uses the same criteria used for the 2007 plan.
In the "Bicycle Transportation Network" chapter there is a discussion of the top two ranked projects
by facility type. Graphics are included to depict the location of each project in the City.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
2007 BTP Accomplishments and 2013 BTP Modifications — A listing of accomplishments is
provided which summarizes implementations of bicycle related projects from the 2007 Bicycle
Transportation Plan. A synopsis of additions and modifications from the previous plan provides
information to compare the recommended 2013 BTP update with the 2007 BTP.
The projects and policies contained in the BTP are intended to support the planned expansion of the
City's bicycle facility network. Table 1, below, summarizes existing and proposed BTP network
mileage.
Table 4.1 - Existing and Proposed Bicvele Transnortation Netwnrk Milenoe. (a.c of ner.Pmhor ?01 ?l
Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics
Facility
Existing Mileage
Proposed Mileage
Total Mileage
Class I Bike Paths
7.2 (22%)
26.1
33.3
Class II Bike Lanes
29.7 (62%)
17.9
47.6
Class III Bike: Routes
Sharrows
Boulevards
Subtotal
20.6 (100%)
2.9 (58%)
0.5 8%
24.0 (75%)
0
2.1
5.9
8.0
20.6
5.0
6A
32.0
Total
60.9 (54%)
52.0
112.9
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The recommended Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) Update requires Planning Commission
review and City Council Approval. The Planning Commission will review the BTP as
recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and recommend action to the City Council.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan will be submitted to the San Luis Obispo Council of
Governments (SLOCOG) to determine its consistency with the adopted Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP); and to the California Department of Transportation, Bicycle Unit, to determine its
consistency with State Code requirements and to certify the plan.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
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
Population / Housing
Agriculture
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
no effect determination from Fish and Game.
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 Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
X State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073 (a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
DETERMINATION:
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.
X
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, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
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 the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because
all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required.
Y
Sign- ure
Doug Davidson, AICP
Deputy Director of Community Development
Date
For: Derek Johnson
Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
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 analysis in each section. 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. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless 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 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
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. 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 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 address site -specific conditions for the project.
ICITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Infoiniation Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 71-13. 2013
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
i Bicycle Transportation Plan U
Issues
Unless
Mitigation
linpactpdate
Incorporated
to AESTHETICS, Woudd tine project:
a)IaVe a substantiat adverse effect: a scenic vrsta? "` 1 X
b) Su6stantrally damageE scenic resources, rncludrng, ;ljttt not lrmnf�d `
to,'trees, tdek outcroppings, open,'space, an lir5torrc .bnrldrngs,, X
within a local or stag scmnrc lrtghway�'
,c) Substanatzally degtacle the exrstiiig 'visual charaacte or gialnty of' 14 X
A. e site aticl its wurroundiil&s?
d) create a neGv soiree of substantial light or glare , I ,ieh would;- 3 X
adversely affect day of nighttime views lri the area t,
Evaluation
a), b), c) The Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) update would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas, Planned locations of
bicycle paths are generally located at grade and could not impact scenic vistas. In locations where there are grade separated
crossings any planned bridge structures would be subject to review for conformance with Community Design Guidelines and
would be subject to Architectural Review. The Community Design Guidelines of San Luis Obispo contain requirements that
proposed improvements such as bridge structures must be designed to minimize visual impacts and be compatible with the
character of the site and surroundings. Less than Significant Impact.
d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any proposed bicycle
facilities are also subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum
illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. All bicycle
facilities included in the plan will be required to conform to standards of the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Class I
bike path lighting is required to comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement is required to comply with the
policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek
corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. The project does not have the potential to adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conyvert'Prime Fai7nland, _Unique Farmland, or.'Farmland of 12
Statewide Iiportance (Farmland), as shown on tiremaps'" X
pursuant to the Farmland lllappirig and MonitorriuIg Program of::
the California Resources Agency, to nori dgriculturaI,use?;
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson X
Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which; due to
their `Ioc4,101.1 or nature,, could result in conversio'nsiof Farmland to X
non agrictilt,u'al.use`? _
Evaluation
T
a) b) e) No new paths are proposed to be located on properties used for agricultural purposes or which contain prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The BTP update would not conflict with any existing zoning for
agricultural uses and would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts. The BTP update involves no other changes to the
existing environonient which could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Conclusiow No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the l o°ect;
a); Conflict with or obstruct tion;.,of the hcable air 2 X
quality plan?.
b); Violate and air quality standard or corithbute substantially tdi ail X
existing, or prajected' ann quatty violatiota'?
.. CITY OF SAN Luis Omspo 7 [iNIITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
�ER 4 71-13, 2013
siguificzuit
Significant
Significant
Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Issues
Unless
Impact
RZitigation
Incorporated
X
M
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The 2013 BTP update will have the effect of increasing bicycle ridership which will have a potential benefit of
producing a positive impact on air quality. There is no potential the inaplenientation of the proposed update to the 2013 BTP
update would have a potentially significant effect on air quality; pollutant concentrations; or objectionable odors. No Impact.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) IIave a substantial adverse effect. •sillier directly •or indirectly or 1 10
through habitat; modifications, on any .species identified as a;, X
plans, policies, or regulations; or bythe California''Departnrent of
Fish'wid Game or U.S. Fish:and Wildlife. Sendce?: ,
b) Have a substantial advor'sci effect, on any riparian habitat or other
3
setlsitzx,c natural community identified, in focal or=regional plans:
X
policies, or : egulations, or',by the California Department offish
and. Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected tivetlauds
as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
X
not limited to, niarshes; " vernal `pools, etc.) t1vough" direct`
removal; filling, hydrological interrup(ion, br other means?
d) Interfere substantia4 with the movement of any, native restdent'.
or rhigratory fish or wildlife species or urith established native
X
resident or rugratory wildlife corridors, ,or irmpede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
1, 10
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting;,
biological resources; 'such as tree preseiiwion policy or
X
ordinance.
Conflict with the pro visions. of an 'adopted habitat CouserVation
Plan, Natural Coniruuuity 6onservattqn.Planz or other approved''
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) In cases where proposed Class 1 bicycle 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 2007 BTP and update 2013 BTP include policies and standard mitigation for
locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impact to less than significant levels. Existing City policies and
standards would apply to any proposed facilities which could have a potential impact which would reduce potential biological
resource impacts to less than significant levels. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN Luis OBiS°o WTIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHr_CKLiS T 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting infoinlation Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 71-13, 2013
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Bicycle "transportation Plan Update
Issues
itiles
Impact
ati
Mitigation
Iizcotporate4
15, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the vroiect: I
16
X
X
X
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d). Installing Class 11 bike lanes and bicycle boulevards along City streets will have no effect on subsurface resources.
Installing Class I bike paths may affect currently unidentified cultural resources if resources are found during the minimal
grading and excavation needed to provide a stable base for the bike path. As part of the required. environmental clearance for
the construction of Class I facilities, provisions of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines will direct
project -specific evaluations and the provision of mitigation measures, including avoidance where necessary. If potential
cultural resources are found during construction, the City's Guidelines require that construction cease until a qualified
archaeologist determines the extent of the resource, and. the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective
measures. Less than significant impact.
Less than significant impact.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or - structures to 'potential substantial adverse.
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4
X
1. Rupture of a kno'Wrl earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Photo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map,
X
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based oil other
substantial evidence of a known fault'?'
II. Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
III. Seismic-relatedgiound failure including liquefaction'?
X
IV. Landslides or nudflows?
X
b) Result in substantial.. soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
X
c) Be located ran a geologic unit or 'soil that is unstable, or that.
would become unstable as a result of the project, .and potentially,`
X
result in on or off site landslides,', lateral spreading, subsidence,':.
licluefacti6n. or collapse?
d); Be located on expztnsNo: soil, as defined in Table 18-1-Bi of the'
Unifoirrx Building Code (1.994); creatitzg substantial risks; to life'
X
or prgperty?'
e) I4ave soils incapable of -adequately supporting the a>C,qf septrc ,
tanks or alternative ''waste: water disposal 'systemswhere ',sewers
X
are not available for'the disposal of ilste water?
Evaluation
a); b), c). 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 proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Less than significant impact.
d), e). Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will be required to meet or exceed
building code standards for these soils. Less than significant impact.
CITE' of SAN Luis GsisPo 9 NI T IAL STuoy iCNviRONMEN T AL CHECKLIST 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
potentially
Less Than
No
-FR ff 71-13 2013
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
p
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Issues
Unless
Yanpact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Conctbision:
Less than significant impact.
1 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the projects
N
a) b) The State. of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Wareing Solution Act of 2006 and California
Governor Schwarzenegger ]Executive Order S-3-05 (.Tune 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of
California. Updates to the Bicycle Transportation Man are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gases since they support
alternatives to use of motor vehicles by enhancing facilities which can be used for bicycles. Updates to the Bicycle
Transportation flan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a}
Create a significant hazard to tic public or the environment`;
4
through Une routine transport, use or disposal' of hazardous
X
materials`?.
v)
Create a significant.hazard% to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset" and accident conzditions
X
involving the release of hazardous ! materials into the
environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or ,handle hazardous or acutely'
hazardous Materials, substances; 'or waste within one -quarter=
X
mils of an existing, or proposed school? ."
�d)
Be located on a I site which is included on a list of hazardous'-
8
materials sites compiled pursuant do Government Code Section
X
659:62 5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public. or the environ enO
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
X
hazard for people residing'or working in the project area`),
fj
For' a project within the vicinity 0f;a private airstrip, would the
pr6ctxre: , It in a safety,hazard idr people residing or working
X
in the project area,
j}
Impazr, izriplementattoit o:f, or pliyszcally interfere with an
adopted `emergency . respcinse plan or emergency evacuation `
X
plan?
li)
Expose people or structures to:a sgndicait risk of -loss, injury,:.
4
or death involving wildlaiid tires, including where wildlands
X
are adjacent to ilrbanized areas or ,where residences are
inteznixed with wildlands`?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The Bicycle Transportation flan update has no potential to expose the public to hazardous materials. The project
would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. No Impact.
A
CII-r OF SAN Luis OBBspo 10 9N€TIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sonr:ces
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 71-13, 2013
significant
Significant
Significant
hnpact
}bicycle "Transportation Plan Update
issues
iluless
Mitigation
Impact
Incorporated
e), f) The Bicycle Transportation flan update has no potential to result in an airport related safety hazard for people using the
bicycle facilities in the plan which may be within the airport land use area. No impact.
g), h) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not impede access for emergency response. In the case of Class 1 bike paths,
the dimensions are sufficiently wide to accommodate most emergency vehicles, and their construction would pave a positive
impact on emergency access. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
1 9. 11YDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY. Would the proiect: I
X
IN
groundtivater table- Level (eT. the production rate of pre-existing',,.
nearby well would drop , to a level; which; wot ld not support
existing land uses or planned uses' for which pernitts have been
�r�antied)?
c:} Substantially, alter the existing,dr-ainage pattern of the site or area,:3
including through the alteration of;the course of a stream or river, X
in a inanner'which. would result insubstantial erosion or siltation.
on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a'stream or river,'; N
or substantially "increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in..a
manlier which would result in flooding on or off site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water W$ich would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systerns or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?..' X
g) Place housing,within a 100�-year flood hazard area as mapped on 10
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or F1ood Insurance Rate Map';,. X
or other, flood hazard delineation reap?
It) Expose people or structures to significant risk of'loss ji lury or x
death involving flooding including floodiing as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
i) Inundation by seiehe, tsunami; or,nrudflow? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), 0, g), h), 1). Proposed new Class I bike paths would be paved with asphalt, which will incrementally increase
impervious surface. Ilowever, unlike roadways traveled by motor vehicles, the quality of runoff water should not be
significantly contaminated with oils or greases that could impact ground water or adjoining habitat areas. The design and
location of all. Class I bike paths adjoining creeks have been integrated with adopted flood management strategies for those
creek areas, as established by independent Council action or by adoption of specific plans for various sub -areas of San Luis
Obispo. Additionally, any construction requiring drainage analysis shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management
Plan and Drainage Design Manual. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
= 'CITY Or SAWN Luis OBWO E 1 WTiAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL GHECKLaST 2013
issues, Discussion and Suppoitrng Infortlation Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Thaa1
No
ER # 71-13, 2013
signiticani
Significant
sigwficant
hupact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
h
issues
Unless
Mitigation
rirupact
lncoiporated
1 10, LAND USE AND ]PLANNING. Wound the project: {
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed
deviations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans
or cornmunity conservation plans which would be affected by the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a} Exposure o people to or, generation of 'unacceptable'' noise 7
level's as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X
Lleu ent, or general• noise levels iri .excessof standards;
established in the Noise Ordinance?
}i) A substantial Jemporary.,:.ppriodic,l or penuanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project' vicinity above levels existing X
Without the project?
c) Exposure of, persons to or''generation of excessive grourdborne X
vibration of groundborne noise levels'?
d) For 'a project located within an airport land use plan, or within
two miles I of a public airport or public use airport, would the X
project "expose people residing or working' in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d). Implementation of projects related to the Bicycle Transportation Plan update would not expose people to
unacceptable noise levels and would not generate noise levels in excess of the City's noise ordinance. Construction activities
generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction,
including groundbome vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates
time of construction and maximnin noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise
standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant
impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant imp act.
rt,.., (O6Tv OFF SAN LUIS ONSPO 12 NMAL STUDY E1s9VEONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Inforinatioii Sources
Sources
rotelitially
Poteuitially
Less Than
No
ER # 71-13, 2013
Significant
Signiiicaui
sigli ficaut
Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
hicorporated
j 12. ]POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Droiect:
X
X
Evaluation
a), b)_ The proposed changes to the bikeway network will facilitate non -vehicular access to and from existing developed areas
within the City's urban reserve, and to new commercial and residential districts envisioned by the General flan and supporting
Specific Plans. The update to the Bicycle Transportation plan will not induce population growth or displace existing housing.
No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result In substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
Provision, or need, of new or physically altered governrnew facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response threes, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a); Fire protection? X
b)Police, protection? X
c); Schools'? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X
t), Other public' facilities? X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) New bicycle facilities will incrementally increase the demand for maintenance services as well as patrol by
City Rangers, however these costs are considered as part of the City's budget process prior to the facility's construction.
Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a); hicxcase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substa�itual t hysical X
deteriorationofthe fiacility would occur or be accelerated?
b)'. Include .recreational facilities or require the con'stmQtion or
expansion of recreational facilities,; which niklit have art adverse X
phys ,eal, effect,ori tlio eiivironinent°?
Evaluation
a) Implementation of the Bicycle 'transportation Plan will have a positive effect on recreational opportunities within San Luis
Obispo. Less than significant impact.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
CiTYi OF SAN Luis OsisPo 13 INMAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2t1 3
I ssiacS, Discussioxi and Suippotting Information 5oUrces
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
TER ;? 71-13, 2013
Significant
Significant
Significant
linpact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Issues
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
hicotpoaated
.. CITY OF SAfN Luis OBisP® 14 WITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Poteirtially
Less Than
No
EIS # 71-13, 2013
significant
significant
Significant
1111pact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
Issues
unless
Iinpact
Ivtitigation
Incorpoatcd
Evaluation:
a), b), c), d), e), 0, g). Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not impact City utilities for water and
wastewater and will not generate solid waste or create additional demand on landfill facilities. No Impact.
Conclusion: No Impact.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a); i7oes ilia project llaye the potential to degrade the quality of the;
environment; reduce the halii'tat of a..fish br''w ildlife
X
va iuiar�va .0 yaaaaL uA QnunAcai vl Gi min QLG 1AAALQAJ.I GhQnRA1./AGJ
the nialor periods Sod:
the histoiy or prehistory?
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have any effects on habitat for fish and wildlife species and will not
impact historic resources. Less than significant impact.
b)Does 'the project have impacts that' are individually limited, bi it.
cumulatively aonsiderabie? (" Cumulatively considerable'. means:
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when, x
viewed in coianecton with. the effects of the past projects, the
effects of otter current projects and the effects of probable future'
projects)
The Bicycle Transportation .Plan Update will not have cumulatively considerable impacts and will not result in potential effects
from probable future projects. Less than significant impact.
cj Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on li to an beings, either directly or X
indire' diy?
The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not have environmental effects which could case substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact.
18. 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 foilowhig items:
a)'' Earlier anal*sis used Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of SL.O General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006
2. SLO County Air Pollution Control District, CLQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009
3. City of San Luis Obisuo ZQning Regulations, August 2012
qq
imm"ka
CITY OF SAN Luis OBwo 15 INITBAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
ER # 71-13, 2013
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
y p p
Issues
Unless
Mitigation
hnpact
Incorporated
4.
City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005
5.
City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, revised April 2006
6.
City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010
7.
City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
8.
Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website:
http://www.calepa.c.a.gov/SiteCteanup/CorteseList/
9..
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10.
City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
11.
USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County
12.
Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca,govidlrp/FMMP/
13.
San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990
14.
City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
15.
Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005
16.
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013
Atta&me—nt
council `
September 3, 2002
acenba RCpORt
CITY OF SAN LUIS o B 1 S P 0
FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Peggy Mandeville, Transportation Associate VrA
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING PARKING AND ACCESS OVERSIGHT
RESPONSIBILITIES
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
1. Receive the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding added duties; and
2. Provide staff with direction relative to the formation of a new committee.
DISCUSSION
Background
As a part of the City's 2001/2002 financial plan process, the City Council established a major goal
to create a citywide parking and access advisory body (see Attachment 1). In pursuit of this goal,
Council has held three study sessions (including a joint study session with the Planning
Commission held on April, 30, 2002) to discuss the pros and cons of creating a parking and access
advisory body, the scope of responsibilities the advisory body would have, and how the advisory
body would fit into the organization.
At the joint study session with the Planning Commission, the Council made five separate decisions
(see Attachment 2, Action Update) to increase the level of discourse regarding parking,
transportation, and access issues citywide:
Decision #1: The Planning Commission's role was expanded to include the review of the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Access and Parking Management Plan
(formally called the Parking Management PIan), NARF Transit and Parking projects, and the Short
Range Transit Plan.
Decision #2: The City Council retained the responsibility for neighborhood parking districts,
parking rates, and fees and fines.
Decision #3: The Planning Commission's role was expanded to enable review of selected
transportation projects.
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 2
Decision #4: The City Council approved three staff recommendations that will increase
communication and synergy between all advisory bodies, including the Planning Commission,
dealing with parking and access issues. More specifically, the City Council directed that:
a) City Council staff reports regarding development projects will include a separate discussion
section that addresses parking, transportation and access issues;
b) Every City advisory body will hold two separate meetings to discuss their recommendations
for the Council Goal Setting process utilizing the second meeting to review the draft
recommendations of other advisory bodies (ie. the BAC, MTC, PC, ARC, and PRC) before
finalizing their recommendations with a better understanding of the other advisory bodies
priorities and possible cross over issues; and
c) Advisory body chairs will expand their quarterly reports delivered at the Mayor's Advisory
Body Chair Quarterly meeting to include a forecast of significant upcoming issues their
advisory body will be hearing so all advisory bodies can be better informed of issues facing
the City.
Decision #5: The Planning Commission was asked to review Tier 3 measures and other access and
parking management issues (the subject of this report) and forward recommendations to the
Council.
Planning Commission Input
At the joint study session, the Planning Commission agreed to schedule a meeting in response to
the Council's Decision #5, to review, discuss and recommend "whether or not it has the capacity to
take on the additional responsibility of reviewing certain outstanding components of the Parking
and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP) ...". Those outstanding components, called Tier 3 activities,
mostly related to parking demand reduction activities proposed in the old Draft PDAP. These
measures were never formally considered for either deletion or adoption.
On July 10, 2002 the Planning Commission developed the following recommendations (see
Attachment 3, Table of Planning Commission recommendations) to the City Council regarding
what outstanding parking and access activities and responsibilities the Planning Commission would
like to add to their area of responsibility:
PC Recommendation #1- Tier 3 Issues:
a) That the Planning Commission evaluate the use of outlying parking lots by downtown
employees with connecting shuttle service. Because this is a land use planning issue, it is
appropriate for the Planning Commission. to accept this responsibility.
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 3
b) That the Planning Commission review proposed amendments to City codes to require the
use of parking demand reduction activities for new development. The Planning
Commission feels, and staff agrees, that this would fall within their current area of
responsibility.
c) That the City Council provide sufficient staff to enable enhanced parking enforcement. The
City Council is the appropriate body for handling staffing issues, and when additional
staffing becomes necessary, a request for funding will be included in a future budget
process.
d) That the City Council limit free parking on Sunday's to AM only. Consistent with previous
Council direction, financial decisions should remain with the City Council. The Council
may wish to consider this option at some point in the future when additional parking
revenues are needed.
e) That the City Council establish a program for DA financial participation in the parking
program. Again, financial decisions are a Council responsibility. The Downtown
Association and Chamber of Commerce have previously indicated an interest in bringing
forward a proposal to the City Council.
f) That the City Council contract with a vendor for downtown employee trip reduction
planning and vanpool services. Financial decisions are a Council responsibility. The
Council may wish to consider an amendment, to the Access and Parking Plan to include
these activities, with funding to come in a future Financial Plan.
g) That the City Council provide vanpool fare subsidies for downtown employees. Once
again, this is a financial responsibility of the City Council and could be handled in the same
manner as (1) above.
PC Recommendation 42- Parking and Access Issues:
a) That the Planning Commission review updat&amendments to the Access and Parking
Management Plan. This recommendation is consistent with the City Council's Decision #1
(above).
b) That the Planning Commission review the master planning of parking facilities. Although
the Planning Commission recommended that they accept this additional responsibility, the
City Council decided on July 16, 2002 that the City should plan for parking facilities when
dictated by circumstances and opportunity and not by master planning for locations into
the future when it is not possible to predict future circumstances and opportunities and
therefore this issue is moot.
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access 'Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 4
c) That the Planning Commission evaluate the land use compatibility of new parking
facilities. This is a responsibility that the Planning Commission currently undertakes when
reviewing use permits and General Plan conformity of any City land purchase or sale for
parking facilities.
d) That the Planning Commission provide input on directional signage programs for locating
parking facilities. The Planning Commission has more familiarity with the Land Use and
Circulation elements than the Architectural Review Commission, therefore they felt their
input would be beneficial.
e) That the Planning Commission evaluate a master list of transportation demand management
(TDM) activities. The Commission felt that reviewing a framework for transportation
demand management activities was in keeping with their charge of reviewing land use and
circulation policy issues.
f) That the City Council provide financial planning for new parking facilities and
transportation demand management (TDM) activities. Consistent with previous Council
direction, financial decisions should remain with the City Council.
g) That City staff provide enforcement of parking facilities. This is consistent with current
staff responsibilities.
h) That City staff implement and manage the Access and Parking Management Plan, TDM
activities, and neighborhood parking districts. This is consistent with current staff
responsibilities.
i) That City Staff provide recommendations to the City Council on the formation of
neighborhood parking districts. Pursuant to Council direction, review of neighborhood
parking districts should remain the responsibility of the City Council.
j) That the City Council be responsible for decisions regarding the use of the Parking Fund;
in -lieu fees; subsidies; parking rates, fees, and fines; pricing strategies; and financial
partnerships. Financial decisions are a Council responsibility.
Planning Commission Recommendation #3- DA Advisory Body Issues:
a) That the Downtown Association retain their role in providing input on parking and access -
issues. The process over the last several months has clarified the role of the Downtown
Association (DA) and its parking subcommittee as follows: The DA has a Parking and
Access Sub -Committee that is advisory to the DA Board The DA Board ultimately
provides input to the City Council. The DA Director staffs the Parking and Access Sub -
Committee, not City staff; however staff attends their monthly meetings held at the DA
offices, not City offices, and will continue to do so as a "resource person ". City staff will
Council Agenda Report: Parking and Access Issues
Review of Planning Commission Recommendations
Page 5
need to he diligent in advising the DA of significant parking issues soon enough to allow
the DA process to include a formal board recommendation.
With these recommendations (also described in Attachment 4, Meeting Minutes), the Planning
Commission has accepted the additional responsibility of Tier 3 and parking and access policy
issues and has suggested that staff (with direction from the City Council) take on remaining
operational issues. If Council follows through with this recommendation, much, if not all, of the
issues that drove the desire for a new committee have been resolved. Thus the formation of a
parking and access advisory body no longer appears to be necessary at this time. This certainly
does not mean that the process of evaluating the merits a new advisory body has not been
productive. The background section of this report and the Planning Commission staff report (see
Attachment 5) outline numerous changes that are being made to the current process to provide a
more deliberate and broad based review of parking, transportation and access issues.
Conclusion
The process that the City has undertaken to implement the Council goal of creating a parking and
access advisory body has resulted in many positive improvements and clarifications in the City's
review of parking and access issues. It has also resulted in a more deliberate and broad based
review of parking, transportation and access issues and has cleared up the DA's role in these issues,
including the role of its subcommittee. The duties remaining are operational./technical in nature and
do not appear sufficient to sustain an entirely new committee. Should an issue surface that requires
broader based input than can be provided by the Planning Commission, staff, or the Downtown
Association, the City Council is able to appoint an ad hoc committee. Additionally, the Council
can reconsider the creation of a Parking and Access Committee during a future goal setting process,
should the need arise.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Parking and Access Committee. A new committee no long appears to be needed now that the
Planning Commission has agreed to expand their area of responsibility.
2. Ad Hoc Committee. This committee could be activated at any time Council determines the
need, therefore this option could be pursued if the expansion of the Planning Commission role
did not produce the desired outcome for the review of parking, transportation, and access issues
or if the Planning Commission felt the need for specialized feedback on a specific issue.
3. Parking and Access Subcommittee. This subcommittee also could be activated by Council at
anytime. The Planning Commission could forward recommendations to the Council to form
the subcommittee when it felt the benefits of a multi jurisdictional membership would be
beneficial.
City Council Meeting Page 6
Tuesday, September 3, 2002 — 4:00 p.m.
Dave Romero, 2057 Skylark, spoke in favor but mentione hat salaries are too low to be
competitive for statewide recruitments.
---end of public comments---
Council Member Mulholland voiced appre nsion because the program offers a,beneflt
only to executive staff.
Council Member Schwartz comm ted that by allowing assistance with a home purchase
within a thirty -minute distance ight encourage commuting. Human Resources. Director
Slate clarlf led that there is renter incentive to buy a home within the City of San Luis
Obispo bulft into the pro m.
ACTION: M ed by Ewan/Marx to approve the guidelines for a mortgage loan
assistan rogram and authorize the CAO to finalize actions necessary for
implem tation; motion carried 4:1 (Mulholland).
REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDINg PARKING
AND ACCESS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES
Public Works Director McCluskey and Deputy Public Works Director Bochum presented the
staff report. There were no public comments.
ACTION: Moved by Ewan/Mulholland to receive the Planning Commission's
recommendations regarding added duties; motion carried 5:0.
ACTION: Moved by Marx/Mulholland to not form a new committee; motion carried
5:0.
At 5:55 p.m. Mayor Settle called a recess. At 6:45 P.M. the Council reconvened in Closed
Session.
CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY N %OTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Co a Section 54956.8
PROPERTY: / Open space land on Buckley Road near the
airport
NEGOTIATING PARTIES: / City of San Luis Obispo:
Neil Havlik
Property Owner Representative:
Eriole and Naomie Brughelli
NEGOTIATION: Whe)her to Acquire Conservation Easement
At 7.00 p.m., the Council rg6anvened in open session. City Attorney Jorgensen announced
that the Council authorizgU further negotiations.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE 2013 BICYCLE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
(GPI/ER 71-13)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
September 11, 2013 pursuant to a proceeding instituted under GPFER 71-13, City of San Luis
Obispo, Public Works, applicants; and,
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the 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 Commission makes the following
findings:
1. The proposed 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will promote the public health,
safety and welfare of persons working or living in the City by providing a network of
convenient bikeways, bicycling safety, and bicycling education.
2. The proposed 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will further General Plan goals to
reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking,
riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools.
3. The proposed 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will provide new and improved
bicycling facilities which furthers existing General Plan policies and objectives to complete
a network of safe and convenient bikeways that connect neighborhoods with major activity
centers and the county bike routes
Section 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project's
Negative Declaration adequately evaluates potential environmental impacts of the project.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC-XXXX-13
GPI 71-13 (2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan)
Page 2
Section 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend Council approval of
of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and adoption of the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact.
On motion by , seconded by and on the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1 It" day of September, 2013,
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Planning Commission
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 28, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Michael Multari, Charles Stevenson,
Vice -Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Senior
Planner Pam Ricci, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Traffic
Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Wastewater Treatment Manager
David Hix, Assistant City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording
Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:
Minutes of July 24, 2013, were approved as amended.
Minutes of August 14, 2013, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
3725 Orcutt Road. MS/TR/ER 137-11: Minor subdivision to create three parcels in
conjunction with a Vesting Tentative Map to create a subdivision with 80 lots and
review of the initial study of environmental impact; Terence Orton, applicant. (Pam
Ricci)
Senior Planner Pam Ricci presented the staff report, recommending adoption of the
Draft Resolution, which recommends approval of the project to the City Council, based
on findings, and subject to conditions which she outlined.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Applicant representative Terry Orton stated that the project layout has been designed to
coordinate with neighboring properties and connect the roads at grade. He noted that
the single family lots will be equipped with rain barrels and underground overflow will be
directed to a basin at the lowest point in the park which allows for a smaller basin. He
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 2
pointed out that since the developer is not asking for contributing funds from the City,
the market rate housing must be built first.
Commr. Multari asked if a housing agreement had been developed yet.
Applicant Terry Orton stated that it was being prepared and more detailed information
would be available for City Council review.
Commr. Draze expressed concern about the phasing proposal related to the production
of affordable housing and suggested that some affordable units should be constructed
before the thirtieth home is completed.
Commr. Fowler understood the plan for market rate housing to be developed first since
the housing was to be privately financed.
Commr. Stevenson asked about the construction of the attached row houses.
Erik Grunigen, the applicant's architect, stated the units will be attached with masonry
firewalls and the property lines will be the midline of the firewall. He stated that the
intent is to have high quality construction while maintaining a high level of affordability.
Applicant Terry Orton expressed a reluctance to make changes to the project design
submitted at this point in response to the letter submitted from the adjacent owners to
the north regarding street and pedestrian connections between the two properties, but
agreed that the applicant would cooperate to make minor modifications that were
reasonable and feasible.
Dave Gray, owner of adjacent property, supported the project, but wanted consideration
for minor changes expressed in his letter distributed to the Commission.
Keone Kauo, a member of the design team for the adjacent Gray property northwest of
the Wingate development, supported the project, but noted that an S-curve would allow
more standard size lots on the Gray property. He requested that Wingate share the
burden of dealing with this problem and further requested that Wingate consider moving
the pedestrian access more toward the north or possibly eliminate it.
Commr. Draze noted that the Commission cannot get involved in financial dealings
between two parties and that the Commission favors through connections. He stated
that the developers of both properties work with staff regarding the connection points
between properties.
Phil Gray, an owner of the property to the north, noted a preliminary plan for their
property that had not been submitted to the City yet for review, He requested that a
decision to move the pedestrian access north be made at this meeting so it will be part
of the record. He noted that, as currently planned, this access enters into the Gray
property detention basin. He further requested that the Commission endorse tonight the
alteration of the S-curve, removing about 200 square feet of the backyard of one lot. He
noted this lot would gain some square footage in another area with this change.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 3
Commr. Draze stated that when the applicant ultimately submits their tentative map, the
access points will be reviewed and coordinated and that future changes can be
accommodated without a specific action tonight.
Commr. Stevenson asked about how the drainage system will be maintained. He noted
that this system may become a model for future subdivisions.
Applicant Terry Orton stated that pavers will be used on driveways and interior streets,
pervious pavement will be used for delineation to slow traffic, and roof runoff will be
collected and put in something similar to leach lines. He noted that underground
storage is needed to serve the park, that pumps may be necessary, and that the
homeowners association will be responsible for maintenance of the drainage system.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr Multari noted that the OASP Circulation Plan shows the project site as mixed -
use, but the Specific Plan Land Use Map shows it as R-3. He asked how the
connection to Bullock Lane would work.
Senior Planner Pam Ricci responded that the land use map designation of R-3 was
correct and the other maps should be updated accordingly. She noted that the
connection to Bullock would be achieved by development of a half -street that would be
paved prior to the development of the thirtieth home.
Commr. Stevenson expressed concern about left turns from Orcutt onto Le Jardin.
Traffic Operations Manager Jake Hudson stated there will be a two-way turn lane
installed in Orcutt Road in accordance with specific plan requirements.
Commr. Larson wanted clarification of the number of units as being 142.
Senior Planner Pam Ricci corrected the number from 152 to the actual 142.
Commr. Fowler asked if an action tonight would affect decisions by Parks and
Recreation which will be looking at this later.
Senior Planner Pam Ricci stated that actions by the Planning Commission and Parks
and Recreation Commission are both recommendations to the Council. She noted that
the developer wants to dedicate the park to the City and that the Parks and Recreation
Commission will review the physical design of park and discuss necessary contractual
agreements related to maintenance.
Commr. Stevenson congratulated the team for moving forward on this project. He
expressed concern that the amount of guest parking may not be adequate. He
supported pedestrian access through the site. He noted that curbing painted red would
detract from the appearance and supported having only "no parking" signs.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 4
Senior Planner Pam Ricci stated that the
Condition 45.f. could be eliminated since
outlined previously in Condition 42.
reference to red -curbing in recommended
the Fire Department requirements were
Commr. Fowler commended the work done on the project and agreed with the need to
include a provision about the timing for development of the affordable units. He asked
why the homeowners association would be responsible for putting out trash rather than
the individual homeowners.
Applicant Terry Orton stated that this applied only to the large building, not the individual
lots. In response to an earlier comment, he clarified that the retention basin is to be
maintained by the homeowners association.
Commr. Multari noted that the project does not include some Specific Plan
recommendations such as alleys and shared driveways, and expressed concern about
the appearance of the streets with garages and driveways dominating the view. He
expressed appreciation for the inclusion of affordable housing, but was concerned with
the timing for its development coming in final project phases. He agreed with Commr.
Stevenson about the inadequacy of guest parking within the project.
Senior Planner Ricci and Applicant Orton stated that Mont Azure Drive does have
parking on the road.
Commr. Stevenson noted that when he was on the Architectural Review Commission,
including alleyways was a reason for supporting small lots and they were a key design
component. He agrees with Commr. Multari that these features are lacking in this
project. He stated it is not good to rely on driveways for guest parking.
Commr. Draze stated that making minor changes to the pedestrian access can be dealt
with by staff with the review of improvement plans at a later time. He did not support
making changes to the project to accommodate preliminary plans for the property to the
north since there had not been a formal submittal yet. He supported having some
affordable housing built early in the project.
Commr. Larson noted the air quality mitigation measures were drafted years ago and
some provisions may be redundant. He stated that the crux of air quality mitigation is in
the mitigation monitoring program section and that the developers work out construction
issues with the Air Pollution Control District. He stated that both references to poison
oak should be struck. Biologists consider poison oak invasive. He agreed that the
proposed condition about affordable housing should be added. He agreed with Commr.
Multari's general concerns. He stated that no single project will ever meet all of the
policy statements of the Specific Plan but there are good design elements in this project
including a good mix of units, single grade lots, integration of the detention basin, and
the plaza and other public areas. Weighing all considerations, he found that the project
is not inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
Commr. Fowler noted that the Commission has to be concerned about precedent since
this is the first project under the Specific Plan. He stated that while this project has
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 5
affordable housing, 73 percent of it is multi -family. He noted that the applicant is not
asking for additional City funds to develop the affordable housing and that the project
has to be economically feasible for the developer.
Commr. Stevenson agreed with Commr. Fowler. He stated that this is the first one and
the Commission has not had a chance to look at the layout and that a study session
would have been nice. He stated he has mixed feelings but that this is a great
opportunity for something affordable by design. He supported considering subsequent
phases in a study session. He noted that this is an important project that needs to be
cohesive and satisfy city policies.
Commr. Multari asked if some of the roads were expanded by one foot on each side,
could there be street parking.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that these would be minor adjustments that
would make street parking on one side possible.
Commr. Multari noted the need to be careful where driveways are planned so that they
do not limit street parking. He expressed disappointment at the lack of sidewalks and
the small size of front yards. He asked if private roads could be paved with something
environmentally green.
Commr. Draze noted that pedestrian pathways are included on Le Jardin.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that the project does include sidewalks and pathways and
zero lot line layouts consistent with the Specific Plan. She noted that row houses have
private yards, but that you do see more of the building mass along the park. She added
that the property's size and shape limit the feasibility of both including alleys and
maximizing density.
Commr. Multari stated a number of specific changes to findings and conditions which
were ultimately accepted as part of the motion to recommend approval of the project to
the City Council and are listed below.
Senior Planner Ricci suggested including as an adjunct to Condition 51, the following
language that had been used with previous projects: "Prior to the recording of any
phase of the map, the applicant shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with
the City that specifies the timing of construction of affordable units and contains
provisions for failure to complete any or all of the affordable housing units."
Commr. Multari stated that he wanted to be sure that the affordable and senior housing
gets done and that there is a consequence for a failure to complete.
The Commission had a detailed discussion about conditioning the project appropriately
to insure that the affordable housing gets constructed and that some affordable units
are provided in earlier phases.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 6
Assistant City Attorney Visveshwara stated that the City has had different
consequences in the past with various enforcement mechanisms and noted that the
affordable housing condition goes with the land.
Commr. Draze emphasized that project conditions specify some thresholds for the
production of affordable housing and that the applicant does not have to be built
consecutively east to west.
Commr. Multari suggested the example of in lieu fees being collected at the beginning
of the project and refunded when affordable/senior housing is built.
Senior Planner Ricci stated that the applicant is okay with a 40 percent threshold.
Applicant Orton stated that this fits in with the plan and that one row of homes on Mont
Azure would be left until after the building of the affordable housing. He stated that the
idea of collecting lieu fees in the beginning and refunding them later made him nervous.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Larson, seconded by Commr. Draze, the „Planning Commission
recommends approval of the proiect to the City Council per staff's recommendation with
the following modifications to findings and conditions of the draft resolution:
1) Modify Condition 3 in Section 1 to read: "If necessary, as determined by the Public
Works and Community Development Directors, a notice of requirements or other
agreement acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo may need to shall be recorded in
conjunction with the Parcel Map to clarify development restrictions, conditions of
—_
development, and reference to any pertinent conditions of approvaval related to to VTM
3044."
2 Add reference to Findinq 1 in Section 2 that development standard reductions are
supported by the affordable housing statutes and the provision of amenities consistent
with Specific Plan policies.
3) Add the following new finding in Section 2: "With review of the final map, minor
adjustments to the pedestrian system to align better with the property to the north may
be made with the approval of the Community Development and Public Works Directors."
4) Delete the reference to poison oak planting in the listing of biological mitigation
measures.
5) Modify the second sentence of Condition 8 in Section 3 to specify approval by the
Public Works Director.
6) Modify Condition 15 to properly reference Lot 18.
7) Delete Condition 45.f.
Modify specify i determined by the Community
Condition 46 in Section 3 to specify that it be
Development Director.
9) Include the suggested standard affordable housing agreement recommended by staff
to Condition 51 in Section 3 and wording regarding instruments to assure compliance to
read: "Prior to the recording of any phase of the map, the applicant shall enter into an
Affordable Housing Agreement with the City that specifies the timing of construction of
affordable units and contains provisions for failure to complete any or all of the
affordable housing units such as collecting „affordable housing in -lieu fees, establishing
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 7
a threshold for number of units that can be constructed before some affordable housing
units are provided, -- - --
and providing a letter of credit, bond or other financial guarantee to
assure compliance. The goal of the condition is to have the affordable housinct
constructed as early as possible."
10) Add a condition to: widen Mondrian Plaza to accommodate a sidewalk and parking
on one side of the street; add a sidewalkto_Parc Altlier in addition to the parking shown
on one side of the street; increase the width of Terrasse Plaza to accommodate parking
where feasible and increase the width of Le Jardin to accommodate parking on one
side of the street.
11 Add the followinq condition: "Shared driveways shall be considered to better
accommodate more on -street parking."
12) Add a new condition which reads: "A construction phasinq plan shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit."
13) Add a new condition regarding the requirement for a a Construction Management
Plan.
Commr. Draze stated he can support it and staff has enough direction to make the
affordable housing work.
Commr. Stevenson stated he is excited about the project and supports the changes that
Commr. Multari is proposing that adds livability to the neighborhood with additional
sidewalks and on -street parking.
Commr. Multari recommended that a sidewalk on one side also be provided on
Mondrian Plaza.
Commr. Stevenson supported this and noted it is up to the motion maker to add it.
Commr. Larson modified the motion to include making Mondrian Plaza wider with a
sidewalk on one side.
Commr. Draze stated he agrees with the modification.
Commr. Fowler stated that widening the streets and adding sidewalks helps. He
supported the motion with the change.
AYES:
Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Draze, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES:
None
RECUSED:
None
ABSENT:
None
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Stevenson, the Planninq
Commission recommends to the Architectural Review Commission that they look for
opportunities for shared driveways and pay attention to the streetscape of the row
house units-
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
August 28, 2013
Page 8
AYES:
Commrs. Fowler, Larson, Draze, Multari, and Stevenson
NOES:
None
RECUSED:
None
ABSENT:
None
The motion passed on a 5:0 vote.
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson
announced that the next meeting is September 11, "Bike Night", with an
extension of the Bob Jones Trail and the bike plan up for consideration.
3. Commission
a. Commr. Draze announced that the Council agenda includes consideration of
two new potential commissioners, so it is likely there will be one or two new
commissioners at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary