Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ph1draftcepolicyreview
FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner, Public Works SUBJECT: DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY REVIEW (GPI/ER 15-12) RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the Planning Commission’s recommended changes to the Circulation Element (CE) and provide direction to staff regarding edits or changes. 2. Adopt a resolution identifying the updated legislative draft of the CE as part of the project description for the Land Use and Circulation Elements update to be evaluated through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). DISCUSSION Background The City Council appointed a resident task force to assist in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update process. This now 15 member group, called the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF-LUCE) worked diligently to review proposed changes to the draft elements and to provide direction and guidance regarding new policies and programs. The TF- LUCE draft of the Circulation Element was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2013. The Commission made several minor changes in response to public testimony and to clarify intent in several places. The draft CE is now ready for City Council review and endorsement to be included as part of the project description to be studied through the EIR. The development of alternatives for San Luis Obispo has been a two‐step process: the proposed physical alternatives were endorsed for further study by the City Council in October, 2013; and the proposed policy changes will be reviewed and evaluated by the City Council at special meetings on January 14th and January 28th for the Land Use Element and Circulation Element respectively. This staff report is focused on the CE update. Update Process The Planning Commission is responsible for reviewing proposed changes to the General Plan and for making recommendations to the City Council under Government Code section §65353. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended minor edits to the TF-LUCE draft of the Land Use and Circulation Elements for consideration by the City Council. The LUCE update is comprised of both the potential physical changes and the policy changes which, once endorsed by the City Council, become the “project description” to be evaluated in the Meeting Date Item Number 1-28-14 PH 1 PH1 - 1 Circulation Element – Planning Commission draft Page 2 EIR. Once a draft EIR is available, the update process will result in further refinements to the draft LUCE as potential impacts and mitigations are considered by the advisory bodies, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Circulation Element Draft Each chapter of the revised draft CE is briefly described below. Pages included in the headings refer to the pages in the Planning Commission legislative draft document. Please note that the Table of Contents, figures and tables will be updated and all references will be adjusted once the Council review is complete. The Council should review the legislative draft document and be prepared to proceed through the document with pauses for discussion of those policies or programs for which Council members wish to make adjustments. Introduction (Pages 2-7 through 2-11) The first section of the CE provides the purpose and history of the City’s efforts to plan for circulation. It notes the public participation piece of the update and contains the goals and objectives regarding circulation in the community. This section will continue to be modified to reflect activities that contribute to the policy direction in the draft elements as the update process proceeds. The legislative draft submitted with this staff report includes the addition of a multi- modal level of service goal and revised modal split objectives. The needed mode split will be considered as part of the environmental review process and hence this table will still be in draft form for several more months. Because the proposed modal split is based on resident trips and not overall traffic volumes, the City needs to rely on data gathered from City transportation surveys. The last survey was conducted in 2008 and provided the following information: Comparison to 1990 base shown in 1994 Circulation Element % of City Resident Trips 1990 2010 CE Projection Q14-2008 2008 Notes Motor Vehicles 71 62 65.1% Category includes taxis Transit 6 8 8.2% Doesn’t include vanpools, but probably should Bicycles 10 14 10.9% Walking, Car Pools and other forms 13 16 15.9% Includes motorcycle/scooter and vanpools. Q14. What is your primary mode of travel between home and work/school? The Task Force was not provided with this information for consideration prior to making their recommendations for modal splits. Traffic Reduction Policies (Pages 2-12 through 2-14) This chapter of the Circulation Element provides direction regarding the City’s desire to manage congestion by encouraging modes of transportation other than the single occupant vehicle, and also to work with major employers to provide commuter options to reduce numbers of vehicle trips. These policies and programs work with others throughout the element to address the goal to reduce traffic. PH1 - 2 Circulation Element – Planning Commission draft Page 3 The Task Force and Planning Commission recommendations in this chapter were primarily guided by 1995 legislation (SB 437) that prohibits mandatory trip reduction requirements imposed on employers for purposes of achieving air quality standards. While trip reduction efforts can still be used as mitigation for traffic impacts, the efforts must be directly related to identified congestion impacts that affect levels of service. The language in this chapter has been modified to be consistent with SB 437 but also provide the option to use trip reduction programs where either voluntary or required for other reasons. Transit Service (Pages 2-15 through 2-18) The purpose of this chapter is to provide policies and programs to support and enhance transit service for the City. The policies and programs in this chapter include meeting the needs of different populations, identifying service goals to increase ridership, increasing convenience of transit, and working with regional partners to provide transit connections to and from the community. The Planning Commission added a program to evaluate the feasibility of developing a shuttle system among shopping centers and the downtown. Bicycle Transportation (Pages 2-18 through 2-22) This chapter received the most public comment during the Task Force deliberations. It contains policies and programs to support provision of bicycle facilities and a network of connections to serve riders of all ability levels. The Task Force focused on ways to make riding more comfortable for bicyclists and on making a larger commitment of City resources to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is built to achieve the desired outcome: a greater shift toward non-auto dominated transportation modes. Walking (Pages 2-22 through 2-24) The purpose of the Walking chapter guidance is to ensure that pedestrians are served by the needed facilities to make walking a comfortable mode choice, and to provide a network of connections to ensure that pedestrians can get where they want to go. The Task Force suggested minor modifications to policies and programs but had a larger discussion regarding how to accommodate and support those neighborhoods that do not have sidewalks and do not want sidewalks to be provided. The Planning Commission added a program to consider the benefits and costs of a combined citywide bicycle and pedestrian plan. Multi-Modal Circulation (Pages 2-25 through 2-27) This section of the element experienced the most significant policy update through the addition of Multi-Modal Levels of Service policies and programs to meet the state requirement to comply with the Complete Streets Act. These policies establish both minimum and desired levels of service for the various modes of travel. In addition, the policies set thresholds of performance to which development must respond if service levels are exceeded. The chapter also includes identification of mode priorities for different areas of the City. For example, in the Downtown core, pedestrians and bicyclists are a higher priority than vehicles; PH1 - 3 Circulation Element – Planning Commission draft Page 4 whereas on Arterials and Highways, Vehicles and Transit are prioritized over pedestrians and bicyclists. This does not imply that non-priority modes will not be served, but is rather recognition that for some circulation corridors, development impacts to those modes identified as priorities will be considered more critically than impacts to non-prioritized modes. Traffic Management (Pages 2-28 through 2-34) The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance for expected levels of service on roads, provide solutions for areas experiencing high levels of traffic, street design standards and street classifications. It also contains a policy and program to address transportation funding. Neighborhood Traffic Management (Pages 2-35 through 2-37) This chapter supports community-wide traffic management with a focus on impacts to residential neighborhoods. The policies and programs were updated to reflect experience with neighborhood traffic management plans, concerns about neighborhoods that may already be experiencing traffic beyond desired thresholds, and actions the City can take to assist neighborhoods in traffic calming efforts. Traffic Flow (Pages 2-38 through 2-39) The existing chapter addressing Traffic Flow has been deleted. Concepts regarding level of service and street network and traffic have been consolidated into the Multi-modal and traffic policies and programs. Street Network Changes (Pages 2-40 through 2-48) The purpose of this chapter is to identify how and when street network changes are appropriate. The policies and programs emphasize public participation and advance planning through identification of setback lines and other means to ensure that future need for right-of-way is accommodated in the planning process. Truck Transportation (Pages 2-49 through 2-51) Minor changes to this chapter have been recommended to address Vehicle Code provisions that limit actions the City is able to take in directing truck traffic. Air Transportation (Pages 2-52 through 2-54) This chapter addresses support for increased air service to the community as well as improving transit service to the airport. Programs include working with the County airport to further develop airport facilities as well as encouraging the use of quieter and more environmentally sensitive aircraft. Rail Transportation (Pages 2-55 through 2-56) The purpose of this chapter is to support rail transportation as an energy efficient and convenient PH1 - 4 Circulation Element – Planning Commission draft Page 5 connection for both passenger travel and freight delivery system. Only minor edits are proposed in this section. Parking Management (Pages 2-57 through 2-58) This chapter includes references to the ways the City manages parking needs of non-residential parking. The policies and programs address structured parking as well as curb parking, and park- and-ride lots. Neighborhood Parking Management (Page 2-59) This short chapter references parking needs of residential uses and contains one policy and one program. The Planning Commission added a second program to investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing financing districts for parking. Scenic Roadways (Pages 2-60 through 2-63) The purpose of this chapter is to provide guidance regarding the importance of roads in providing access to scenic views. The policies and programs address development along scenic routes as well as the aesthetic quality of the circulation infrastructure itself. Circulation Element Implementation, Program Funding, and Management (Pages 2-64 through 2-66) The purpose of this chapter is to recognize the City’s partnership with other agencies in funding circulation improvements as well as to identify priorities and methods for implementing circulation programs. The Task Force discussion of funding was a robust one and policy revisions are proposed to identify the relationship between funding amounts and desired outcomes for mode share. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental review will occur once a project description has been endorsed by the City Council. The project description will include a combination of proposed physical changes and proposed policy changes associated with the LUCE update. FISCAL IMPACT The Land Use and Circulation Elements update have been funded in part by a grant from the Strategic Growth Council ($880,000) and in part through General Funds ($430,000) as part of the 2011-13 Financial Plan. Activities to date have been fully covered by these encumbered funds and progress on the update is within budget and on-time. Fiscal impacts of any changes proposed to land use or infrastructure will be evaluated as part of the update process so that the City’s General Plan is one that is fiscally balanced. ALTERNATIVES PH1 - 5 Circulation Element – Planning Commission draft Page 6 1. The Council could continue the item so that additional information could be provided. If this option is chosen, specific direction to staff would be needed and Council may need to identify a special meeting in order to maintain timely progress on the update project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Legislative Changes – how to read 2. Draft Minutes – PC 12-16-14 meeting 3. Planning Commission Legislative Draft Circulation Element 4. Planning Commission Draft Circulation Element – clean version 5. Resolution for Circulation Element Community wide survey previously provided to the Council is available at: http://www.slo2035.com/images/meetings/tf/00_slogpu_survey_2012.09.16-rrr.pdf www.slo2035.com provides TF-LUCE Information and summary of workshops and other studies which have informed the process. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE TF-LUCE Binders with agenda materials T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-01-28\LUCE policies (Circulation) (Johnson-Murry)\LUCE-CAR_1-28-14.docx PH1 - 6 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 LUCE Policy Update REVIEW GUIDE EXAMPLE OF A POLICY MARK-UP 2.1.2 Neighborhood Groups The City should shall encourage and support the formation and continuation of neighborhood planning groups composed of neighborhood residents. Policy. 2.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Language edited to standardize writing style for policies. No change in policy direction. HOW TO READ MARK-UPs TO POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Changes to existing text (policies, programs, etc.) Proposed changes are shown in a strikethrough format for deletions (strikethrough) and underlined for additions (additions). HOW TO READ TRACKING TABLE BELOW POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Below each policy and program, a table comprised of two rows has been included. This table is designed to give the reviewer some insight on the type of change and reason for the change being proposed. These tables are intended to assist the initial review, and will be removed from the public review draft. ROW 1 Box 1. If an existing goal, policy or program, note the policy or program number in the existing General Plan. If a new goal, policy, or program is recommended, insert the word “NEW” in the box. For new items, no checkboxes should be completed. Style. To provide for a consistent writing style within the element, the item has been edited for style. This change is not intended to modify the original intent. For example, adding “The City shall…” at the beginning of a policy or program. Clarity. The item has been edited to more clearly define its intent or application. While this change does not modify the original intent, it does clarify the item to make it more understandable or to promote better implementation. Currency. The item has been updated to reflect current conditions or to better align direction with community issues or objectives. Relocate. This item is proposed to be relocated in order to: 1) change the level (i.e., goal, policy, program) of the item to better reflect its purpose (e.g., moving a policy to the program section), 2) better group the item within its element with other similar content, or 3) move the item to another element within the General Plan. Row 2 will describe where and why the item is proposed to be located. Complete. The item has already been completed, and therefore can be removed from the General Plan. This typically applies to completed implementation programs. Used when items are recommended for deletion. PH1 - 7 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 Relevance. The item is no longer relevant to the community due to changing conditions, new community issues and objectives, or changing opportunities. Used when items are recommended for deletion. Row 2 will describe why the item is no longer relevant. Resources. This item is considered infeasible due to financial or staffing constraints. Used when items are recommended for revision or deletion. Row 2 will describe why the item is considered infeasible. ROW 2 This row provides a place for commentary explaining the change being proposed. Simple edits (Style, Clarity) may not need explanation if the change is clear (changing “should” to “shall”, etc.). More detailed changes, significant modifications, new additions, and items marked as Relocate, Complete, Relevance, and Resources need explanation. For new items, genesis of policy recommendation will be described and referenced in this area (i.e. new policy added to address Complete Streets legislation; or policy implements a preference expressed in COMMUNITY SURVEY). COMMENT BOXES Boxes with a light orange background, like the one below, are used in the revised Land Use and Circulation Elements to provide information to the reviewer and will be removed from the final document. NOTE TO REVIEWER: This version focuses on updates to the policy and program components of the Land Use Element. The Introduction and Community Goals will be edited as appropriate based on the changes approved for the policies and programs. Maps and illustrations have also not been updated at this time, and will be updated to reflect the agreed upon policy and program changes. PH1 - 8 Attachment 2 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 16, 2013 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William Riggs, Charles Stevenson, Vice-Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze Absent: None Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Community Development Deputy Director Kim Murry, Public Works Deputy Director Tim Bochum, Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement Other: Jim Damkowitch, Principal Planner, Kittelson and Associates, Inc. ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments made from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Land Use Element - Continued Hearing PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Lucas, SLO, expressed concern that permitting a standalone conference center will become the rationale for more development on upper Monterey Street including more and larger hotels, restaurants and shops. He stated that this is what can happen when the City’s building code comes up against pressure from developers. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Multari noted that the Commission did not consider the status of the Cal Poly parcels, the Villa Montana development and the Cal Fire property at the last meeting. Community Development Deputy Director Murry stated that the Task Force recommended the Cal Fire parcel be zoned as a special planning area and the Bella Montana condos be designated as Medium High Density Residential. On motion by Commr. Riggs, and seconded by Commr. Malak, to approve the Task Force zoning recommendations for the Cal Fire and Bella Montana properties. PH1 - 9 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 2 AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. Commr. Multari reminded the Commission that a letter was received from Debbie Farwell that was not discussed at the last meeting. He stated that the changes made to the Upper Monterey planning area in response to the San Luis Drive neighborhood petition probably covered her concerns. Chair Draze stated that developing a standalone conference center in the Upper Monterey area will be difficult due to lack of undeveloped land. Commr. Larson noted that there was once a standalone conference center in the City but it was not successful. Community Development Director Johnson stated that the business model today for conference centers is that they are part of a hotel facility. Community Development Deputy Director Murry stated that the policy language supports conference facilities rather than a stand-alone conference center for both Upper Monterey and the CalTrans site. Commr. Multari supported adding a sentence to the policy and noted that the likelihood of one being built is very remote. Commr. Larson suggested adding this sentence at end of policy 6 in 8.3.3.2 on page 1-139: “No standalone conference center is envisioned.” On motion by Commr. Larson, and seconded by Commr. Multari, to add “No standalone conference center is envisioned.” to the end of 8.3.3.2.6. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. Commr. Multari recused himself for discussion of the Luneta Drive area. Commr. Draze explained that this area is close to Commr. Multari’s home. On motion by Vice-Chair Larson, and seconded by Commr. Riggs, to approve the language as proposed by the Task Force on policy L of 6.2.7 Hillside Planning Areas. AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: Commr. Multari ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. PH1 - 10 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 3 On motion by Commr. Riggs, and seconded by Commr. Malak, to approve a Resolution forwarding the Land Use Element Policy and Program Revisions and Additions for City Council consideration to be considered through the EIR process (GPI 15-12). AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. Vice-Chair Larson stated that while he supports the motion to approve the resolution, he finds the Introduction and Background sections of the draft Land Use Element to be weak: some of the philosophical language, the historical recapitulation, and the attempt to identify core community values based on comparisons of the 1988 and 2012 surveys does not seem to flow well and is difficult to read. He stated he is uncomfortable with this section of the draft element and suggests that between now and the end of the process, staff and the consultant team “tighten up” the language. Chair Draze noted that approving the resolution does not affect the EIR. Commr. Multari suggested a motion that states the introduction and goals do not affect the EIR. A motion was proposed by Vice-Chair Larson, and seconded by Commr. Fowler, to direct staff to simplify the language in the Introduction, the Background Review, and the statement of Community Values on return of the Land Use Element for final consideration and, furthermore, to state that the Planning Commission understands that none of that language affects the Environmental Impact Report. Commr. Malak stated that he wanted to modify the motion to identify what is meant by “simplify.” Vice-Chair Larson responded that, in reading those sections of the Land Use Element, he found redundancies and contradictions, and some statements that were interpreted as reflecting core community values. He stated that the entire front section should be edited for consistency to remove contradictions and to communicate more clearly. He noted that parts pertaining to the update in 1994 were chopped and rearranged and that it appeared to be written by committee. Commr. Multari agreed with Commr. Larson’s sentiment and stated that it was written by committee, but rather than directing staff to deal with the language, he proposed a friendly amendment: “The Planning Commission acknowledges that the Introduction and Background language was not reviewed in depth but that this section does not affect the environmental review, the Commission wants to forward the draft element to the Council, with the understanding that this section will be reviewed and edited in the future.” This was accepted by Commr. Larson and Commr. Fowler. On motion by Vice-Chair Larson, and seconded by Commr. Fowler, that the Planning Commission acknowledges that the Introduction and Background language was not reviewed but that this section does not affect the environmental review, therefore the Commission wants to forward the draft element to the Council, with the understanding that this section will be reviewed and edited in the future. PH1 - 11 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 4 AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. There were no further comments made from the Commission. 2. City-wide. GPI/ER 15-12: Land Use and Circulation Elements update. Review of Task Force draft of proposed updates to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Project includes introduction of Multi-Modal level of service policies in addition to updates and changes to city-wide circulation policies; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Kim Murry) Principal Transportation Planner Peggy Mandeville presented the staff report, recommending the Commission review the TF-LUCE recommended changes to the Circulation Element and provide input and recommendations for consideration by the City Council. Commr. Multari thanked Eric Meyer for chairing the Task Force and moving it through a process that was not easy. He noted that the Circulation Element was delivered to the Task Force ahead of the Land Use Element and the document was in much rougher shape when the Task Force reviewed it. In addition, some of the concepts were much more technical. He noted that the Circulation Element garnered more public input than the Land Use Element. Vice-Chair Larson added his appreciation for the Task Force’s work and Mr. Meyer’s role as chairperson. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dan Rivoire, San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition, stated that the Coalition supports approving the multimodal goals and the proportional funding of bike infrastructure. He stated that community members are ecstatic about this and asked that his written comments be read into the record. Lea Brooks, SLO thanked the Task Force for its work and supported the 20% mode share for bikes and the movement away from a car-centric focus to one that supports all modes. Myron Amerine, SLO, also strongly supported the bike mode share and the matching of mode share with funding. He noted that in many communities, starting right after World War II, planning has made streets bicycle and pedestrian-proof and there is a need to change that. He stated that this is a chance to reverse 50 years of bad planning. Anne Wyatt, SLO, thanked Commr. Multari, Chairperson Meyer and the rest of the Task Force. She supported the multimodal goals and associated funding. She stated that the hard work of taking biking seriously as a mode of transportation is still ahead and PH1 - 12 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 5 she emphasized that the roads need to be shared and funds are needed to improve the bike infrastructure for safety. Eric Meyer, chairperson of the LUCE Task Force, stated he reviewed many general plans and found most boring but a few are good and innovative. He noted that in this General Plan, one truly outstanding and unique feature is that the Task Force decided to allocate funding based on the desired mode share goals and that, based on this new funding idea, it becomes possible to build the infrastructure in a reasonable amount of time. He stated that discussion should continue on exactly what the numbers should be and that carpooling and public transit numbers should perhaps be broken out rather than lumped together under “other modes”. Jim DeCecco, Pismo Beach, also supported the mode share goals and funding. He noted that he and his family often come to San Luis Obispo by bike to shops and restaurants. Chair Draze emphasized that the Commission welcomes testimony from anyone, not just San Luis Obispo residents, and that everyone has a right to express their opinions. There were no further comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair Draze stated that the 2035 objectives for mode split are reasonable but that he has questions about the funding. Commr. Riggs noted that it is critical to establish the mode split goals in order to talk about specific policies. Vice-Chair Larson stated that he likes the 20% modal split goal for bicycling but he does not understand how the funding works and what the ramifications would be. Commr. Multari explained that the Task Force had questions about how to implement and labored over the language in the program regarding Transportation Funding. He stated that the General Plan should not contain the details regarding funding implementation but that the program directs staff to develop funding policies and bring them back to the Commission and the City Council. He noted that restrictions in the use of different funding sources could skew a single year’s funding plan or instances where emergencies occur where funds would be needed to deal with something urgent. He noted that the Task Force tried to develop a program that could be used for budgeting and the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). He also stated that, from the perspective of the Commission, the proposed CIP is reviewed by the Planning Commission every two years for a finding of consistency with the General Plan. Chair Draze stated that since some infrastructure is very expensive, such as an overpass, and that the Council and Caltrans have to make decisions on these costs, he questions the feasibility of assigning 20% of transportation funding to meet the bike goals. Commr. Multari noted that there was general Task Force support for the policies and programs but the percentage splits were debated more closely. Commr. Fowler asked PH1 - 13 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 6 if there should be reference to Measure Y as a source of CIP funding. Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville replied that the City Council took out specific reference to Measure Y in the Bicycle Transportation Plan because the measure is due to expire next year but that the current Measure Y funds are being used for bicycle funding as part of addressing traffic congestion. 1 Introduction Vice-Chair Larson reiterated his support for the 20% bicycle mode share but noted that in the listing of Transportation Goals in 1.5 Goals and Objectives, much of the language is repeated from the current Circulation Element. He stated that of the nine goals, there were four that specifically addressed non-motor vehicle items, four that addressed all forms of transportation, and only one (#4) that addressed motor vehicle traffic but is worded with a distinctly negative connotation. He supported rewording goal #4 to delete the word “only”. Commr. Multari agreed that the word does change the meaning and supported deleting it and including “If there is a demonstrated need, widening and extending streets will be done.” Commr. Riggs stated that he did not read any hostility toward any mode in Section 1.5 Goals and Objectives. He stated that what he noted in the goals was an emphasis on mobility and that tonight’s public speakers all talked about the deference toward vehicles that has existed for a long time. He added that he thinks the nine goals are holistic. Commr. Fowler agreed with Commr. Multari as to “only.” Chair Draze stated he was more comfortable leaving it in. Vice-Chair Larson explained that he supports implementation of the goals but does not want to lose sight of the importance of moving goods and people. No action was taken to reword the goal. 2 Traffic Reduction: Commr. Fowler asked if the Task Force talked about affordable housing in close proximity to services as a means to achieve trip reduction. Community Development Director Johnson stated that this is covered in the Land Use Element under the concept of Complete Neighborhoods. Commr. Multari and Task Force Chairperson Meyer agreed that this was not explicitly discussed by the Task Force. 3 Transit Service: Commr. Riggs expressed concern transit funding fare box ratios could force a continuing reduction in service. He stated that he hoped this would not result in a setup for failure with an unsustainable goal. He also noted that there are no goals for service standards. Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that riders have to pay at least 20% of the cost of the service and that there is a need to look for ways to get more people to take the bus. Commr. Riggs stated that the problem of financial pressure and the need to increase ridership needs to be acknowledged. He supported having no more than 30-minute off-peak and 20-minute peak headways. Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville indicated that service provision is described in the Short Range Transit Plan. Chair Draze asked if the Short Term Transit Plan should be referenced. Commr. Multari suggested stating that the City is going to adopt service standards in PH1 - 14 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 7 the Short Range Transit Plan rather than including service standards in the element. Commr. Stevenson suggested including transit funding limitations in the Appendix and referencing it in 3.1.1 Transit Plans because appendices can be changed without a General Plan amendment. This was accepted by the Commission. Commr. Malak stated he would like to add a program to 3.1 Programs to evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle system among shopping centers and the Downtown. Chair Draze supported this and Community Development Director Johnson stated it could be a new program under 3.1.7. Commr. Fowler asked what groups would be targeted to increase public transit ridership so that the 2035 goal could be met. Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that “and other interested groups” could be added to 3.1.2 Transit Passes. 4 Bicycle Transportation Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville provided corrections to the legislative draft Commr. Multari stated that these were preliminary concepts were replaced by the proposed transportation funding policy and program. Vice-Chair Larson noted that the language used in the first sentence of 4.0.4 New Development is a good example for policy statements. Commr. Riggs stated that he likes the way 4.1.4 Campus Master Plan is more assertive and thanked the Task Force for this language. Commr. Fowler suggested adding “and educate” to 4.1.1 Incentives which was accepted by the Commission. He noted that there is no date for attaining a gold level designation in 4.1.7. Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that this is reviewed approximately every five years and the City was recently renewed at the silver award level. Commr. Riggs recommended not adding a date. 5 Walking Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that 5.0.7 Sidewalks generated much discussion about sidewalk design and installation at Task Force meetings. Vice-Chair Larson reiterated his commendation of policy language like that in 5.0.3 New Development. Commr. Fowler suggested adding “and promote” to 5.0.1 Promote Walking. Commr. Riggs suggested that a combined pedestrian and bicycle plan be considered. Chair Draze stated that the downtown is quite different from the rest of the City because bikes and pedestrians do not share space. Consultant Damkowitch stated that there is a difference in design for pedestrians and bicycles. Commr. Riggs stated that he disagreed with Mr. Damkowitch. Commr. Multari suggested a new program to consider the benefits and costs of a combined city-wide bicycle and pedestrian plan. Commr. PH1 - 15 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 8 Stevenson stated that it might be better to analyze the issues relative to connectivity rather than as a citywide plan so as to focus on getting people to shopping and other destinations. Commr. Multari suggested the program in 5.1.2 does this when it references a “continuous and connected pedestrian network:” Commr. Stevenson stated that, while vague, this does have the word “connected” but that he wants to focus on and how people in residential multifamily get to work and shopping without driving a car. Vice-Chair Larson noted that 4.1.2 and 5.1.1 should, at minimum, be coordinated, or at least acknowledge each other. He stated that reference to coordination could be in 4.1.2 and that staff could develop the language. Community Development Director Johnson proposed “The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating a pedestrian and bicycle plan.” Commr. Riggs stated that he sees this as an opportunity to reframe these modes to be more equal in importance. 6 Multi-modal Circulation Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that considering all modes rather than just vehicle LOS is new. Vice-Chair Larson asked for an explanation of “further degradation” in 6.0.D Defining Significant Circulation Impact. Consultant Damkowitch stated that degradation is based on a score representing degrees within each LOS and that there could be a significant impact even if the degradation does not change the LOS. Vice-Chair Larson stated that in the CEQA process, it could be argued that this kind of impact is not a substantial change. Chair Draze and Mr. Damkowitch agreed. Commr. Riggs asked about the meaning of improved crossings in 6.0.E.a Mitigation, Pedestrian. Consultant Damkowitch stated that the intent is to simply show the broader range of choices available for mitigation and that the improvements listed are for illustrative purposes. He noted that when LOS is only about vehicles, you get mitigations only about cars. Community Development Director Johnson agreed that the examples are not meant to be exhaustive. Commr. Riggs asked why language about reducing intersection crossing distance is not also in the Pedestrian paragraph. Mr. Damkowitch stated that this could clearly be added there. Consultant Damkowitch noted that the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual was the first to embrace multimodal service. He stated that some cities are including these in their plans but most are shying away from establishing standards. He noted that what SLO is doing is impressive and will put the City ahead of the curve. 7 Traffic Management Vice-Chair Larson stated that he appreciates Commr. Multari’s prior comments on 7.1.9 Transportation Funding. He noted that this very important paragraph took a great effort and captures much of the direction needed. He stated that the language he praised in prior sections should serve as a model for a new policy regarding vehicular traffic. He noted that in Types of Streets, 7.2 Design Standards, the language is very passive and does not indicate who will be responsible. He stated that subdivision developments have been brought back to the Commission for relief from these things due to passive PH1 - 16 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 9 language. He supported a policy clearly stating that new development will provide necessary circulation improvements. Vice-Chair Larson proposed a motion stating that new development shall be responsible for road improvements. Chair Draze noted that 7.2 Design Standards is about all roads, not just those in new development. Commr. Multari stated that 7.2 is about what the City will do but agreed with the idea of requiring new development to be responsible for infrastructure. Vice-Chair Larson stated that his concern is about implementing the General Plan where appropriate and, in his opinion, it is a deficiency in the Circulation Element not to carry and recognize that typical, standard, and reasonable requirement. He clarified that he is not suggesting that he would like to build roads everywhere in the City. Commr. Stevenson stated that a statement could be added to the beginning of the Circulation Element. Community Development Director Johnson stated that Chapter 9 would be the appropriate place and most of the Commission agreed. Vice-Chair Larson withdrew his motion. Air Transportation: The Commission agreed to Vice-Chair Larson’s suggestion to move “as well as protecting and improving circulation and public transit access to the airport” from the deleted 11.0.1 County Airport to the end of 11.0.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Vice-Chair Larson supported renaming 11.0.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to avoid confusion with the Airport Commission’s plan. Community Development Deputy Director Murry suggested “Airport Land Use Compatibility Strategies” but subsequently, the Commission agreed to strike 11.0.2 entirely in addition to previous policy 11.0.1, 11.0.3, 11.0.4, and 11.1.4 because they are covered under the Land Use Element. Commr. Fowler stated that the word “additional” in 11.1.3 is not needed. The Commission agreed. Commr. Malak asked for a history of why there is no public transit to the airport. Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that it did exist but did not have many riders because most people wanted transportation at times that transit does not run. She stated that extending service to businesses near the airport, including stops at the airport, is now being considered. She added that there is Ride On service for a small cost. 14 Neighborhood Parking Management Chair Draze stated that 13.1.4 Parking Structures should refer to “public parking structures.” Neighborhood Parking Management, p. 60 Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville stated that New Policy #2 under 14.0.1 Residential Parking Spaces could be renamed “Residential Parking Program” so that it is clear it is not referring to a benefits district. PH1 - 17 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 10 Commr. Riggs supported thinking of this district as a finance district to fund neighborhood improvements. Commr. Multari suggested adding a sentence saying “This is not a finance district.” because, if the City is considering finance districts, it should be done in a transparent manner. Commr. Riggs stated that he wants to make that proposal. Commr. Multari suggested the Commission add a program to study the feasibility of establishing financing districts. He noted that at some future time, City residents may support this approach in order to make improvements to their neighborhoods. Community Development Director Johnson stated that the program Commr. Multari suggested could be a new program in 14.1. He noted that property owners would have the ultimate vote on this. Commr. Fowler and Commr. Malak supported looking into the feasibility of finance districts. Commr. Multari stated that some neighborhoods might be interested if it finances lighting, landscaping and traffic calming. Commr. Riggs stated that typically the user funds this via meters but that there are multiple ways to do it. Commr. Multari stated that the City is not going to meter residential streets. Public Works Deputy Director Bochum stated that a couple of cities have allowed meters in residential areas and that, in exchange for allowing public parking on their streets, the neighborhood gets a large share of the revenue for improvements. He stated it was investigated here once but got a resounding “no” from the public. He noted that it may make some sense near Cal Poly but probably would not be supported at a city-wide scale. The Commission opted to add a program, “The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing districts.” 15 Scenic Roadways Principal Transportation Planner Mandeville recommended keeping existing language in 15.1.4 Billboards due to current litigation. On motion by Commr. Fowler, seconded by Commr. Malak, to adopt the Resolution forwarding the Circulation Element Policy and Program revisions and additions for City Council consideration to be considered through the EIR process (GPI 15-12). AYES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, Larson, Malak, Multari, Riggs, and Stevenson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None The motion passed on a 7:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Agenda Forecast: January 8, 2014, scoping meeting for EIR for LUCE and a request for alcohol sales at 1060 Osos Street. b. Agenda Forecast: January 22, 2014 Airport Area Specific Plan and an appeal of use permit conditions at 2885 S. Higuera Street. PH1 - 18 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 16, 2013 Page 11 4. Commission: Commr. Malak thanks Commr. Multari, Task Force Chairperson Eric Meyer and staff for work on the LUCE update. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Diane Clement Recording Secretary PH1 - 19 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-1 CHAPTER 2 CIRCULATION Adopted: November 29, 1994 Last Revised: April 4, 2006 (Council Resolution No. 9785, 2006 Series) PH1 - 20 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-2 CHAPTER 2 - CIRCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 History ................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Public Participation ................................................................................................ 7 1.3 For More Information ............................................................................................. 8 1.4 Definitions .............................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Goals and objectives ............................................................................................. 8 Transportation Goals .......................................................................................................... 8 Overall Transportation Strategy .......................................................................................... 8 Transportation Objectives ................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits ............................................................... 8 1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation ....................................................... 9 1.8 Manage Traffic ...................................................................................................... 9 1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement ............................. 9 1.10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation. ...................................................10 1.11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors..........................10 2 TRAFFIC REDUCTION .................................................................................................12 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................12 POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................12 COMMUNITY TRIP REDUCTION ....................................................................................12 2.0 Policies ................................................................................................................12 2.0.1 Multi-level Programs ...................................................................................12 2.0.2 Flexible Work Schedules ............................................................................12 2.0.3 Work-based Trip Reduction .................................................................12 2.0.4 Downtown Congestion ................................................................................13 2.0.5 Long-term Measure ....................................................................................13 2.1 Programs .............................................................................................................13 2.1.1 Agency Cooperation .............................................................................13 2.1.2 City Trip Reduction .....................................................................................13 2.1.3 Large Employers ..................................................................................14 TRANSIT SERVICE ............................................................................................................15 3.0 Policies ................................................................................................................15 3.0.1 Transit Development ............................................................................15 3.0.2 City Bus Service .........................................................................................15 3.0.3 Paratransit Service .....................................................................................15 3.0.4 Campus Service .........................................................................................15 3.0.5 Unmet Transit Needs ..................................................................................15 3.0.6 Service Standards ......................................................................................16 3.0.7 Transit Service Access ...............................................................................16 3.1 Programs .............................................................................................................16 3.1.1 Transit Plans ...............................................................................................16 3.1.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes ...........................................................................17 3.1.3 Downtown Trolley .......................................................................................17 3.1.4 Commuter Bus Service ........................................................................17 3.1.5 Transit Service Evaluation ..........................................................................17 3.1.6 Marketing and Promotion ...........................................................................17 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ..........................................................................................18 4.0 Policies ................................................................................................................18 4.0.1 Bicycle Use ...........................................................................................18 PH1 - 21 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-3 4.0.2 Campus Trips .............................................................................................18 4.0.3 Campus Trips .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Continuous Network ............................................................................................18 4.0.4 New Development ......................................................................................18 4.0.5 Bikeway Design and Maintenance .............................................................19 4.0.6 Bikeway Development with Road Improvements .......................................19 4.0.7 Education and Safety .................................................................................19 4.0.8 Bicycle Transportation Coordinator ............................................................19 4.0.9 Traffic Law Compliance ..............................................................................20 4.0.10 Right-of-way Acquisition .............................................................................20 4.1 Programs .............................................................................................................20 4.1.1 Incentives (Note: Task Force recommends that this program be moved to the Traffic Reduction section). ...................................................................................20 4.1.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan ........................................................................20 4.1.3 Campus Coordination .................................................................................21 4.1.4 Campus Master Plans ................................................................................21 4.0.1 Zoning Regulations .....................................................................................21 4.0.2 Railroad Bikeway and Trail .........................................................................21 4.0.3 Bicycle Friendly Community .......................................................................21 5 WALKING .....................................................................................................................22 5.0 Policies ................................................................................................................22 5.0.1 Promote Walking ........................................................................................22 5.0.2 Sidewalks and Paths ............................................................................22 5.0.3 New Development ......................................................................................22 5.0.4 Pedestrian Access ......................................................................................22 5.0.5 Pedestrian Crossings .................................................................................23 5.0.6 Downtown Commercial Core ......................................................................23 5.0.7 Sidewalks....................................................................................................23 5.1 Programs .............................................................................................................23 5.1.1 Downtown Pedestrian Plan ........................................................................23 5.1.2 Pedestrian Network ..............................................................................24 5.1.3 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance...............................................24 5.1.4 Safe Routes to School .........................................................................24 6 MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION ...................................................................................25 7 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................28 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................28 Policies and Programs Standards .....................................................................................28 7.0.1 Peak Hour and Daily Traffic .................................................................28 7.0.2 Street Network ............................................................................................28 7.0.3 Growth Management & Roadway Expansion.............................................28 7.0.4 Transportation Funding ..............................................................................29 7.0.5 Vehicle Speeds ...............................................................................................29 7.1 Programs .............................................................................................................29 7.1.1 Traffic Reduction Priority ............................................................................29 7.1.2 Transportation Monitoring...........................................................................29 7.1.3 Transportation Survey ................................................................................29 7.1.4 Transportation Model ..................................................................................30 7.1.5 Cooperative Street Design .........................................................................30 7.1.6 Subdivision Regulations .............................................................................30 7.1.7 Traffic Access Management .......................................................................30 7.1.8 State Highway HOV Lanes .........................................................................30 The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State PH1 - 22 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-4 Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use. ............................................................................................30 7.1.9 Transportation Funding ..............................................................................30 Types of Streets ................................................................................................................31 7.2 Design Standards ................................................................................................31 7.2.1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)........................................................................31 7.2.2 Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) ..................................................................31 6.2 Descriptions and Standards for Figure 2 STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP ...............................................................................................................................31 8 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ............................................................35 8.0 Policies ................................................................................................................35 8.0.1 Through Traffic ...........................................................................................35 8.0.2 Residential Streets .....................................................................................35 8.0.3 Neighborhood Traffic Speeds .....................................................................35 8.0.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management ............................................................35 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines ...................................36 8.0.6 Expansion Areas ........................................................................................36 8.1 Programs .............................................................................................................36 8.1.2 Traffic Management Plans..........................................................................36 8.1.3 Traffic Control Measures ............................................................................37 8.1.4 Quality of Life ..............................................................................................37 8.1.5 City Vehicle Operation ................................................................................37 8.1.5.1 ........................................................................................................................38 8.1.5.2 ........................................................................................................................38 8.1.5.3 ........................................................................................................................38 9 STREET NETWORK CHANGES..................................................................................41 9.0 Policies ................................................................................................................41 9.0.1 New Development ......................................................................................41 9.0.2 Public Participation .....................................................................................41 9.0.3 Arterial Street Corridors ..............................................................................41 9.0.4 Project Implementation ...............................................................................41 9.0.5 Right-of-Way Reservation ..........................................................................42 9.1 Programs .............................................................................................................42 9.1.1 Building Setback Lines ...............................................................................42 9.1.2 Prado Road Improvements.........................................................................42 9.1.3 Street Amenities Plan .................................................................................42 9.1.4 Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center ........................................................43 9.1.5 Dalidio/Madonna Road/McBride Development ..........................................43 9.1.6 Streetscapes and major roadways .............................................................44 10 TRUCK TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................49 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................49 10.0 Policies ...........................................................................................................49 10.0.1 Truck Routes ...................................................................................................49 10.1 Programs ........................................................................................................49 10.1.1 Idling Trucks .........................................................................................49 10.1.2 Home Occupations .....................................................................................49 10.1.3 Commercial Loading Zones........................................................................50 10.1.4 Truck Circulation .........................................................................................50 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................52 11.0 Policies ............................................................................................................52 11.0.1 Interstate Air Service ..................................................................................52 11.0.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ...........................................................52 11.0.3 Compatible Land Uses ...............................................................................53 11.0.4 Development Projects ................................................................................53 PH1 - 23 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-5 11.0.5 County Aircraft Operations .........................................................................53 11.0.6 Public Transit Service .................................................................................53 11.1 Programs ........................................................................................................53 11.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft ........................................................53 11.1.2 Airport Facilities Development ....................................................................54 11.1.3 Airport Funding ...........................................................................................54 11.1.4 Update of the Airport Land Use Plan ..........................................................54 12 RAIL TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................55 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................55 12.0 Policies ............................................................................................................55 12.0.1 Rail Service ..........................................................................................55 12.0.2 State and Federal Programs ......................................................................55 12.0.3 Transit Service Connections ................................................................55 12.0.4 Intra-city Transportation Needs ..................................................................55 12.1 Programs ........................................................................................................56 12.1.1 Daily Train Connections .............................................................................56 12.1.2 Intra-county Rail Service ............................................................................56 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................57 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................57 Commercial Parking ..........................................................................................................57 13.0 Policies ............................................................................................................57 13.0.1 Curb Parking ...............................................................................................57 13.0.2 City Parking Programs ................................................................................57 13.1 Programs ........................................................................................................57 13.1.1 Parking Management Plan .........................................................................57 13.1.2 Monitor Public Parking ................................................................................57 13.1.3 Park and Ride Lots .....................................................................................58 13.1.4 Public Parking Structures ...........................................................................58 13.1.5 Curb Parking Evaluation .............................................................................58 13.1.6 Downtown Trolley .................................................................................58 14 Neighborhood Parking Management .....................................................................59 14.0 Policies ............................................................................................................59 14.0.1 Residential Parking Spaces........................................................................59 NEW POLICY #1Neighborhood Protection ...................................................................59 14.1 Programs ........................................................................................................59 14.1.1 Neighborhood Parking Permits ..................................................................59 15 SCENIC ROADWAYS ...............................................................................................60 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................60 15.0 Policies ............................................................................................................60 15.0.1 Scenic Routes ............................................................................................60 15.0.2 Development Along Scenic Routes .....................................................60 15.0.3 Public Equipment and Facilities .................................................................61 15.0.4 County Role ................................................................................................61 15.0.5 Scenic Highways ..................................................................................61 15.0.6 Designation of Scenic Highways ................................................................61 15.1 Programs ........................................................................................................61 15.1.1 Visual Character .........................................................................................61 15.1.2 Architectural Review Guidelines .................................................................63 15.1.3 Street Corridor Landscaping.......................................................................63 15.1.4 Billboards ....................................................................................................63 16 CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................64 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................64 PH1 - 24 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-6 16.0 Policies ............................................................................................................64 16.0.1 City and Regional Growth...........................................................................64 16.0.2 Encourage Alternative Transportation ........................................................64 16.0.3 City Funding ...............................................................................................64 16.0.4 Alternative Mode Program Objectives ........................................................64 16.0.5 Circulation Element Update ........................................................................65 16.1 Programs ........................................................................................................66 16.1.1 Transportation Work Program ....................................................................66 16.1.2 Multi-Modal Impact Fee ..............................................................................66 16.1.3 Evaluation of Alternatives ...........................................................................66 16.1.4 Evaluate Transportation Effects .................................................................66 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................67 APPENDIX A .....................................................................................................................68 Level of Service Definitions ...............................................................................................68 APPENDIX B .....................................................................................................................69 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................70 APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................75 APPENDIX E .....................................................................................................................76 APPENDIX F .....................................................................................................................79 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Modal Split Objectives ...........................................................................................11 Figure 2 Circulation Element Streets Classification Map ....................................................34 Figure 3: Neighborhood Traffic Management Areas ...........................................................40 Figure 4: Transportation Capital Projects ............................................................................45 Figure 5: Truck Route Map ..................................................................................................51 PH1 - 25 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-7 CIRCULATION ELEMENT NOTE TO REVIEWER: This version focuses on updates to the policy and program components of the Circulation Element. The Introduction and Goals will be edited as appropriate based on the changes approved for the policies and programs. Maps and illustrations have also not been updated at this time, and will be updated to reflect the agreed upon policy and program changes. Introduction 1.0 Purpose The City's general plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The general plan is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. This Circulation Element describes how the city plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond. While the Land Use Element describes the city's desired character and size, the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the community envisioned by the Land Use Element. The vision of San Luis Obispo described by the Land Use Element is influenced by the layout and capacity of streets and the location of other transportation facilities described in the Circulation Element. Transportation facilities and programs influence the character of neighborhoods, the location of specific land uses, and the overall form of the city. 1.1 History The City adopted a master plan for streets and highways in 1953 and in 1962. In 1973, it adopted its first Circulation Element which was completely revised in 1982. This Circulation Element is a revision of the 1982 element. By incorporating policies and programs addressing scenic roadways, this Element replaces the Scenic Highways Element adopted September, 1983. This Element's preparation was coordinated with the preparation of a revised Land Use Element. 1.2 Public Participation Before adopting or revising any general plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council hold public hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten days before they are held. Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before a general plan element is adopted. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed an administrative draft of this Circulation element at public meetings during 1991 and 1992. A public hearing draft of the Element was published for public review in May, 1992. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the effects of both this Circulation Element and a revised Land Use Element, was published for public review in October, 1993. In January and February, 1994 the Planning Commission held public hearings to review the Circulation Element and EIR and forwarded recommendations to the City Council. In August 1994, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the Circulation and Land Use Elements as accurate and PH1 - 26 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-8 complete. In September through November 1994, the City Council held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element. The City Council adopted this Circulation Element on November 29, 1994. 1.3 For More Information For more current or detailed information concerning this element, contact the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805) 781-7210. 1.4 Definitions Terms used in this chapter are included in the glossary section of this document. 1.5 Goals and objectives Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the community's preferences for current and future conditions and directions. In the following statements, San Luis Obispo means the community as a whole, not just the city as a municipal corporation. Transportation Goals A.1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality. B.2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. C.3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation. D.4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will cause no significant, long-term environmental problems. E.5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians. F.6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation. G.7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San Luis Obispo County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly. 8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, telecommuting and compact work weeks. H.9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes. Overall Transportation Strategy Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by: 1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element; 2. Funding alternative forms of transportation; 3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities; 4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes; 5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways; 6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways; 7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety. Transportation Objectives 1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits San Luis Obispo should: PH1 - 27 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-9 1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Figure #1) and depend less on the single-occupant use of vehicles. 2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single- occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation. 1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation San Luis Obispo should: 1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the city by 2000, and extend the system to serve new growth areas. 2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by 2000, and provide service to new growth areas. 3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction programs. 4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than the single-occupant vehicle. 1.8 Manage Traffic San Luis Obispo should: 1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development to the rates and levels stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing regulations. Limit increases in ADT and VMT to the increase in employment within the City's Urban Reserve. Goal 1.8.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Deleted for irrelevance 2. Support county-wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county- wide travel demand. Goal 1.8.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 2.3. Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing road system and reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. 3.4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of transportation throughout the city and connect with Regional Routes and Highways. 4.5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists. 5.6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections. 6.7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood-serving business and provide parks and recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by pedestrians or bicyclists. 7.8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets. 8.9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of land uses around the airport to avoid noise and safety problems. 1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement San Luis Obispo should: 1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of air pollution. PH1 - 28 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-10 2A. The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas fueling stations in the San Luis Obispo area. 3B. When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City will consider purchasing alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution. 4C. The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis. 2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of information to substitute for travel to work or meetings. Develop goals and policies for City employee participation in telecommuting systems. 3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of innovative transportation technologies in San Luis Obispo. 4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and other transportation corridors. 1.10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation. San Luis Obispo will: A.1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Figure #1 and bi-annually review and adjust transportation programs if necessary. 1.11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors. The City will: 1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that create safe, attractive, and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining land uses and the traveling public. PH1 - 29 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-11 FIGURE 1 MODAL SPLIT OBJECTIVES Type of Transportation % of City (1) Resident Trips By (Year) Estimated City Resident Trips % Increase in Participation Over Base Year Motor Vehicles 71 1990 (base year) (2) 42,600 - Transit 6 3,600 - Bicycles 10 6,000 - Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 13 7,800 - Motor Vehicles 66 2000 45,100 + 6% Transit 7 4,800 +33% Bicycles 12 8,200 +37% Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 15 10,300 +32% Motor Vehicles 62 2010 48,300 +13% Transit 8 6,200 +72% Bicycles 14 11,000 +83% Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 16 12,500 +60% Motor Vehicles 59 50 20202035 52,500 +23% Transit 8 10 7,200 +100% Bicycles 16 20 14,200 +136% Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 17 20 15,100 +94% 1. The proposed changes in the use of various forms of transportation during the next thirty years assume that the total number of city-resident trips will grow by about 42% during that time. This growth is due to projected population growth and economic development in the city and county. 2. A "base year" estimate was derived from a random sample survey of city residents. The modal split profile from the survey results was adjusted to reflect the age profile for city population as defined in the Federal Decennial Census (1990). 3. The City will pursue the greatest shift toward alternative transportation. 4. These modal split objectives shall be reviewed every five years as part of a periodic review of the Circulation Element (reference Policy 15.10). If objectives are not met, the City will examine programs that discourage the use of motor vehicles as a way of achieving these objectives PH1 - 30 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-12 2 TRAFFIC REDUCTION As part of the General Plan Update, integrating the concept of sustainability was an important aspect of the State grant. In reviewing the General Plan, a number of sustainability practices were already included in the General Plan. For existing and new policies and programs that support sustainability, this icon is shown at the end of the policy / programs title. See Policy 2.0.3 below as an example. INTRODUCTION The small city character of San Luis Obispo is an important quality to maintain. This quality is being eroded by high volumes of traffic. This section presents policies and programs for reducing the use of automobiles and emphasizing alternative forms of transportation. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS COMMUNITY TRIP REDUCTION 2.0 Policies 2.0.1 Multi-level Programs The City shouldshall support county-wide and community programs in order to- based efforts aimed at substantially reducereducing the number of vehicle trips and parking demand. Policy 2.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Congestion Management was cited by 40.7 percent of Community Survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect 2.0.2 Flexible Work Schedules The City shouldshall support flex time programs and alternative work schedules where theyto reduce peak hour traffic levelsdemand. Policy 2.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Congestion Management was cited by 40.7 percent of Community Survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect 2.0.3 Work-based Trip Reduction Employers should participate in trip reduction programs. The City shall encourage employers within the city limits and work with the county to work with employers outside of the City limits to participate in trip reduction programs. including commuter benefit options to reduce the amount of commuters who drive alone in their vehicles. Policy 2.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Update to commuter benefit options PH1 - 31 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-13 2.0.4 Downtown Congestion The Within the Downtown the City shouldshall establish and promote programs that reduceaimed at reducing congestion in the downtown in a way that does not damagesupports the downtown's long-term economic viability of the downtown.. Policy 2.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 40% of Residents cited Congestion Management most important in affecting quality of life 2.0.5 Long-term MeasuresMeasure The City shall will support trip reduction programs as a long-term sustained effort tothat reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades below legal standards or levelslevel of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent measures to achieve its transportation goals. Policy 2.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Policy expresses support for program Governor is expected to sign. 2.1 Programs 2.1.1 Agency Cooperation The City will participate and cooperateIn coordination with county agencies, the County Air Pollution Control District's and other agencies' City shall support efforts in establishing county-wide trip reduction programs. Program 2.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 2.1.2 Average Vehicle Ridership The City recommends that county-wide trip reduction programs include an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) standard of 1.60 or larger. Program 2.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 2.1.3 Trip Reduction The City will support aggressive efforts of the Air Pollution Control District to establish trip reduction programs that affect downtown employers, Cal Poly and Cuesta College, and the California Mens Colony. Program 2.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Redundant with 2.0.3, as revised. TF Remove 2.1.2 City Trip Reduction City government will aggressively pursueThe City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City employees with the goal of achieving an AVR of 1.7 or larger. Programs 2.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 32 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-14 2.1.3 Large Employers The City will work with areashall work with employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Air Pollution Control District, Transportation Management Association, and other agencies to supportestablish a voluntary trip reductioncommuter benefit options program. For employers with 50 or more that provides commute options for employees, the program will be structured as follows:. 9 Candidate employers will be surveyed to determine base year average vehicle ridership (AVR) levels. 10 Candidate employers will be offered assistance in preparing plans to reduce automobile dependency of their work forces. 11 Twenty-four months from the initiation of this assistance program, candidate employers will again be surveyed. If meaningful progress is made toward achieving AVR targets (a 10% or greater increase in AVR of the candidate work force), the voluntary participation program will continue. If meaningful progress has not been made toward achieving AVR targets, then the City will consider adopting a mandatory trip reduction ordinance. Programs 2.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 2.1.4 Incentives for Educational Institutions The City shall work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to provide incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation. NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 33 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-15 3 TRANSIT SERVICE 3.0 Policies 3.0.1 Transit Development The City shouldshall encourage transit development, expansion, coordination and aggressive marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broader range of local and regional transportation needs including commuter service. Policies 3.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Task Force approved after considering input from MTC and public correspondence. 3.0.2 City Bus Service The City shouldshall improve and expand city bus service to make the system more attractive, convenient and accessible. for everyone. Transit services owned and operated by the City shall endeavor to maintain and improve all system-side transit standards identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan. ridership should be expanded so that it accounts for: 37% of -city trips in San Luis Obispo by 2000 48% of all in-city trips in San Luis Obispo by 2010. Policies 3.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 35.2 percent of survey respondents said transportation choices were a most important quality of life aspect. It would be difficult to calculate the number of in city trips by modes other than transit. The City’s Short Range Transit Plan contains standards which can be tracked. 3.0.3 Paratransit Service ParatransitThe City shall continue to support paratransit service for the elderly and handicapped should continue to bedisabled persons provided by public and private organizationstransportation providers. Policies 3.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 3.0.4 Campus Service The City shouldshall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand the "nofree fare subsidy program" for campus service and Cal Poly should continue to provide financial support.affiliates. The City shouldshall work with Cuesta College and other agenciesschools to establish similar programs. Policies 3.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Renamed Cal Poly free fare subsidy program for accuracy. Kept Cuesta in policy because the currently only offer discounts on pass sales to Associated Student members. 3.0.5 Unmet Transit Needs The definition of Unmet Transit Needs used by the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency should continue to include transit service for a broad range of purposes. The City shall work with SLOCOG to identify and address Unmet Transit Needs. Policies 3.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 34 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-16 3.0.6 Service Standards The city supportsCity shall implement the following service standards for its transit system and for development that is proximate to the transit network: Bus fares will be set at levels where cost is not a constraint for people to use buses. The frequency of City transit service will compare favorably with the convenience of using private vehicles. A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems should be coordinated to encourage commuter use of buses. B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of existing businesses or dwellings. C. In City expansion areas, employment-intensive uses or medium, medium-high or high density residential uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route. D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation. Policies 3.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Connectivity was a common theme at Future Fair. A and B are recommended for deletion because they are difficult to track, any fare could be considered a constraint and getting riders to their destination is a higher priority over getting them there conveniently. 3.0.7 Transit Service Access New development should be designed to facilitate access to transit service. Policies 3.0.7 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources A major theme continually noted at the Future Fair was that sites needed improved access that reduced the dominance of automobiles. 3.1 Programs 3.1.1 Transit Plans The City will adopt a short-rangeshall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5-year time frame) and a long-rangecoordinate with SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit Master Plan (20-year time frame). Programs 3.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources At Future Fair II comments were received desiring improved frequency of transit services and connections to the regional system. Planning Commission asked that information be included in an appendix to acknowledge that increasing transit funding to improve the mode share may conflict with maintaining fare box ratios. PH1 - 35 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-17 3.1.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes To help reduce traffic and the demand for parking, employers should be encouraged to purchase monthly transit passes in bulk and make them available to their employees. The City will develop a bulk discount rate for passes. The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to employers and schools and other groups. Programs 3.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 3.1.3 Downtown Trolley The City will maintain a downtown trolley service as part of its overall transit system. Programs 3.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Given limited resources, funding the trolley has been a balancing act with other transit services. 3.1.4 Commuter Bus Service The City of San Luis Obispo shouldshall encourage work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to maintain and expand commuter bus service to Cuesta College and from the California Mens ColonyCity of San Luis Obispo during peak demand periods. consistent with the Short Range Transit Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.. Programs 3.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources At Future Fair II comments were received desiring improved frequency of transit services and connections to the regional system. 3.1.5 Transit Service Evaluation The City will cooperateshall coordinate with efforts of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOGRegional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the cost effectiveness of centralizing transitconsolidated service. Programs 3.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 3.1.6 Marketing and Promotion The City willshall develop and maintain a comprehensive marketing and promotion program to reach individual target audiences. Programs 3.1.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 3.1.7 Consolidated Regional Transit Center The City shall work with other agencies to develop a consolidated regional transit center downtown. Planning Commission added “and other groups”. NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 36 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-18 3.1.8 Shuttle Service The City shall evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle service among shopping centers and the Downtown. 4 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION 4.0 Policies 4.0.1 Bicycle Use Bicycle transportation should be encouraged. The City shall expand the bicycle network and provide end-of-trip facilities to encourage bicycle use and to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable. Policies 4.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Transportation choices including bicycling was cited by 35.2 percent of survey respondants as a very important in quality of life aspects. Task Force revised after considering input from the BAC and public correspondence. 4.1.1 Cal Poly Trips At least 33% of all Cal Poly trips should be made by bicycle by the year 2000. 4.0.2 Campus Trips The City shall encourage the use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational facilities. Policies 4.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources City cannot regulate Cal Poly trips. Task Force revised with input from the BAC and public correspondence. 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 routesand related facilities as specified byin the Bicycle Transportation Plan The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way as they become available. Policies 4.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources During Future Fair, many participants commented on the desire for more bicycle infrastructure. Task Force revised with input from the BAC and public correspondence. 4.0.4 New Development NewThe City shall require that new development should provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers, consistent with City plans and Planning Commission added a new Shuttle Service policy. See below. NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 37 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-19 development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis. Policies 4.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 32.8 percent of survey respondents wanted more bicycle infrastructure. Task Force revised with input from the BAC and public correspondence. 4.0.5 Bikeway Design and Maintenance Bikeways should be designedThe City shall design and maintainedmaintain bikeways to improvemake bicycling safety, convenience,safe, convenient and encourage people to use bicycles to commute to work or school. enjoyable. Policies 4.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Revised by Task Force with input from the BAC and public correspondence. 4.06 Bikeway Development with Road Improvements BikewaysThe City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan 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. Policies 4.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Revised by Task Force with input from the BAC and public correspondence. 4.0.1.1 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. Policies 4.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 4.0.7 Education and Safety The City shall support education and safety programs aimed at youth, adult cyclists and motorists. Policies 4.0.7 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Task Force revised with input from the BAC. 4.0.8 Bicycle Transportation Coordinator The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle transportation plan policies and programs. Policies 4.0.8 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Task Force revised with input from the BAC and public correspondence. NEW POLICY NEW POLICY PH1 - 38 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-20 4.0.9 Traffic Law Compliance The City shall continue to seek compliance with its traffic laws through enforcement and education. Policies 4.0.9 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 4.0.10 Right-of-way Acquisition The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right-of-ways needed to implement the projects identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. Policies 4.0.10 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 4.0.11 Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation The City shall support allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement bicycle transportation policies and programs. 4.0.12 Bike Parking The City shall facilitate development of conveniently located bike parking so as not to impede pedestrian walkways. 4.1 Programs 4.1.1 Incentives (Note: Task Force recommends that this program be moved to the Traffic Reduction section). The City shall work with Cal Poly and, Cuesta College shall be encouragedand other educational institutions to provide incentives to and educate all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation. Programs 4.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 4.1.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan The City willshall maintain and regularly update its bicycle planBicycle Transportation Plan as needed to reflect changes in state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan shall consider Safe Routes to School. The Bicycle Transportation Plan shall establish official city bike routes. Programs 4.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Campus Planning Commission added “and educate”. NEW POLICY NEW POLICY PH1 - 39 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-21 Cal Poly and Cuesta College shall be requested to adopt a bike plan, coordinated with other agency plans, that shows the location of all on-campus bike lanes and bike storage areas and includes programs that encourage the use of bicycles. Programs 4.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 4.1.3 Campus Coordination The City shall consider the Cal Poly and Cuesta Master Plans to better coordinate the planning and implementation of safe and convenient bicycle access and facilities to local college campuses. Programs 4.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 4.1.4 Campus Master Plans In cooperation with theThe City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College shall be requested to revise their campus master plans to de-emphasize the use of automobiles and promote the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans. Programs 4.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources This is a policy 4.1.44.1.5 Zoning Regulations The City will modifyshall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for the installation of lockers, and secured bicycle parking, and showersancillary facilities. Programs 4.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 4.1.54.1.6 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. Programs 4.1.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources The railroad was cited by 33 survey respondents as being a particular place of enjoyment 4.1.7 Bicycle Friendly Community The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a gold level designation. Programs 4.1.7 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 40 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-22 The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bicycle network. NEW Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 5 WALKING 5.0 Policies 5.0.1 Promote Walking Walking should be encouragedThe City shall encourage and promote walking as a regular means of transportation for people who live within a 20-minute walk of school, work, or routine shopping destinations. . Policies 5.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Walking was cited by 40 respondents as being a particular place of enjoyment 5.0.2 Sidewalks and Paths The City should complete a continuous network of sidewalks and separated pedestrian pathsnetwork connecting housingresidential areas with major activity centers and withas well as trails leading into city and county open areas that avoid sensitive areasspaces. Policies 5.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 42.1 percent of survey respondents said they would pay more for sidewalk improvements and pedestrian connections 5.0.3 New Development New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs and standards. Policies 5.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 5.0.4 Pedestrian Access New or renovated commercial and government public buildings should shall provide convenient pedestrian access from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from driveways and vehicle entrances. Policies 5.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Planning Commission added “and promote”. NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 41 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-23 5.0.5 Pedestrian Crossings To improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections, the City shouldshall institute the following: 1.i. Install crossing controls, where warranted by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street. 2.ii. In the downtown, install traffic-calming features such as textured cross walks and landscaped bulb-outs, where appropriate. 3.iii. On Arterial Streets, Parkways or Regional Routes with four or more travel lanes, install medians at pedestrian crossings where roadway width allows. Policies 5.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Addressing auto congestion and pedestrian and bicycle safety was a common theme at Future Fair 5.0.6 Downtown Commercial Core Sidewalk areas in the commercial core should allow for the free flow of pedestrians and should include conveniently-located rest areas with shade and seating. The City shall require that pedestrian facilities in the downtown be designed in accordance with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines to allow a clear path of travel and include conveniently located rest areas with shade and seating. Policies 5.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 5.0.7 Sidewalks As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider neighborhood character including topography, street design, existing density and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation of sidewalks. Policies 5.0.7 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 5.1 Programs 5.1.1 Pedestrian Transportation Plan The city will adopt a Pedestrian Transportation Plan to encourage walking and to expand facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the community. 5.1.1 Downtown Pedestrian Plan The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage walking and to expand facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The plan shall include pedestrian safety assessments in accordance with State and Federal guidelines. Programs 5.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Downtown character and activities was cited as a very important factor in determining quality of life in San Luis Obispo. NEW POLICY PH1 - 42 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-24 5.1.2 Sidewalk Pedestrian Network The For areas outside of the Downtown, the City will pursue shall implement its program for the installation of sidewalks to complete a continuous and connected pedestrian network throughout the community. Programs 5.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 5.1.3 Handicapped Ramps Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance The City willshall continue to implement its annual program of replacingenhancing existing curbs with handicappedADA compliant ramps. Programs 5.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 5.1.4 School Routes Safe Routes to School The City should workshall continue to coordinate with parentsSLOCOG and teachers of elementary school students to establish a "suggested routeslocal schools to school" program for bicyclingpursue Safe Routes to School programs and walking. grant opportunities. Programs 5.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Health of residents was a common theme heard at the Future Fair 5.1.5 Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan. Planning Commission added this program to explore the idea of a consolidated bicycle and pedestrian plan. NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 43 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-25 6 MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes. Policy 6.0.A Complete Streets The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and travel for all users of the transportation system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists of all ages and abilities. Policy 6.0.B Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, & Significant Criteria The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per Table 6.0.1 and the Highway Capacity manual. Table 6.0.1 Travel Mode LOS OBJECTIVE MINIMUM LOS STANDARD Bicycle 1 B D Pedestrian 2 B C Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes) Notes: (1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. (2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density. (3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan. Policy 6.0.C Multimodal Priorities In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, Multimodal service levels should be prioritized in accordance with the established modal priorities designated in Table 6.0.2, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. 1 NEW SECTION PH1 - 44 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-26 Table 6.0.2 Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit 2. Bicycles 4. Vehicle Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicle 2. Bicycles 4. Transit Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit 2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles 2. Transit 4. Pedestrians Notes: (1) Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character , topography, street design, and existing density.. Policy 6.0.D Defining Significant Circulation Impact Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.0.C. If the level of service degrades below thresholds established in policy 6.0.B, it shall be determined a significant impact for purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For roadways already operating below the established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.0.C, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately served through other means e.g., another parallel facility or like service. Based on this determination, a finding of no significant impact may be determined by the City. Policy 6.0.E Mitigation For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required. Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to: a. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing distance. b. Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance. Planning Commission added “reducing intersection crossing distance” to the pedestrian paragraph. PH1 - 45 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-27 c. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, or exclusive transit lanes. Policy 6.0.F City Review When new projects impact the existing circulation system, the City shall review the effectiveness and desirability of “direct fix” mitigation improvements to address MMLOS impacts. Where a significant impact is found, alternative system-wide project mitigations may be submitted for consideration to the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.0.C. Exceptions shall be based on the physical conditions of the right-of-way to support additional improvements. If the right-of-way in question cannot address on-site mitigation, appropriate off-site improvements that have direct nexus to and effectively address the specific impacts created by the project may be considered. MMLOS Programs 1. As funding permits the City shall biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians, bikes, vehicles and transit to maintain and update its database of transportation conditions and to evaluate the state of the transportation system in accordance with the established modal priorities and standards. PH1 - 46 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-28 7 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION City, County and State governments maintain a network of public streets that provide access throughout the community. How these streets are designed, constructed and managed can affect levels of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, the economic viability of commercial areas, and the quality of living throughout the city. The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage the community's street system. Policies and Programs Standards Purpose Overall Purpose The primary purpose of street corridors is to enable the movement of vehicles (automobiles, transit, delivery vehicles, bicycles)people and pedestrians. goods across all modes of transportation. The design and use of streets should relate to- and respect the character and type of surrounding land uses. If residential areas are to maintain their character, they cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or industrial areas. 7.0 Policies Policies 8.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.0.1 Peak Hour and Daily Traffic The City shall cooperate with County and State government to institute programs that reduce the levels of peak-hour and daily vehicle traffic. Policies 8.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.0.2 Street Network The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table 6.1 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by strengthening alternative modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. 7.0.3 Growth Management & Roadway Expansion The City shall manage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular traffic associated with development planned for in the Land Use Element and under the City’s growth management policies and regional transportation plans. Policies 8.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Traffic Management was cited by 40.7 percent of survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect NEW POLICY PH1 - 47 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-29 Policies 8.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Traffic Management was cited by 40.7 percent of survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect 7.0.4 Transportation Funding In order to increase support for non-automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown in Figure 1. Policies 8.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Traffic Management was cited by 40.7 percent of survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect 7.0.5 Vehicle Speeds To the extent permitted under the CVC, the City shall endeavor to maintain and reduce speeds where possible in residential neighborhoods. 7.1 Programs 7.1.1 Traffic Reduction Priority Those traffic programs identified in the Circulation Element that have the greatest potential to reduce traffic increases shall have priority for implementation. Prog. 6.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.1.2 Transportation Monitoring As funding permits the City shall implement an ongoing and comprehensive transportation monitoring program that, at a minimum, will keep track of (on a bi- annual basis): 1.i. Changes in traffic volumes throughout the city. 2.ii. Changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial streets, regional routes and highways. 3.iii. Traffic speeds. iv. Changes in the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. v. Changes in streetscape features. 4.vi. The location, type and frequency of accidents. Prog. 6.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.1.3 Transportation Survey The City shall regularly, as funding permits, conduct a travel behavior survey of residents to estimate their use of different types of transportation. Prog. 6.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources NEW POLICY NEW PROGRAM NEW PROGRAM NEW POLICY PH1 - 48 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-30 7.1.4 Transportation Model The City will maintain a travel demand model of the City's circulation system and coordinate with SLOCOG in support of the county-wide travel demand model for San Luis Obispo County. Prog. 6.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.1.37.1.5 Cooperative Street Design The City shall work with the County to jointly develop and adopt design and construction standards for streets within the City's Urban Reserve. Prog. 6.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.1.6 Subdivision Regulations The City shall revise its Subdivision Regulations to include right-of-way and design standards for each type of street shown in Figure 6.2. Prog 6.1.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.1.7 Traffic Access Management The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system . Policies 8.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.1.8 State Highway HOV Lanes The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use. Prog. 8.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Renamed for Clarity Congestion Management was cited by 40.7 percent of survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect. 7.1.77.1.9 Transportation Funding The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.0.4 prior to the 2015-17 Financial Plan. In meeting the “approximately proportional” goal of the policy, the guidelines may take into consideration such factors as the need for multi-year planning and budgeting, the recognition that projects may benefit multiple modes, that non-city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 49 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-31 interchange improvements) may be identified as special cases, that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes. Types of Streets 7.2 Design Standards The City’s roadway system is shown in Figure X. The City shall require that improvements to the City’s roadway system are made consistent with the following descriptions and standards apply to streets shown on Figure #2: 7.2.1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The total number of vehicles that use a particular street throughout the day (24 hours). 7.2.2 Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) The Level of service is a letter grade representation of the quality of traffic flow during the peak traffic hour of the daybased on congestion. a.A. Level of Service (LOS) "A" is free-flowing traffic while LOS "F" is extreme congestion. b.B. At LOS "D," the recommended standard, drivers can expect delays of 2535 to 4055 seconds and sometimes have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Vehicle may stack up at intersections but dissipate rapidly. c.C. At LOS "E," delays increase to 4055 to 6080 seconds and drivers frequently have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Stacked lines of cars at intersections become longer. 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for Figure 2 STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP Descriptions (2) of Street Types Existing ADT/LOS (1) Desired Maximum ADT/LOS Desired maximum Speeds (3) Travel Lanes Local Commercial Streets directly serve non- residential development that front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets (reference black line streets on Figure #2). 5,000 25 mph 2 Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front them and channel traffic to residential collector streets (reference black line streets on Figure #2). 1,500 25 mph 2 Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and channel it to commercial arterials. 10,000 25 mph 2 Residential Collector Streets collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 (3) 25 mph 2 Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled. LOS D 35 mph CVC* 2-4 PH1 - 50 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-32 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for Figure 2 STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP Descriptions (2) of Street Types Existing ADT/LOS (1) Desired Maximum ADT/LOS Desired maximum Speeds (3) Travel Lanes Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas LOS E (Downtown) LOS D (other routes) 25 mph CVC* 40 mph CVC* 2-4 Parkway Arterials are arterial streets with landscaped medians and roadside areas, where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged LOS D 45 mph CVC* 4-6 Highway/Regional Routes connect the city with other parts of the county and are used by people traveling throughout the county and state and are designated as primary traffic carriers. Segments of these routes leading into San Luis Obispo should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define them as community entryways LOS D 45 mph in City CVC* 2-6 Freeway is a regional route of significance where access is controlled. LOS D 55 mph CVC* 4-6 *Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC). NOTES A.1. To determine the classification of a particular street segment, refer to Figure #2: Streets Classification Map and Appendix E. Appendix E includes the most recent traffic counts and estimates of level of service (LOS). Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a particular street. In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this table. Note that all ADT should reflect volumes typically experienced when all schools are in session. To account for seasonal shifts ADT shall be calculated using an annual average daily traffic (AADT) for individual volumes and the threshold shall be adjusted up to 15%. 2. Desired maximum speed means that 85% of the motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted up by 2.7 mph. B.3. For Chorro and Broad Streets, (north of Lincoln Street,), Broad Street, and Margarita Avenue the maximum desired ADT goal is 5,000 ADT. C. Changes to the classification of any street shown on Figure #2 will require amendment to this Circulation Element PH1 - 51 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-33 PH1 - 52 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-34 FIGURE 2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP PH1 - 53 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-35 8 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 8.0 Policies 8.0.1 Through Traffic ThroughThe City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic shouldto use Regional Routes and, Highways, Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and should notto discourage through traffic use, of Collectors orand Local streets. Policies 7.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 8.0.2 Residential Streets The City should not approve commercial development that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to use Residential Local or Residential Collector streets. Policies 7.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Car/truck traffic noise was cited by 54.4 percent of survey respondents as having a more to most influence on their quality of life 8.0.3 Neighborhood Traffic Speeds To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code, the City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods. Policies 7.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 7.0.4 Expansion Areas In the Irish Hills Special Design Area and the Margarita and Orcutt Expansion Areas, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met without the use of noise walls. Policies 7.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 8.0.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management The City shouldThe City shall ensure that neighborhood traffic management projects: A. Provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all residential neighborhoods. B. Allow Provide for adequate response conditions for emergency vehicles. C. AllowProvide for convenient and safe through bicycle orand pedestrian traffic. Policies 7.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Car/truck traffic noise was cited by 54.4 percent of survey respondents as having a more to most influence on their quality of life. 32.8 percent of survey respondents wanted more bicycle infrastructure. Revised to reference NTM Guidelines. NEW POLICY PH1 - 54 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-36 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and implementation procedures. Policies 7.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 8.0.6 Non-Infill Development In new, non-infill developments, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met without the use of noise walls. The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that exceed the thresholds established in Figure #X. The City shall also not approve development which further worsens already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Figure #X. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut-through traffic. 8.1 Programs 8.1.1 Traffic Management Plans The City will adopt neighborhood traffic management plans for residential areas shown on Figure #3 in order to protect neighborhood areas from intrusive traffic problems. Other areas not shown on Figure #3 may be eligible for traffic management plan preparation when the Public Works Director determines that traffic volumes and speeds exceed maximum levels established in Policy 5.2. If these standards are exceeded: A. The Public Works Director will define the neighborhood planning area and will survey the area's households. If more than 10% of the area's households respond to the survey and more than 50% of the respondents to the survey support the preparation of a traffic management plan, the Public Works Department will proceed with plan preparation. B. The plan will be prepared on an area-wide basis to ensure that traffic problems along specific street corridors are not shifted to adjacent corridors or areas. As funding permits the City shall provide neighborhood traffic management services for residential areas that have traffic volumes or speeds which exceed the thresholds established in Figure #X. Policies 7.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources NEW Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources NEW POLICY NEW POLICY NEW POLICY PH1 - 55 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-37 Prog. 7.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 8.1.2 Traffic Control Measures The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes exceed standards set by Table 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for the Street Classifications Map.policy 5.2. Measures that will be considered include: 9 Installation of signs on arterial routes that encourage motorists to use routes that do not pass through residential areas. 10 Operational changes (eg. signalization, turn lanes and turn pockets at intersections) on arterial streets that encourage their use as inter-community connectors. 11 Bulbouts or other traffic calming devices at intersections on streets leading into residential areas to inform motorists that they are entering a neighborhood area. 12 Meandering street designs, traffic circles, road humps, raised cross walks, stop signs, speed tables, planters, textured streets, offset intersections and other traffic control devices designed to slow traffic speeds without increasing City liability. 13A. Community educational programs to promote selection of routes within the City that do not pass through residential areas. Prog. 7.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 8.1.3 Quality of Life When requested by neighborhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be analyzed for their livability with regards to traffic noise, volumes and speed. Traffic calming or other intervening measures. may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. Prog. 7.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Retain with changes. 7.1.3 Traffic Calming Workshops The City shall help organize neighborhood traffic calming workshops that assist residents in redesigning their own streets for a safer and more human environment. Prog. 7.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 8.1.4 City Vehicle Operation OperatorsThe City shall direct operators of City vehicles, excluding police patrols, should not to use Residential Collector or Residential Local streets as shortcut routes for non-emergency City business. Policies 7.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 56 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-38 TRAFFIC FLOW 4.1.6 Policies 4.1.6.1 Level of Service The City will attempt to manage the use of arterial streets and regional routes/highways to accommodate increases in traffic levels limited to and permitted by the City's adopted growth management plan so that levels of traffic congestion do not exceed the peak hour LOS standards shown in Policy 5.2. To maintain these standards, the City will pursue the following strategy: A. When traffic reaches LOS "C," the City will pursue the following: i. Limit increases in all traffic via traffic management programs identified in this document. ii. Institute programs that require the use of alternative forms of transportation and establish policies and programs that act as disincentives to the use of vehicles. iii. Make minor changes within existing roadways to improve pedestrian and bicycling safety while improving traffic flow. B. When traffic reaches LOS "E," the City will consider the selective widening of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways when improvements to public safety and traffic flow outweigh the fiscal and environmental costs, and do not hinder this plan's alternative transportation policies. 4.1.6.2 Peak Hour and Daily Traffic The City should cooperate with county and state government to institute programs that reduce the levels of peak-hour and daily vehicle traffic. 4.1.6.38.1.4.1 Street Network The City should manage the street network so that the standards presented in Policy 5.2 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit development which affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by strengthening alternative modes to the single occupant motor vehicle. 4.1.6.4 Driveway Access Driveway access from development fronting arterial streets should be minimized wherever possible. 4.1.7 Programs 4.1.7.18.1.4.2 Traffic Reduction Priority Those traffic programs identified in Policy 7.1.A which have the greatest potential to reduce traffic increases permitted by the City's growth management plan shall have priority for implementation. 4.1.7.28.1.4.3 Transportation Monitoring The City will establish an on-going and comprehensive transportation monitoring program that, at a minimum, will keep track of (on a bi-annual basis): SECTION DELETED PH1 - 57 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-39 48 Changes in traffic volumes throughout the city. 59 Changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial streets, regional routes and highways. 610 Traffic speeds. 7 Changes in the use of bike lanes. 811 The location, type and frequency of accidents. 4.1.7.3 Transportation Survey The City will bi-annually conduct a survey of residents to estimate their use of different types of transportation. 4.1.7.4 Transportation Model The City will maintain a computerized traffic model of the city's circulation system and cooperate with the Regional Transportation Agency in maintaining a traffic model for San Luis Obispo County. 4.1.7.5 Highway 227 Relocation The City will cooperate with State and Regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on state highways. If State Routes 101 or 227 are widened to add travel lanes, the additional capacity should be reserved for HOV/transit use. Policies 7.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove PH1 - 58 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-40 FIGURE : NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AREAS PH1 - 59 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-41 9 STREET NETWORK CHANGES 9.0 Policies 9.0.1 New Development NewThe City shall require that new development will be responsibleassumes its fair share of responsibility for constructing new streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bus turn-outs or reconstructing existing facilities. Policies 9.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 10.1.4 Specific Plans Specific Plans prepared for areas within the city's urban reserve should include a street system that is consistent with the policies, programs and standards of this Circulation Element. Policies 9.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 9.0.2 Public Participation The City will facilitateshall provide for broad public participation in the planning, and design and construction of major changes to the street network. Policies 9.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 35.3 percent of survey respondents cited opportunities to participate in government decisions as more important quality of life aspects. 37 percent of survey respondents were content with the current opportunities to participate in government decisions. 10.0.9 Street Network Changes Major changes to the city's street network (not listed on Figure #4) may be initiated (included in the budget) only after amendment to this Circulation Element. Policies 9.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 9.0.3 Arterial Street Corridors The City willshall seek opportunities to improve the livability of existing arterial streets through redesign of street corridors. Policies 9.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 9.0.4 Project Implementation Street projects should be implemented as in the appropriate sequence to ensure that development occursdoes not precede needed infrastructure improvements. PH1 - 60 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-42 Policies 9.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 9.0.5 Right-of-Way Reservation RightsThe City shall require rights-of-way shouldto be reserved through the building setback line process or through other mechanisms so that options for making transportation improvements are preserved. Policies 9.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 9.1 Programs 9.1.1 Building Setback Lines The City will establish building setback lines for routes listed on FigureTable #4. 10.1.3 Highway 227 Relocation The City will ask the California Department of Transportation to designate Prado Road between Broad Street and Highway 101 as State Highway 227. Prog. 9.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 9.1.2 Prado Road Improvements The City willshall ensure that changes to Prado Road (projects A.1, A.2, B.4 and C.1) and other related system improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area development. The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange (project C.1) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report for the interchange project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California Department of Transportation. Prog. 9.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Future Fair 2 Showed 85.2 percent of Community Survey respondents who participated in the dot exercise favored the Prado Overpass and Interchange option. 9.1.3 Street Amenities Plan The City willshall adopt and regularly periodicallyupdate a plan and standards for the installation and maintenance of landscaped medians, parkways, signs, utilities, street furniture, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Within the Downtown the street amenities shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines. Prog. 9.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Downtown Character was cited by 36.9 percent of Community Survey respondents as being a most important quality of life aspect. Prog. 9.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 61 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-43 9.1.4 Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center The City will evaluate optionalcomplete street designs that maximize the shared right of way for all users as a method for achieving anthe overall objective of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center to improve the pedestrian environment in the commercialdowntown. core. Prog. 9.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources . 11.0.1 Santa Barbara Street Connection During Fiscal Year 1995-1996, the City will evaluate the feasibility of establishing an arterial street connection between Santa Barbara Street and the south end of Santa Rosa Street. Prog. 9.1.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove. 11.0.2 Council of Governments The City shall ask the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (as the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization) to: 6 Monitor the pattern of development throughout San Luis Obispo County and provide feedback to agencies on its impact on the transportation system. 7 Sponsor a study that addresses the traffic needs of regional corridors that serve east-west traffic between San Luis Obispo and the coast to include an evaluation of: A. Reconstructing the Santa Rosa Street interchange to improve Route 101/Route 1 connections. B. Widening Santa Rosa Street to six lanes between Olive Street and Foothill Boulevard. C. Constructing an underpass or an overpass at Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa Street to reduce intersection congestion. D. Constructing a reliever route for Route 1. This study should be conducted within the context of the City's transportation policies and priorities. Prog. 9.1.7 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 9.1.5 Dalidio/Madonna Road/McBride Development As part of any proposal to further develop the Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area, the alignment and design of a roadextensions of Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) with Los Osos Valley Road shall be evaluated and established. Prog. 9.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 62 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-44 10.0.10 Main-Madonna Area Development As part of any proposal to further develop the Maino-Madonna Area, the need for- and design of a frontage road paralleling the west side Route 101 between Marsh Street and Madonna Road shall be evaluated. Prog. 9.1.9 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 9.1.6 Streetscapes and major roadways In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways / regional routes and arterial streets), the City willshall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the City’scity’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City willshall: A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways; B. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings; C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way; D. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety. F. Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians, wayfinding and welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features, sidewalks, and different crosswalk paving types. F.G. Encourage and where possible, required undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures. G.H. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single, low-profile standard. I. In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan. Prog. 9.1.10 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Added information regarding gateways and downtown. PH1 - 63 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-45 Figure 3: Transportation Capital Projects- (Note: Revisions to this Figure will occur later.) FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS I. Alternative Transportation and Design Projects A. Transit Programs: include projects identified in the adopted Short Range Transit Plan; maintain a downt own shuttle service as part of the City’s overall transit system (re 2.8 – 2.12) B. Bike Lanes and Paths: Compete a continuous network of bike lanes and paths by 2000 (re # 3.3 and Objective #3, page 7) C. Railroad Bicycle Path: Obtain railroad right-of-way to establish a separated bike path and pedestrian trail re 3.13) D. Pedestrian Paths and Sidewalks: Complete a “Pedestrian Transportation Plan” and program the construction of pedestrian facil ities (re 4.7, 4.8) E. Neighborhood Traffic Management: Install traffic control facilities and devices in neighborhoods to support the street classification standards (re 5.2, 6.5 a nd 6.6) F. Livable Streets: Adopt standards, redesign and landscape arterial streets to improve their livability (re 8.5, 8.12, 14.10) G. Highway 101 Visual Enhancement: Work with Caltrans and the County to enhance the visual character of Highway 101 (re 14.7) II. Potential Major Street Network Changes Projects Project # Street Section Description of Potential Change Lead Agency Primary Funding Responsibility Implementation New Roads A.1 Prado Road Build to Highway/Regional Route standards w/ Class I bike paths & bridges for wildlife corridors (City Limits to Broad Street) City Development (1) Build if Dalidio area develops A.2 Prado Road Build to Parkway Arterial Street standards (Freeway W / to Madonna Road) City Development Build if Dalidio area develops A.3 Buckley Road Extend as Arterial Street westward to South Higuera St City Development Build if development occurs A.4 Bullock Lane Extend a Residential Collector to connect with Tank Farm Road City Development Build if Orcutt area develops A.5 Sacramento Drive Extend as Commercial Collector to connect with Orcutt Road at Duncan Road City Development Build if area south of Orcutt develops PH1 - 64 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-46 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS A.6 Bishop Street Extend Bishop Street to connect with South Street City City CIP Project; will require redesign of South-Broad intersection A.7 Sante Fe Road Extend road to connect with Prado Road (extended) City/County Development Build if area north of Tank Farm develops Road Widening Projects B.1 Higuera Street (High to Marsh) Acquire property and widen to allow four travel lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc., & implement Downtown Plan concepts City City CIP Project and as adjoining parcels redevelop B.2 Orcutt Road (Broad to Johnson) Complete widening to 4 lanes City Development/City Build as adjoining parcels develop or redevelop and fill in gaps B.3 Tank Farm Road (S. Higuera to Broad) Widen to Parkway Arterial standards City / County Development Build as part of Airport Area development B.4 Prado Road (Higuera west to 101) Widen street and bridges to 4 lanes City Development/City Secure ROW and construct as area develops B.5 South Higuera St (Madonna to City Limits) Complete widening to 4 lanes City Development/City Capital Improvement Project B.6 Los Osos Valley Toad (Madonna to Highway 101) Widen to Parkway Arterial standards City Development Build if Irish Hills area develops B.7 Santa Rosa (Olive to Foothill) Install turn lanes and median access controls (see Appendix D) City State / City State/Federal Programs Freeway Interchanges C.1 Prado Road (3) Interchange Build full interchange at 101 Caltrans Development Build if funding secured from Airport area and Dalidio area development C.2 Los Osos Valley Road Modify ramps Caltrans State/ Development Needed when LOVR widened as Parkway Arterial from Madonna to Freeway (project PH1 - 65 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-47 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS Interchange B.6) C.3 Route 101/ Santa Rosa Interchange Changes to ramp system (2) Caltrans State STIP C.4 Broad Street @ 101 Close north on and north off ramps Caltrans State State Program Other Projects D.1 Monterey St (Santa Rosa north to Grand) Preserve right-of-way for up to 4 lanes & other uses City City Capital Improvement Project D.2 Orcutt Road (at the Railroad) Build an overpass at the railroad City State Subject to State funding priorities D.3 Prefumo Cyn Rd (Los Osos Valley Rd west) Install landscaped median City City Needed to improve the street’s visual quality D.4 Garden Street (Marsh to Higuera) Establish one (1) travel lane with pedestrian enhancements with possible closure in the future City City Accomplish as part of implementing a downtown master plan D.5 Broad Street (Palm to Higuera) Monterey Street (Nipomo to Broad) Close streets, maintain services access, expand Mission Plaza City City Close streets consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center NOTES A.1) “Development” means that the proposed changes to the street system would be paid for by th e developers of adjoining property or properties that directly impact the street section or facility. In general, development -funded projects will be constructed at the time that development occurs. However, projects may be built prior to development when it is necessary to complete an important circulation link. In these cases, future developments may be assessed for existing improvements. PH1 - 66 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-48 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS 1)2) Freeway access should be improved at the Route 101 / Route 1 interchange by maximizing the use of existing stree t corridors and minimizing the removal of buildings. 2)3) The design of the Prado Road interchange and modifications to the ramp system for the Los Osos Valley Road interchange will b e determined as part of Project Study Reports (PSRs) required by CalTrans. The alignment of Prado Road northwest of Route 101 and its connection point to Madonna Road will be coordinated with the City’s consideration of plans to expand commercial development consistent with t he General Plan Land Use Element. PH1 - 67 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-49 10 TRUCK TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION The delivery of most goods and materials to businesses in San Luis Obispo is done by trucks. Delivery services are essential to the functioning of the cityCity. However, commercial trucks can cause traffic congestion in the downtown, and create noise and safety problems in residential areas. The following policies and programs spell out how the cityCity intends to manage delivery services so that problems associated with truck transportation are minimized. 10.0 Policies and Programs 10.0.1 Truck Routes Commercial trucks should use the City's established truck routes. The City shall require STA-sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 5. Policies 9.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Car/truck traffic noise was cited by 54.4 percent of survey respondents as having more to most influence on quality of life. 10.0.2 Downtown Truck Deliveries When the level of congestion on downtown streets reaches LOS “D,” truck deliveries should not be made during peak traffic periods. Policies 10.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 10.1 Programs 10.1.1 Idling Trucks Trucks should turn off motors when parked. The City willshall work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for guidance in establishing standards that address air and noise pollution from idling trucks. Prog. 10.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 10.1.2 Home Occupations The City's Home Occupation Permit Regulations should be amended to ensure that commercial trucks are not used to make regular deliveries to home occupations in residential areas. Prog. 10.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Check for consistency with Home Occupation regulations. 4.0 Truck Route Plan As part of this element, the City adopts the truck route plan shown on Figure #5. PH1 - 68 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-50 Prog. 10.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Combined with policy 9.0.1. TF Remove. 10.1.3 Commercial Loading Zones The City willshall continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in all appropriate downtown areas. Prog. 10.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 10.1.4 Truck Circulation The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles. Prog. 10.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 15.0.1 Truck Delivery Ordinance If level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the city will adopt an ordinance that limits delivery times for commercial trucks in the commercial core. Prog. 10.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 69 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-51 Figure : Truck Route Map PH1 - 70 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-52 11 AIR TRANSPORTATION NOTE TO REVIEWER: The City is working with an airport safety firm to develop a new set of guidelines for development near the airport. The policies and programs in this section will be further updated in October. It is recommended that this section be skipped at this time and reviewed once the new safety guidance is incorporated. INTRODUCTION The City and County of San Luis Obispo city and county are served by the county-owned airport located off Broad Street near Buckley Road. The airport allows people to fly private aircraft and to use commercial carriers to connect with national and global commercial carriers. The following policies and programs address the continued use of the county airport. Additional policies and programs can be found in the City’s Land Use Element. 11.0 Policies 11.0.1 Interstate Air Service The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services. Policies 11.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.0.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The City should respect the recommendations of theshall develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as it relates to address noise and safety concerns. Policies 11.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources The Planning Commission deleted policies titled, Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (11.0.2), County Airport (11.0.1), Compatible Land Uses (11.0.3) and Development Projects (11.0.4) because they are covered by other policies or more directed (and covered in) the Land Use Element. The Planning Commission added language to refer readers to the Land Use Element for policies regarding Airport Land Use. NEW POLICY PH1 - 71 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-53 7.2.3 County Airport The County as well as protecting and improving circulation and public transit access to the airport should provide for general aviation and commuter air service to San Luis Obispo. Policies 11.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.0.3 Compatible Land Uses The City and the County shouldshall regulate land use surrounding the airport so that it is compatible with airport operations and does not threaten the continued use of the airport. Policies 11.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.0.4 Development Projects The City will require development projects and subdivisions within Airport Planning Zones #1 through #4 to include measures that protect the health, safety and comfort of residents and employees. Policies 11.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.0.5 County Aircraft Operations The City shouldshall work withencourage the County to continue to appropriately address aircraft operations so that noise and safety problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use Element. Policies 11.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.0.6 Public Transit Service PublicThe City shall encourage improved public transit service should be encouraged to serve the countyCounty airport as soon as practical. Policies 11.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.1 Programs 11.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft The City shouldshall work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to encourage the use of quieter and more environmentally sensitive aircraft. Prog. 11.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 72 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-54 11.1.2 Airport Facilities Development The City shall work with the County Airport to support the further development of airport facilities and attract additional passenger airline services. Possible improvements include, but are not limited to: instrumented landing systems, radar, and improved passenger waiting facilities. Prog. 11.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.1.3 Airport Funding The City shall work with the County Airport to pursue additional funding opportunities, such as Airport Improvement Program grants. Prog. 11.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 11.1.4 Update of the Airport Land Use Plan The City shall encourage work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to complete its update of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Airport in regard to significant changes in noise, adjacent land impacts, and safety zones. Prog. 11.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources The Planning Commission deleted Program 11.1.4 because the language is no longer consistent with the City’s direction. The Planning Commission deleted the word “additional” in Policy 11.1.3. NEW PROGRAM NEW PROGRAM PH1 - 73 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-55 12 RAIL TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION The SouthernUnion Pacific Transportation CompanyRailroad owns and maintains a railroad that extends through the county. AMTRAK uses the SouthernUnion Pacific line to provide passenger service to San Luis Obispo with connections to the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, and other coastal cities. Rail transportation is energy efficient and can provide convenient connections to destinations throughout the state. The following policies identify how the city supports rail service. 12.0 Policies 12.0.1 Interstate Rail Service The City shall supports the increased availability of rail service for travel within the county, state and among states. Policies 12.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Combined with 12.0.2. 35.2 percent of survey respondents cited transportation choices as a most important quality of life aspect. 8.1.1 County Rail Service The City supports increased availability of rail service for travel within the county. Policies 12.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Combined with above. TF Remove 12.0.2 State and Federal Programs The City shall support State or federaland Federal programs that support for the expansion of passenger rail service to San Luis Obispo should be maintained and expanded. Policies 12.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 12.0.3 Transit Service Connections The City shouldshall provide transit service to the train station in accordance with its Short Range Transit Plan. Policies 12.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 12.0.4 Intra-city Transportation Needs The City supports using the railroad right-of-way to help meet intramultimodal inter-city transportation needs. PH1 - 74 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-56 Policies 12.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 12.1 Programs 12.1.1 Daily Train Connections There should beThe City supports maintaining daily train service connecting San Luis Obispo with points north and south, with departures and arrivals in the morning and evening, to complement the current, mid-afternoon long-distance Amtrak serviceand evening. Prog. 12.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Revised to support continued service. 12.1.2 Intra-county Rail Service The City shall support San Luis Obispo Council of Governments should evaluatein evaluating the feasibility of passenger rail service to connect points within the county. Prog. 12.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 75 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-57 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION San Luis Obispo's central business district includes the highest concentration of commercial, office and governmental uses in the city. Parking is needed for patrons of downtown businesses, tourists and employees. Use of curb-side parking in residential areas can affect the character of these areas. The following policies identify the City's role in providing and managing downtown parking and addressing neighborhood parking needs. Commercial Parking 13.0 Policies 9.0 Alternative Transportation To reduce congestion, people working in the commercial core should use alternative forms of transportation to get to and from work. Workers who do drive individual vehicles should use parking structures or common facilities rather than curb parking. Policies 13.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Covered by other polices that discuss trip reduction and alternative transportation. TF Remove 13.0.1 Curb Parking CurbThe City shall manage curb parking in the commercialdowntownis intended for to encourage short-term use byto those visiting businesses and public facilities. Policies 13.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 13.0.2 City Parking Programs City parking programs willshall be financially self-supporting. The City, County, merchants, business owners and users of parking spaces should provide the funds needed to maintain and create parking spaces. Policies 13.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 13.1 Programs 13.1.1 Parking Management Plan The City willshall maintain and periodically regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan (every 5 years). Prog. 13.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 13.1.2 Monitor Public Parking The City willshall regularly monitor the use of public parking in the commercialdowntown. PH1 - 76 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-58 Prog. 13.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 13.1.3 Park and Ride Lots The City will workshall coordinate with CaltransSLOCOG during periodic updates to considerSLOCOG’s Park and Ride Lot Development report to evaluate the need for and location of park-and-ride lots thatto serve commute purposescommuters. Prog. 13.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 13.1.4 Public Parking Structures AdditionalThe City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures should only be built after a comprehensive parking study (that includesconsidering the evaluation of alternative transportation possibilities) is completedfindings and its results considered.of a parking supply and demand study. Prog. 13.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources . Complete. 13.1.5 Curb Parking Evaluation The City willshall continue to work with the Business Improvement Downtown Association (BIA) to evaluate the use of curb space in the downtown and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces. Prog. 13.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Complete 13.1.6 Downtown Trolley The City shouldshall continue to operate the downtown trolley as a parking management tool to reduce congestion. Prog. 13.1.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources The Planning Comm ission added the word “public” to clarify that the policy does not pertain to private parking lots. PH1 - 77 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-59 14 Neighborhood Parking Management 14.0 Policies 14.0.1 Residential Parking Spaces Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City's standards that specify the number, design and location of off-street residential parking spaces. Policies 14.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Neighborhood Protection Neighborhoods shall be protected from spill-over parking from adjacent high density uses. NEW Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Neighborhood Parking District The City’s Residential Parking District Program shall be updated to review the criteria and clarify the process for establishing a district. (Note: This is not a financing district.) NEW Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 14.1 Programs 14.1.1 Neighborhood Parking Permits Upon request from residents or other agencies, the City will evaluate the need for neighborhood parking permit programs or other parking management strategies in particular residential areas. Prog. 14.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 14.1.2 Financing Districts The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing districts. The Planning Commission added a note to clarify that a parking district is not a type of financing district. The Planning Commission added a Program to consider establishing financing districts. NEW POLICY NEW POLICY PH1 - 78 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-60 15 SCENIC ROADWAYS INTRODUCTION The following provisions address the scenic importance of local roads and highways in the San Luis Obispo area. 15.0 Policies 14.0.1 Views In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 6 and the Conservation and Open Space Element are designated as scenic roadways. 8 Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. 9 Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadways shall be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review. Policies 15.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove, Redundant 15.0.1 Scenic Routes The route segments shown on Figure 6 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element – Scenic Roadways Map --are designated as scenic roadways. Policies 15.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources More aquisition and maintainance of open space for peaks and hillsides was cited by 34.8 percent of Community Survey respondents. Paying more for acquisition and maintainance of open space for the city greenbelt and for peaks and hillsides was cited by 51.8 percent and 54.1 percent of Community Survey respondents respectively. 15.0.2 Development Along Scenic Routes The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and require architectural review. B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact. D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views. E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns. F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Policies 15.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Signs were included in Policy 15.0.1. Added information about the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. PH1 - 79 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-61 15.0.3 Public Equipment and Facilities The City and other agencies should be encouraged to avoid cluttering scenic roadways with utility and circulation-related equipment and facilities. D.A. Whenever possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single low-profile standard. E.B. Public utilities along scenic highways should be installed underground. F.C. The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic Routes. Clustering of street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an alternative to uniform spacing. G.D. Traffic signals with long mast arms should be discouraged along scenic roadways. Policies 15.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 15.0.4 County Role The City shall highly encourage work with the County shouldto protect and enhance scenic roadways that connect San Luis Obispo with other communities and recreation areas. Policies 15.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 15.0.5 Scenic Highways The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining county areas. This support can happen when: A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them. B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the San Luis Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency. C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes shown in the Conservation and Open Space Element. D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the US 101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo County. Policies 15.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources SLOCOG is currently undertaking the US 101 Aesthetic Study. 15.0.6 Designation of Scenic Highways The City will advocate that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the County designate qualifying segments of Highways 1, 101 and 227 as Scenic Highways. Policies 15.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 15.1 Programs 15.1.1 Visual Character The City will participate with Caltrans, the countyCounty and other cities to establish a program for enhancing the visual character of the Highway 101 corridor consistent with the US 101 Aesthetic Study for San Luis Obispo County. PH1 - 80 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-62 Prog. 15.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources More aquisition and maintainance of open space for peaks and hillsides was cited by 34.8 percent of Community Survey respondents. Paying more for acquisition and maintainance of open space for the city greenbelt and for peaks and hillsides was cited by 51.8 percent and 54.1 percent of Community Survey respondents respectively. PH1 - 81 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-63 15.1.2 Architectural Review Guidelines The City willshall revise its Architectural ReviewCommunity Design Guidelines to incorporate concern for the protection of views and vistas from scenic roadways. Prog. 15.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 15.1.3 Street Corridor Landscaping The City willshall adopt a street corridor landscaping plan for scenic roadways. Indigenous species will be used unless shown to be inappropriate. Prog. 15.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 15.1.4 Billboards Both the City and the County should enforce an amortization program for the removal of billboards along scenic roadways . Prog. 15.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 4.1.1 Sign Regulations The City will amend its sign regulations to prohibit billboards along designated scenic roadways. Prog. 15.1.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove PH1 - 82 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-64 16 CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION The following policies should guide city departments in budgeting for and implementing this Circulation Element. 16.0 Policies 16.0.1 City and Regional Growth The City should focus efforts on managing city and regional growth because they are the principal causes of traffic increases. The City shall continue to be an active member of SLOCOG’s regional board to address regional transportation issues in San Luis Obispo County. Policies 16.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 16.0.2 Encourage Alternative Transportation Programs or projects that reduce dependence on single-occupant vehicles and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation should be implemented firstshall be considered prior to roadway capacity increasing projects. Policies 16.0.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Connectivity by alternative modes of transportation and the reduction in automobile dominance was a common theme heard at Future Fair 16.0.3 City Funding The City's Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shouldshall support the programs, plans and projects identified in this Circulation Element. Non-Vehicular Policies 16.0.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 16.0.4 Alternative Mode Program Objectives Funding for street projects and parking structures shouldshall not preventcompromise the city from meetingCity’s ability to fund its non-vehicular program objectivesalternative mode programs or projects. 4.0.7.1 Cost Allocation The City should allocate more of the cost of constructing and maintaining facilities that accommodate automobile use to the users of these facilities. Policies Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Policies 16.0.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Transportation choices was cited by 35.2 percent of survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect. NEW POLICY PH1 - 83 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-65 TF Remove 4.1.2 Alternative Transportation Costs The City shouldshall reduce user costs for alternative forms of transportation. 4.0.7.2 Development Project Costs Development projects should bear the costs of new transportation facilities or upgrading existing facilities needed to serve them. Policies 16.0.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 4.0.7.3 Transportation System Costs Mechanisms for spreading the cost of transportation systems among the users of the systems, the City and County, and State and Federal agencies should be developed. Policies 16.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove 4.1.3 Transportation Services Management The City should reorganize and expand its transportation programs to improve the planning, delivery and management of transportation services. Policies 16.0.6 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Consider removal, vague 16.0.5 Circulation Element Update The City intends toshall update its Circulation Element every five yearsregularly to address significant changes in transportation planning, programming, legislation, and/or city priorities. Policies 16.0.7 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Consider removal, vague 4.0.7.4 Development Proposal Evaluation The City shall evaluate development proposals to determine their effect on the entire community. Policies16.0.10 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources TF Remove Policies 16.0.5 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources Transportation choices was cited by 35.2 percent of survey respondents as a most important quality of life aspect. PH1 - 84 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-66 16.1 Programs 16.1.1 Transportation Work Program Transportation Work Program willshall be incorporated into each regularly updated as part of the City Financial Plan. The work program must be consistent with the Circulation Element, will cover a fourfive-year period, shall be updated to include modified projects and costs if warranted, and will establish: A. Implementation schedules for all City transportation programs and projects including those described in the Circulation Element. B. A comprehensive funding strategy which identifies funding for each program type by source and amount. Prog. 16.1.1 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 16.1.2 Transportation Multi-Modal Impact Fee The City will adopt ashall update its multimodal transportation impact fee ordinance in accordance with State Law (AB1600) that requires developers to fund their fair share of projects and programs that mitigate city-wide transportation impacts associated with their projectscaused by new development. Prog. 16.1.2 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 16.1.3 Evaluation of Alternatives Prior to implementation of a project identified in this element, itthe City shall be thoroughly reevaluated. The reevaluation shallreevaluate its need and include thean analysis of alternatives that can achieve the desired results at lower costs and with less environmental impacts. Alternatives include: A. Other projects listed in the Circulation Element; or B. Projects made feasible by new or improved technology not existing when this Element was adopted. Prog. 16.1.3 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources 16.1.4 Evaluate Transportation Effects Major development proposals to the City will include displays of the proposal's interfaces with nearby neighborhoods, and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation effects on the entire community. Prog. 16.1.4 Style Clarity Currency Relocate Complete Relevance Resources PH1 - 85 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-67 APPENDICES Appendix A: Level of Service (LOS) Definitions Appendix B: Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology Appendix C: Summary of Circulation Element Projects & Programs Appendix D: Operational Changes to Santa Rosa Street Appendix E: List of Streets and Estimated ADT/LOS Appendix F: City Council Resolution Adopting This Circulation Element PH1 - 86 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-68 APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Street Segments Level of services (LOS) is a qualitative measurement of the degree of congestion on a roadway. LOS is described by a letter scale from A to F. "A" represents the best service and "F" represents the worst service. LOS E occurs when the volume of traffic approaches the road's capacity. LOS E is characterized by low operating speeds and numerous delays with much congestion. LOS F represents a forced flow situation with more traffic attempting to use the road than it can handle. LOS F is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with numerous, lengthy delays. The photographs (taken from the Highway Capacity Manual) illustrate the six grades of level of service. The level of service on urban streets and intersections are described with the same scale and have similar congestion associated with them. Level of Service Definitions Level of Service (LOS) Description of Signalized Intersections Volume / Capacity Ratio A Little or no delay (under 5 seconds per vehicle. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. < .59 B Minimal delays in the range of 5 – 15 seconds per vehicle. Generally occurs with good progression and short cycle lengths. An occasional approach phase is fully used. .60 - .69 C Acceptable delays in the range of 15 – 25 seconds per vehicle. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, and most drivers feel somewhat restricted. A significant number of vehicles stop, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. .70 - .79 D Moderate delays in the range of 25 – 40 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, with drivers sometimes having to wait through more than one red indication. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Queues develop but dissipate rapidly. .80 - .89 E Significant delays in the range of 40 – 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Individual cycle fail ures are frequent occurrences, with long queues forming upstream of intersections. Drivers may have to wait through several red indications. .90 - .99 F Represents jammed conditions with excessive delays of over 60 seconds per vehicle. This condition often occurs with over-saturation, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Resulting queues may block upstream intersections. > 1.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1985 PH1 - 87 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-69 APPENDIX B SCENIC ROADWAY SURVEY METHODOLOGY 1. Identify the visual resources. 2. Conduct field investigations: oA. Identify the Freeway, Highway-Regional Routes and arterial streets (reference Figure #2). oB. Designate points of view along each street. oC. Record observations. 3. Transfer field observations onto a worksheet and assign valences to each visual unit. 4. Multiply good or fair or poor (3, 2, 1) views by major or minor (2, 1) assessments. 1)A. Good (3) Major visual unit (2) 2)B. Fair (2) X or = 1 - 6 3)C. Poor (1) Minor visual unity (1) 5. Sum the products for each point to determine a visual index value at each point. 6. Calculate the statistical mean, median, and mode. 7. Categorize the visual quality index numbers into High, Moderate, and Low classifications. 8. Map the Scenic Roadways with a High or Moderate classification. PH1 - 88 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-70 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF CIRCULATION ELEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Trip Reduction Objective 6 Education Programs for Alternative Transportation X Objective 17 City Employee TellecommuteTelecommute Guidelines X 1.4 Downtown Congestion Reduction X 1.8 Route 1 Trip Reduction Efforts X 1.9 Trip Reduction Plan for City Employees X 1.10 Voluntary Employer Trip Reduction Program X Transit Programs 2.4 Cal Poly / Cuesta “No Fare” Transit Programs X 2.8 Long-Range Transit Plan X 2.9 Bulk-Rate Transit Pass Program X 2.10 Downtown Trolley System X 2.11 Cuesta Commute Bus Service X 2.12 Centralize Transit Service Management X 2.13 Comprehensive Marketing Program Bicycle Transportation 3.3 Complete Bikeway Network X 3.8 Cal Poly Incentive Program X 3.9 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update X 3.10 Cal Poly & Cuesta Bicycle Plans X 3.11 Cal Poly & Cuesta Master Plan Updates X 3.12 Modifications to Zoning Regulations X 3.13 Railroad Bicycle Path X Walking 4.5 (A) Install Crossing Controls X PH1 - 89 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-71 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program 4.5 (B) Downtown Bulb Outs & Crosswalks X 4.5 (C) Median Islands at Intersections X 4.7 Prepare Pedestrian Transportation Plan X 4.8 Sidewalk Installation X 4.9 Handicapped Ramp Program X 4.10 Suggested Route to School Program X Street Standards 5.3 Joint City / County Design Standards X 5.4 Subdivision Regulations Revisions X Neighborhood Traffic Management 6.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans X 6.6 Neighborhood Protection Methods X 6.7 Traffic Calming Workshops X 6.8 Other Neighborhood Traffic Studies X 6.9 Managed City Vehicle Routing X Traffic Flow 7.1 Traffic Management Priorities X 7.6 Ongoing Traffic Monitoring X 7.7 Transportation Surveys X 7.8 Computerized Traffic Model X 7.9 HOV Lane Evaluation X Street Network Changes 8.8 Building Setback Lines (Projects on Figure #4) Prado Road (A.1) X (establish as part of Margarita Area Specific Plan) Prado Road (A.2) X (establish as part of Dalidio Area Development Plan) Buckley Road (A.3) X (work with county to establish alignment) PH1 - 90 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-72 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Bullock Lane (A.4) X (establish as part of Orcutt Area Specific Plan) Sacramento Drive (A.5) X Bishop Street (A.6) X Sante Fe Road (A.7) X (work with County to establish alignment) Higuera Street (B.1) X Orcutt road (B.2) X Tank Farm Road (B.3) X Prado Road (B.4) X South Higuera (B.5) X Los Osos Valley (B.6) X (work with county to establish requirements) Santa Rosa Operational Improvements (B.7) X (work with CalTrans) Prado Road Interchange (C.1) X (work with CalTrans) Los Osos Valley Interchange (C.2) X (work with CalTrans) Santa Rosa / Route 101 Interchange (C.3) X (work with CalTrans) Monterey Street (D.1) X Orcutt Road Overpass (D.2) X 8.9 Prado Road as Route 227 X 8.10 Project Study Report: Prado Road Interchange X 8.11 Landscape Plans and Standards X 8.12 Commercial Core Street Design Analysis X 8.13 Santa Barbara – Santa rosa Street Connection Study X 8.14 North Coastal Routes Transportation Study X 8.15 Dalidio Area Connector Road Study X 8.16 Maino-Madonna Area Frontage Road Study X Figure #4 Street Network Changes Coordination X Figure #4 City-Sponsored Street Network Changes (1) Bishop Street Extension (A.6) X PH1 - 91 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-73 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Higuera Street Widening (B.1) X Santa Rosa Operational Improvements (B.7) X Route 1 – 101 Interchange (C.3) X Broad Street Ramp Closures (C.4) X Orcutt Road Overcrossing (D.2) X Prefumo Road Medians (D.3) X Garden Street Modifications (D.4) X Downtown Broad-Monterey Streets Modifications (D.5) X Truck Routes 9.3 Truck Idling Regulations X 9.4 Home Occupation Permit Regulations X 9.6 Provision of Commercial Loading Zones X 9.7 Commercial Truck Parking Regulations X Air Transportation 10.6 Transit Service to Airport X 10.7 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft X 10.8 Airport Land Use Plan Update X Parking Management 12.4 Update Parking Management Plan X 12.5 Monitor Downtown Parking Use X 12.6 Park & Ride Lot Analysis X 12.8 Downtown Curb Space Utilization Study X 13.2 Neighborhood Parking Permit Programs X Scenic Roadways 14.8 Highway 101 Corridor Enhancement X 14.9 ARC Guidelines Revision X 14.10 Landscape Plans for Scenic Roadways X 14.11 Billboard Abatement Program X 14.12 Billboard Controls X PH1 - 92 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-74 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Element Implementation 15.10 5-Year Circulation Element Updates X 15.12 Transportation Work Program X 15.13 Transportation Impact Fee Program X 15.14 Capital Projects Reevaluation X 15.15 Major Projects Impact Reporting X Number of Programs 69 20 10 (1) City sponsored street projects are those listed on Figure #4 and referenced above where: 1. The City is identified as the “lead agency,” and 2. The City has primary funding responsibility or the street project is not associated with new development. PH1 - 93 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-75 APPENDIX D OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO SANTA ROSA STREET Project Intersection Description B.8 (a) Santa Rosa/Foothill Construct an east-bound right turn lane on Foothill B.8 (b) Santa Rosa/Olive Construct a north-bound right turn lane on Santa Rosa B.8 (c) Santa Rosa/Walnut Construct a west-bound left turn lane and an east-bound left turn lane on Walnut PH1 - 94 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-76 APPENDIX E LIST OF STREETS AND CURRENT ADT/LOS ESTIMATES Street Segment Count Location ADT (2) Count Date LOS (3) Year Estimated Commercial Collector Capitolio (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad 5,100 8-13-92 -- -- El Mercado (S / Madonna) S / Madonna 9,500 8-15-91 -- -- Industrial (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad 2,300 4-4-92 -- -- Palm (Chorro – Santa Rosa) W / Osos 4,700 11-12-92 -- -- Sacramento (Orcutt – Industrial) Santa Fe (Buckley – Prado) Residential Collector Augusta (Bishop – Laurel) W / Laurel 2,900 6-26-91 -- -- Bishop (Johnson – Broad) W / Johnson 2,700 3-22-90 -- -- Broad (Foothill – Lincoln) N / Murray S/ Serrano 4,400 2,500 1-15-92 1-30-92 -- -- -- -- Buchon (High – Johnson) E / Osos W / Carmel 5,300 1,700 10-15-92 3-18-88 -- -- -- -- Bullock (Orcutt – Tank Farm) S / Orcutt Chorro (1) (Palm – Highland) N / Lincoln 11,000 1-15-92 -- -- Flora (N / Southwood) S / Sydney 800 12-18-92 -- -- Fredricks (Grand – Hathaway) W / Kentucky 1,200 10-18-92 -- -- High (Broad – Higuera) E / King 2,700 2-6-92 -- -- Highland (Ferrini – Patricia) W / Stanford 2,400 3-22-90 -- -- Laurel (Johnson – Flora) Lincoln (Broad – Chorro) W / Chorro 3,700 1-15-92 -- -- Margarita (E / Higuera) E / Higuera 2,600 7-10-91 -- -- Mill (Grand – Chorro) W / Pepper 2,300 7-23-92 -- -- Oceanaire (LOVR – Madonna) S / Lakeview 1,900 8-07-86 -- -- PH1 - 95 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-77 Street Segment Count Location ADT (2) Count Date LOS (3) Year Estimated Patricia (N / Foothill) N / Foothill S / Foothill 3,900 4-4-92 -- -- Pismo (Higuera – Johnson) W / Johnson 4,200 5-7-92 -- -- Prefumo (LOVR – CL) W / LOVR 3,400 10-8-92 -- -- Ramona (Patricia – Broad) W / Broad 4,500 1-16-92 -- -- San Jose – La Entrado (Ramona – Luneta) S / Foothill 1,200 12-12-88 -- -- San Luis (Calif – Andrews) E / California 1,700 4-9-92 -- -- Southwood ( E / Laurel) E / Laurel 1,800 11-30-88 -- -- Sydney (Flora – Johnson) E / Johnson 1,700 10-10-86 -- -- Residential Arterial Broad (South – Pismo) -- -- A 1991 California (Taft – Cal Poly) -- -- A – B 1991 Foothill (Broad – CL) -- -- A 1991 Grand (Mill – Cal Poly) -- -- A 1991 Johnson (Pismo – Orcutt) -- -- A 1991 South (Beebe – Broad) -- -- A 1991 Arterial Broad (Pismo – Higuera) -- -- A-F 1991 Buckley (Broad – Higuera) -- -- A 1991 California (Taft – San Luis) -- -- A 1991 Chorro (Palm – Pismo) -- -- A-C 1991 Foothill (Broad – California) -- -- A-D 1991 Highland (Ferrini – Cal Poly) -- -- A 1991 Higuera (Johnson – City Limits) -- -- A-E 1991 Johnson (Pismo – Monterey) -- -- A 1991 Laurel (Johnson – Orcutt) -- -- A 1991 Los Osos Valley (Route 101 – Higuera) -- -- B-D 1991 PH1 - 96 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-78 Street Segment Count Location ADT (2) Count Date LOS (3) Year Estimated Los Osos Valley (North City Limits / Madonna) -- -- A 1991 Madonna (Higuera – LOVR) -- -- A-C 1991 Marsh (Higuera – California) -- -- A-B 1991 Monterey (Chorro – Route 101) -- -- A-F 1991 Orcutt (Broad – Tank Farm) -- -- A-C 1991 San Luis (California – Johnson) -- -- A 1991 Santa Barbara / Osos (Broad – Higuera) -- -- A-D 1991 Santa Rosa (Walnut – Pismo) -- -- A-C 1991 Parkway Arterials Los Osos Valley (Madonna – Route 101) -- -- A 1991 Prado (Route 101 – Madonna) -- -- NA Tank Farm (Higuera – Orcutt) -- -- A 1991 Highway / Regional Routes Broad ( S / South) -- -- A-D 1991 Foothill (CL – Los Osos Valley) -- -- A 1991 Los Osos Valley (W / City Limits) -- -- A 1991 Orcutt (S / City Limits) -- -- A 1991 Prado (Route 101 – Broad) -- -- A 1991 Santa Rosa (N / Walnut) -- -- A-C 1991 South Higuera (S / City Limits ) -- -- A 1991 Freeway Route 101 (throughout) -- -- A 1991 NOTES 3)1) For Chorro Street, north of Lincoln Street, the maximum ADT goal is 5,000 ADT. 4)2) Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a particular street. 5)3) In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this table. PH1 - 97 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-79 APPENDIX F PH1 - 98 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-80 PH1 - 99 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-81 PH1 - 100 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-82 PH1 - 101 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-83 PH1 - 102 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-84 PH1 - 103 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-85 PH1 - 104 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-86 PH1 - 105 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-1 CHAPTER 2 CIRCULATION Adopted: November 29, 1994 Last Revised: April 4, 2006 (Council Resolution No. 9785, 2006 Series) PH1 - 106 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-2 CHAPTER 2 - CIRCULATION TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.0 Purpose ................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 History ................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Public Participation ................................................................................................ 7 1.3 For More Information ............................................................................................. 8 1.4 Definitions .............................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Goals and objectives ............................................................................................. 8 Transportation Goals .......................................................................................................... 8 Overall Transportation Strategy .......................................................................................... 8 Transportation Objectives ................................................................................................... 8 1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits ............................................................... 8 1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation ....................................................... 9 1.8 Manage Traffic ...................................................................................................... 9 1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement ............................. 9 1.10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation. ...................................................10 1.11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors..........................10 2 TRAFFIC REDUCTION .................................................................................................12 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................12 POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...........................................................................................12 COMMUNITY TRIP REDUCTION ....................................................................................12 2.0 Policies ................................................................................................................12 2.0.1 Multi-level Programs ...................................................................................12 2.0.2 Flexible Work Schedules ............................................................................12 2.0.3 Work-based Trip Reduction .................................................................12 2.0.4 Downtown Congestion ................................................................................12 2.0.5 Long-term Measure ....................................................................................12 2.1 Programs .............................................................................................................12 2.1.1 Agency Cooperation .............................................................................12 2.1.2 City Trip Reduction .....................................................................................13 2.1.3 Large Employers ..................................................................................13 3 TRANSIT SERVICE ......................................................................................................14 3.0 Policies ................................................................................................................14 3.0.1 Transit Development ............................................................................14 3.0.2 City Bus Service .........................................................................................14 3.0.3 Paratransit Service .....................................................................................14 3.0.4 Campus Service .........................................................................................14 3.0.5 Unmet Transit Needs ..................................................................................14 3.0.6 Service Standards ......................................................................................14 3.0.7 Transit Service Access ...............................................................................14 3.1 Programs .............................................................................................................14 3.1.1 Transit Plans ...............................................................................................14 3.1.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes ...........................................................................14 3.1.3 Downtown Trolley .......................................................................................14 3.1.4 Commuter Bus Service ........................................................................15 3.1.5 Transit Service Evaluation ..........................................................................15 3.1.6 Marketing and Promotion ...........................................................................15 4 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................16 4.0 Policies ................................................................................................................16 4.0.1 Bicycle Use ...........................................................................................16 PH1 - 107 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-3 4.0.2 Campus Trips .............................................................................................16 4.0.3 Continuous Network ..............................................................................16 4.0.4 New Development ......................................................................................16 4.0.5 Bikeway Design and Maintenance .............................................................16 4.0.6 Bikeway Development with Road Improvements .......................................16 4.0.7 Education and Safety .................................................................................16 4.0.8 Bicycle Transportation Coordinator ............................................................16 4.0.9 Traffic Law Compliance ..............................................................................16 4.0.10 Right-of-way Acquisition .............................................................................16 4.1 Programs .............................................................................................................17 4.1.1 Incentives....................................................................................................17 4.1.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan ........................................................................17 4.1.3 Campus Coordination .................................................................................17 4.1.4 Campus Master Plans ................................................................................17 4.1.5 Zoning Regulations .....................................................................................17 4.1.6 Railroad Bikeway and Trail .........................................................................17 4.1.7 Bicycle Friendly Community .......................................................................17 4.1.8 New Program ..............................................................................................17 5 WALKING .....................................................................................................................18 5.0 Policies ................................................................................................................18 5.0.1 Promote Walking ........................................................................................18 5.0.2 Sidewalks and Paths ............................................................................18 5.0.3 New Development ......................................................................................18 5.0.4 Pedestrian Access ......................................................................................18 5.0.5 Pedestrian Crossings .................................................................................18 5.0.6 Downtown ...................................................................................................18 5.0.7 Sidewalks....................................................................................................18 5.1 Programs .............................................................................................................18 5.1.1 Downtown Pedestrian Plan ........................................................................18 5.1.2 Pedestrian Network ..............................................................................18 5.1.3 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance...............................................19 5.1.4 Safe Routes to School .........................................................................19 6 MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION ...................................................................................20 7 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................23 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................23 Policies and Programs Standards .....................................................................................23 7.0.1 Peak Hour and Daily Traffic .................................................................23 7.0.2 Street Network ............................................................................................23 7.0.3 Growth Management & Roadway Expansion.............................................23 7.0.4 Transportation Funding ..............................................................................23 7.0.5 Vehicle Speeds ...............................................................................................23 7.1 Programs .............................................................................................................23 7.1.1 Traffic Reduction Priority ............................................................................23 7.1.2 Transportation Monitoring...........................................................................24 7.1.3 Transportation Survey ................................................................................24 7.1.4 Transportation Model ..................................................................................24 7.1.5 Cooperative Street Design .........................................................................24 7.1.6 Subdivision Regulations .............................................................................24 7.1.7 Traffic Access Management .......................................................................24 7.1.8 State Highway HOV Lanes .........................................................................24 The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State PH1 - 108 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-4 Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use. ............................................................................................24 7.1.9 Transportation Funding ..............................................................................24 Types of Streets ................................................................................................................25 7.2 Design Standards ................................................................................................25 7.2.1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)........................................................................25 7.2.2 Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) ..................................................................25 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for Figure 2 STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP ...............................................................................................................................25 8 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ............................................................28 8.0 Policies ................................................................................................................28 8.0.1 Through Traffic ...........................................................................................28 8.0.2 Residential Streets .....................................................................................28 8.0.3 Neighborhood Traffic Speeds .....................................................................28 8.0.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management ............................................................28 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines ...................................28 8.0.6 Non-Infill Development ...............................................................................28 8.0.7 New Policy ..................................................................................................28 8.1 Programs .............................................................................................................28 8.1.1 Traffic Management Plans..........................................................................28 8.1.2 Traffic Control Measures ............................................................................29 8.1.3 Quality of Life ..............................................................................................29 8.1.4 City Vehicle Operation ................................................................................29 9 STREET NETWORK CHANGES..................................................................................30 9.0 Policies ................................................................................................................30 9.0.1 New Development ......................................................................................30 9.0.2 Public Participation .....................................................................................30 9.0.3 Arterial Street Corridors ..............................................................................30 9.0.4 Project Implementation ...............................................................................30 9.0.5 Right-of-Way Reservation ..........................................................................30 9.1 Programs .............................................................................................................30 9.1.1 Building Setback Lines ...............................................................................30 9.1.2 Prado Road Improvements.........................................................................30 9.1.3 Street Amenities Plan .................................................................................30 9.1.4 Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center ........................................................31 9.1.5 Dalidio/Madonna Road/McBride Development ..........................................31 9.1.6 Streetscapes and major roadways .............................................................31 10 TRUCK TRANSPORTATION....................................................................................36 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................36 10.0 Policies ............................................................................................................36 10.0.1 Truck Routes ...................................................................................................36 10.1 Programs ........................................................................................................36 10.1.1 Idling Trucks .........................................................................................36 10.1.2 Home Occupations .....................................................................................36 10.1.3 Commercial Loading Zones........................................................................36 10.1.4 Truck Circulation .........................................................................................36 11 AIR TRANSPORTATION ...............................................................................................37 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................37 11.0 Policies ............................................................................................................37 11.0.1 Interstate Air Service ..................................................................................37 11.0.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ...........................................................37 11.0.3 Compatible Land Uses ...............................................................................37 11.0.4 Development Projects ................................................................................37 11.0.5 County Aircraft Operations .........................................................................37 PH1 - 109 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-5 11.0.6 Public Transit Service .................................................................................37 11.1 Programs ........................................................................................................37 11.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft ........................................................37 11.1.2 Airport Facilities Development ....................................................................37 11.1.3 Airport Funding ...........................................................................................38 12 RAIL TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................39 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................39 12.0 Policies ............................................................................................................39 12.0.1 Rail Service ..........................................................................................39 12.0.2 State and Federal Programs ......................................................................39 12.0.3 Transit Service Connections ................................................................39 12.0.4 Intra-city Transportation Needs ..................................................................39 12.1 Programs ........................................................................................................39 12.1.1 Daily Train Connections .............................................................................39 12.1.2 Intra-county Rail Service ............................................................................39 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................40 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................40 Commercial Parking ..........................................................................................................40 13.0 Policies ............................................................................................................40 13.0.1 Curb Parking ...............................................................................................40 13.0.2 City Parking Programs ................................................................................40 13.1 Programs ........................................................................................................40 13.1.1 Parking Management Plan .........................................................................40 13.1.2 Monitor Public Parking ................................................................................40 13.1.3 Park and Ride Lots .....................................................................................40 13.1.4 Public Parking Structures ...........................................................................40 13.1.5 Curb Parking Evaluation .............................................................................40 13.1.6 Downtown Trolley .................................................................................40 14 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING MANAGEMENT........................................................41 14.0 Policies ............................................................................................................41 14.0.1 Residential Parking Spaces........................................................................41 14.0.2 Neighborhood Protection ............................................................................41 14.0.3 Neighborhood Parking District ....................................................................41 14.1 Programs ........................................................................................................41 14.1.1 Neighborhood Parking Permits ..................................................................41 15 SCENIC ROADWAYS ...............................................................................................42 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................42 15.0 Policies ............................................................................................................42 15.0.1 Scenic Routes ............................................................................................42 15.0.2 Development Along Scenic Routes .....................................................42 15.0.3 Public Equipment and Facilities .................................................................42 15.0.4 County Role ................................................................................................42 15.0.5 Scenic Highways ..................................................................................43 15.0.6 Designation of Scenic Highways ................................................................43 15.1 Programs ........................................................................................................43 15.1.1 Visual Character .........................................................................................43 15.1.2 Architectural Review Guidelines .................................................................43 15.1.3 Street Corridor Landscaping.......................................................................43 15.1.4 Billboards ....................................................................................................43 16 CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................44 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................44 16.0 Policies ............................................................................................................44 PH1 - 110 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-6 16.0.1 City and Regional Growth...........................................................................44 16.0.2 Encourage Alternative Transportation ........................................................44 16.0.3 City Funding ...............................................................................................44 16.0.4 Alternative Mode Program Objectives ........................................................44 16.0.5 Circulation Element Update ........................................................................44 16.1 Programs ........................................................................................................44 16.1.1 Transportation Work Program ....................................................................44 16.1.2 Multi-Modal Impact Fee ..............................................................................44 16.1.3 Evaluation of Alternatives ...........................................................................45 16.1.4 Evaluate Transportation Effects .................................................................45 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................46 APPENDIX A .....................................................................................................................47 Level of Service Definitions ...............................................................................................47 APPENDIX B .....................................................................................................................48 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................49 APPENDIX D ....................................................................................................................54 APPENDIX E .....................................................................................................................55 APPENDIX F .....................................................................................................................58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Modal Split Objectives ...........................................................................................11 Figure 2 Circulation Element Streets Classification Map ....................................................27 Figure 3: Neighborhood Traffic Management Areas ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4: Transportation Capital Projects ............................................................................32 Figure 5: Truck Route Map ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PH1 - 111 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-7 CIRCULATION ELEMENT NOTE TO REVIEWER: This version focuses on updates to the policy and program components of the Circulation Element. The Introduction and Goals will be edited as appropriate based on the changes approved for the policies and programs. Maps and illustrations have also not been updated at this time, and will be updated to reflect the agreed upon policy and program changes. Introduction 1.0 Purpose The City's general plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The general plan is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. This Circulation Element describes how the city plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond. While the Land Use Element describes the city's desired character and size, the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the community envisioned by the Land Use Element. The vision of San Luis Obispo described by the Land Use Element is influenced by the layout and capacity of streets and the location of other transportation facilities described in the Circulation Element. Transportation facilities and programs influence the character of neighborhoods, the location of specific land uses, and the overall form of the city. 1.1 History The City adopted a master plan for streets and highways in 1953 and in 1962. In 1973, it adopted its first Circulation Element which was completely revised in 1982. This Circulation Element is a revision of the 1982 element. By incorporating policies and programs addressing scenic roadways, this Element replaces the Scenic Highways Element adopted September, 1983. This Element's preparation was coordinated with the preparation of a revised Land Use Element. 1.2 Public Participation Before adopting or revising any general plan element, the Planning Commission and the City Council hold public hearings. The City publishes notices in the local newspaper to let citizens know about the hearings at least ten days before they are held. Also, the City prepares environmental documents to help citizens understand the expected consequences of its planning policies before a general plan element is adopted. The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed an administrative draft of this Circulation element at public meetings during 1991 and 1992. A public hearing draft of the Element was published for public review in May, 1992. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the effects of both this Circulation Element and a revised Land Use Element, was published for public review in October, 1993. In January and February, 1994 the Planning Commission held public hearings to review the Circulation Element and EIR and forwarded recommendations to the City Council. In August 1994, the City Council certified the Final EIR for the Circulation and Land Use Elements as accurate and PH1 - 112 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-8 complete. In September through November 1994, the City Council held public hearings to consider the adoption of the Circulation Element. The City Council adopted this Circulation Element on November 29, 1994. 1.3 For More Information For more current or detailed information concerning this element, contact the Public Works Department at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, telephone (805) 781-7210. 1.4 Definitions Terms used in this chapter are included in the glossary section of this document. 1.5 Goals and objectives Goals and objectives describe desirable conditions. In this context, they are meant to express the community's preferences for current and future conditions and directions. In the following statements, San Luis Obispo means the community as a whole, not just the city as a municipal corporation. Transportation Goals 1. Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal of achieving State and Federal health standards for air quality. 2. Reduce people's use of their cars by supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools. 3. Provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation. 4. Widen and extend streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects will cause no significant, long-term environmental problems. 5. Make the downtown more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians. 6. Promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation. 7. Coordinate the planning of transportation with other affected agencies such as San Luis Obispo County, Cal Trans, and Cal Poly. 8. Reduce the need for travel by private vehicle through land use strategies, telecommuting and compact work weeks. 9. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes. Overall Transportation Strategy Meet the transportation needs of current and planned-for population by: 1. Managing city and regional growth consistent with the Land Use Element; 2. Funding alternative forms of transportation; 3. Sponsoring traffic reduction activities; 4. Providing the infrastructure needed to accommodate the desired shift in transportation modes; 5. Focusing traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways; 6. Accepting some additional traffic on Arterial Streets and Regional Routes and Highways; 7. Providing facilities that improve transportation safety. Transportation Objectives 1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits San Luis Obispo should: PH1 - 113 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-9 1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Figure #1) and depend less on the single-occupant use of vehicles. 2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single- occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation. 1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation San Luis Obispo should: 1. Complete a network of bicycle lanes and paths, sidewalks and pedestrian paths within existing developed parts of the city by 2000, and extend the system to serve new growth areas. 2. Complete improvements to the city's transit system serving existing developed areas by 2000, and provide service to new growth areas. 3. Support the efforts of the County Air Pollution Control District to implement traffic reduction programs. 4. Support and develop education programs directed at promoting types of transportation other than the single-occupant vehicle. 1.8 Manage Traffic San Luis Obispo should: 1. Limit traffic increases by managing population growth and economic development to the rates and levels stipulated by the Land Use Element and implementing regulations. Limit increases in ADT and VMT to the increase in employment within the City's Urban Reserve. 2. Support county-wide programs that manage population growth to minimize county- wide travel demand. 3. Support county-wide programs that support modal shift while utilizing our existing road system and reducing air pollution and traffic congestion. 4. Provide a system of streets that allow safe travel and alternate modes of transportation throughout the city and connect with Regional Routes and Highways. 5. Manage the use of Arterial Streets, Regional Routes and Highways so that traffic levels during peak traffic periods do not result in extreme congestion, increased headways for transit vehicles, or unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists. 6. Ensure that development projects and subdivisions are designed and/or retrofitted to be efficiently served by buses, bike routes and pedestrian connections. 7. Consistent with the Land Use Element, allow neighborhood-serving business and provide parks and recreational areas that can be conveniently reached by pedestrians or bicyclists. 8. Protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by reducing or controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets. 9. Coordinate the management of San Luis Obispo County Airport and the planning of land uses around the airport to avoid noise and safety problems. 1.9 Support Environmentally Sound Technological Advancement San Luis Obispo should: 1. Promote the use of quiet, fuel-efficient vehicles that produce minimum amounts of air pollution. A. The City will continue to support the use and development of compressed natural gas fueling stations in the San Luis Obispo area. B. When replacing any City vehicle or expanding the City's vehicle fleet, the City will consider purchasing alternative fuel vehicles that reduce air pollution. PH1 - 114 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-10 C. The City encourages the use of alternative fuels on a regional basis. 2. Advocate the use of communication systems that enable the transmission of information to substitute for travel to work or meetings. Develop goals and policies for City employee participation in telecommuting systems. 3. Solicit ideas from private industry for the development and implementation of innovative transportation technologies in San Luis Obispo. 4. Support the use of alternative pavement materials for public streets, roads and other transportation corridors. 1.10 Support a Shift in Modes of Transportation. San Luis Obispo will: 1. Physically monitor the achievement of the modal shift objectives shown on Figure #1 and bi-annually review and adjust transportation programs if necessary. 1.11 Establish and maintain beautiful and livable street corridors. The City will: 1. Pursue changes to existing corridors and support the design of new corridors that create safe, attractive, and useful environments for residents, patrons of adjoining land uses and the traveling public. PH1 - 115 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-11 FIGURE 1 MODAL SPLIT OBJECTIVES Type of Transportation % of City (1) Resident Trips Motor Vehicles 50 Transit 10 Bicycles 20 Walking, Car Pools, and other Forms 20 PH1 - 116 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-12 2 TRAFFIC REDUCTION As part of the General Plan Update, integrating the concept of sustainability was an important aspect of the State grant. In reviewing the General Plan, a number of sustainability practices were already included in the General Plan. For existing and new policies and programs that support sustainability, this icon is shown at the end of the policy / programs title. See Policy 2.0.3 below as an example. INTRODUCTION The small city character of San Luis Obispo is an important quality to maintain. This section presents policies and programs for reducing the use of automobiles and emphasizing alternative forms of transportation. POLICIES AND PROGRAMS COMMUNITY TRIP REDUCTION 2.0 Policies 2.0.1 Multi-level Programs The City shall support county-wide and community-based efforts aimed at substantially reducing the number of vehicle trips and parking demand. 2.0.2 Flexible Work Schedules The City shall support flex time programs and alternative work schedules to reduce peak hour traffic demand. 2.0.3 Work-based Trip Reduction The City shall encourage employers within the city limits and work with the county to work with employers outside of the City limits to participate in trip reduction programs.. 2.0.4 Downtown Congestion Within the Downtown the City shall establish and promote programs aimed at reducing congestion in a way that supports the long-term economic viability of the downtown. 2.0.5 Long-term Measure The City shall support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades below legal standards or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent measures to achieve its transportation goals. 2.1 Programs 2.1.1 Agency Cooperation In coordination with county agencies, the City shall support efforts in establishing county-wide trip reduction programs. PH1 - 117 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-13 2.1.2 City Trip Reduction The City shall maintain and where cost effective improve a trip reduction plan for City employees. 2.1.3 Large Employers The City shall work with employers to establish a voluntary commuter benefit options program that provides commute options for employees. 2.1.4 Incentives for Educational Institutions The City shall work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College, and other educational institutions to provide incentives to all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation. PH1 - 118 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-14 3 TRANSIT SERVICE 3.0 Policies 3.0.1 Transit Development The City shall encourage transit development, expansion, coordination and marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broad range of local and regional transportation needs. 3.0.2 City Bus Service The City shall improve and expand city bus service to make the system more convenient and accessible for everyone. Transit services owned and operated by the City shall endeavor to maintain and improve all system-side transit standards identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan. 3.0.3 Paratransit Service The City shall continue to support paratransit service for the elderly and disabled persons provided by public and private transportation providers. 3.0.4 Campus Service The City shall continue to work with Cal Poly to maintain and expand the "free fare subsidy program" for campus affiliates. The City shall work with Cuesta College and other schools to establish similar programs. 3.0.5 Unmet Transit Needs The City shall work with SLOCOG to identify and address Unmet Transit Needs. 3.0.6 Service Standards The City shall implement the following service standards for its transit system and for development that is proximate to the transit network: A. Routes, schedules and transfer procedures of the City and regional transit systems should be coordinated to encourage use of buses. B. In existing developed areas, transit routes should be located within 1/4 mile of existing businesses or dwellings. C. In City expansion areas, employment-intensive uses or medium, medium-high or high density residential uses should be located within 1/8 mile of a transit route. D. The spacing of stops should balance patron convenience and speed of operation. 3.0.7 Transit Service Access New development should be designed to facilitate access to transit service. 3.1 Programs 3.1.1 Transit Plans The City shall continue to implement the Short Range Transit Plan (5-year time frame) and coordinate with SLOCOG on implementing the Long Range Transit Plan (20-year time frame). 3.1.2 Bulk Rate Transit Passes The City shall make available bulk rate transit passes to employers and schools and other groups. 3.1.3 Downtown Trolley The City will maintain a downtown trolley service as part of its overall transit system. PH1 - 119 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-15 3.1.4 Commuter Bus Service The City shall work with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to maintain and expand commuter bus service to and from the City of San Luis Obispo during peak demand periods consistent with the Short Range Transit Plan and Long Range Transit Plan.. 3.1.5 Transit Service Evaluation The City shall coordinate with the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) to evaluate the cost effectiveness of consolidated service. 3.1.6 Marketing and Promotion The City shall develop and maintain a comprehensive marketing and promotion program to reach individual target audiences. 3.1.7 Consolidated Regional Transit Center The City shall work with other agencies to develop a consolidated regional transit center downtown. 3.1.8 Shuttle Service The City shall evaluate the feasibility of a shuttle service among shopping centers and the Downtown. PH1 - 120 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-16 4 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION 4.0 Policies 4.0.1 Bicycle Use The City shall expand the bicycle network and provide end-of-trip facilities to encourage bicycle use and to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable. 4.0.2 Campus Trips The City shall encourage the use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational facilities. 4.0.3 Continuous Network The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way as they become available. 4.0.4 New Development The City shall require that new development provide bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers consistent with City plans and development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis. 4.0.5 Bikeway Design and Maintenance The City shall design and maintain bikeways to make bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable. 4.0.6 Bikeway Development with Road Improvements The City shall construct bikeways facilities as designated in the Bicycle Transportation Plan when: A. The street section is repaved, restriped, or changes are made to its cross-sectional design; or B. The street section is being changed as part of a development project. 4.0.7 Education and Safety The City shall support education and safety programs aimed at youth, adult cyclists and motorists. 4.0.8 Bicycle Transportation Coordinator The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle transportation plan policies and programs. 4.0.9 Traffic Law Compliance The City shall continue to seek compliance with its traffic laws through enforcement and education. 4.0.10 Right-of-way Acquisition The City shall identify and pursue the acquisition of right-of-ways needed to implement the projects identified in the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. 4.0.11 Bicycle Transportation Plan Implementation The City shall support allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement bicycle transportation policies and programs. PH1 - 121 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-17 4.0.12 Bike Parking The City shall facilitate development of conveniently located bike parking so as not to impede pedestrian walkways. 4.1 Programs 4.1.1 Incentives The City shall work with Cal Poly, Cuesta College and other educational institutions to provide incentives to and educate all students, faculty and staff to use alternative forms of transportation. 4.1.2 Bicycle Transportation Plan The City shall maintain and regularly update its Bicycle Transportation Plan as needed to reflect changes in state law and/or future conditions consistent with the objectives, policies and standards of this Circulation Element. Future revisions to the Bicycle Transportation Plan shall consider Safe Routes to School. 4.1.3 Campus Coordination The City shall consider the Cal Poly and Cuesta Master Plans to better coordinate the planning and implementation of safe and convenient bicycle access and facilities to local college campuses. 4.1.4 Campus Master Plans The City shall work with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to de-emphasize the use of automobiles and promote the use of alternative forms of transportation in their master plans. 4.1.5 Zoning Regulations The City shall revise its zoning regulations to establish and maintain standards for secured bicycle parking and ancillary facilities. 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. 4.1.7 Bicycle Friendly Community The City shall maintain its silver level award designation as a Bicycle Friendly Community and pursue a gold level designation. 4.1.8 New Program The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bicycle network. PH1 - 122 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-18 5 WALKING 5.0 Policies 5.0.1 Promote Walking The City shall encourage and promote walking as a regular means of transportation. 5.0.2 Sidewalks and Paths The City should complete a continuous pedestrian network connecting residential areas with major activity centers as well as trails leading into city and county open spaces. 5.0.3 New Development New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs and standards. 5.0.4 Pedestrian Access New or renovated commercial and government public buildings shall provide convenient pedestrian access from nearby sidewalks and pedestrian paths, separate from driveways and vehicle entrances. 5.0.5 Pedestrian Crossings To improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections, the City shall institute the following: i. Install crossing controls where warranted by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street. ii. In the downtown, install traffic-calming features such as textured cross walks and bulb- outs, where appropriate. iii. On Arterial Streets, Parkways or Regional Routes with four or more travel lanes, install medians at pedestrian crossings where roadway width allows. 5.0.6 Downtown The City shall require that pedestrian facilities in the downtown be designed in accordance with t he Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines to allow a clear path of travel and include conveniently located rest areas with shade and seating. 5.0.7 Sidewalks As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider neighborhood character including topography, street design, existing density and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation of sidewalks. 5.1 Programs 5.1.1 Downtown Pedestrian Plan The City shall adopt and regularly update a Downtown Pedestrian Plan to encourage walking and to expand facilities that provide pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The plan shall include pedestrian safety assessments in accordance with State and Federal guidelines. 5.1.2 Pedestrian Network For areas outside of the Downtown, the City shall implement its program for the installation of a continuous and connected pedestrian network. PH1 - 123 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-19 5.1.3 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance The City shall continue to implement its annual program of enhancing existing curbs with ADA compliant ramps. 5.1.4 Safe Routes to School The City shall continue to coordinate with SLOCOG and local schools to pursue Safe Routes to School programs and grant opportunities. 5.1.5 Consolidated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The City shall consider the benefits and costs of consolidating the Bicycle Transportation Plan with a citywide Pedestrian Plan. PH1 - 124 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-20 6 MULTI-MODAL CIRCULATION Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes. Policy 6.0.A Complete Streets The City shall design and operate city streets to enable safe, comfortable, and convenient access and travel for all users of the transportation system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists of all ages and abilities. Policy 6.0.B Multimodal Level of Service (LOS) Objectives, Service Standards, & Significant Criteria The City shall strive to achieve level of service objectives and shall maintain level of service minimums for all four modes of travel; Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Transit, & Vehicles per Table 6.0.1 and the Highway Capacity manual. Table 6.0.1 Travel Mode LOS OBJECTIVE MINIMUM LOS STANDARD Bicycle 1 B D Pedestrian 2 B C Transit 3 C Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower Vehicle C E (Downtown), D (All Other Routes) Notes: (1) Bicycle LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan. (2) Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when its determined that sidewalks are not consistent with neighborhood character including topography, street design and existing density. (3) Transit LOS objectives & standards only apply to routes identified in the City’s Short Range Transit Plan. Policy 6.0.C Multimodal Priorities In addition to maintaining minimum levels of service, Multimodal service levels should be prioritized in accordance with the established modal priorities designated in Table 6.0.2, such that construction, expansion, or alteration for one mode should not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. PH1 - 125 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-21 Table 6.0.2 Complete Streets Areas Priority Mode Ranking Downtown & Upper Monterey Street 1. Pedestrians 3. Transit 2. Bicycles 4. Vehicle Residential Corridors & Neighborhoods 1. Pedestrians 3. Vehicle 2. Bicycles 4. Transit Commercial Corridors & Areas 1. Vehicles 3. Transit 2. Bicycles 4. Pedestrians Regional Arterial and Highway Corridors 1. Vehicles 3. Bicycles 2. Transit 4. Pedestrians Notes: (1) Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density.. Policy 6.0.D Defining Significant Circulation Impact Any degradation of the level of service shall be minimized to the extent feasible in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.0.C. If the level of service degrades below thresholds established in policy 6.0.B, it shall be determined a significant impact for purposes of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For roadways already operating below the established MMLOS standards, any further degradation to the MMLOS score will be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Where a potential impact is identified, the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.0.C, can determine if the modal impact in question is adequately served through other means e.g., another parallel facility or like service. Based on this determination, a finding of no significant impact may be determined by the City. Policy 6.0.E Mitigation For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any improvements required. Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but are not limited to: a. Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes, increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing intersection crossing distance. b. Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance. c. Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit signal prioritization, or exclusive transit lanes. PH1 - 126 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-22 Policy 6.0.F City Review When new projects impact the existing circulation system, the City shall review the effectiveness and desirability of “direct fix” mitigation improvements to address MMLOS impacts. Where a significant impact is found, alternative system-wide project mitigations may be submitted for consideration to the City in accordance with the modal priorities established in Policy 6.0.C. Exceptions shall be based on the physical conditions of the right-of-way to support additional improvements. If the right-of-way in question cannot address on-site mitigation, appropriate off-site improvements that have direct nexus to and effectively address the specific impacts created by the project may be considered. MMLOS Programs 1. As funding permits the City shall biennially complete a traffic count program for pedestrians, bikes, vehicles and transit to maintain and update its database of transportation conditions and to evaluate the state of the transportation system in accordance with the established modal priorities and standards. PH1 - 127 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-23 7 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION City, County and State governments maintain a network of public streets that provide access throughout the community. How these streets are designed, constructed and managed can affect levels of traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, the economic viability of commercial areas, and the quality of living throughout the city. The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage the community's street system. Policies and Programs Standards Purpose Overall Purpose The primary purpose of street corridors is to enable the movement of people and goods across all modes of transportation. The design and use of streets should relate to and respect the character and type of surrounding land uses. If residential areas are to maintain their character, they cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or industrial areas. 7.0 Policies 7.0.1 Peak Hour and Daily Traffic The City shall cooperate with County and State government to institute programs that reduce the levels of peak-hour and daily vehicle traffic. 7.0.2 Street Network The City shall manage to the extent feasible the street network so that the standards presented in Table 6.1 are not exceeded. This will require new development to mitigate the traffic impacts it causes or the City to limit development that affects streets where congestion levels may be exceeded. The standards may be met by strengthening alternative modes over the single occupant motor vehicle. 7.0.3 Growth Management & Roadway Expansion The City shall manage the expansion of roadways to keep pace with only the level of increased vehicular traffic associated with development planned for in the Land Use Element and under the City’s growth management policies and regional transportation plans. 7.0.4 Transportation Funding In order to increase support for non-automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes approximately proportional to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown in Figure 1. 7.0.5 Vehicle Speeds To the extent permitted under the CVC, the City shall endeavor to maintain and reduce speeds where possible in residential neighborhoods. 7.1 Programs 7.1.1 Traffic Reduction Priority Those traffic programs identified in the Circulation Element that have the greatest potential to reduce traffic increases shall have priority for implementation. PH1 - 128 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-24 7.1.2 Transportation Monitoring As funding permits the City shall implement an ongoing and comprehensive transportation monitoring program that, at a minimum, will keep track of (on a bi-annual basis): i. Changes in traffic volumes throughout the city. ii. Changes to the Level of Service (LOS) on arterial streets, regional routes and highways. iii. Traffic speeds. iv. Changes in the use of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. v. Changes in streetscape features. vi. The location, type and frequency of accidents. 7.1.3 Transportation Survey The City shall regularly, as funding permits, conduct a travel behavior survey of residents to estimate their use of different types of transportation. 7.1.4 Transportation Model The City will maintain a travel demand model of the City's circulation system and coordinate with SLOCOG in support of the county-wide travel demand model for San Luis Obispo County. 7.1.5 Cooperative Street Design The City shall work with the County to jointly develop and adopt design and construction standards for streets within the City's Urban Reserve. 7.1.6 Subdivision Regulations The City shall revise its Subdivision Regulations to include right-of-way and design standards for each type of street shown in Figure 6.2. 7.1.7 Traffic Access Management The City shall adopt an access management policy to control location, spacing, design and operation of driveways, median openings, crosswalks, interchanges and street connections to a particular roadway in a manner that preserves the safety and efficiency of the transportation system. 7.1.8 State Highway HOV Lanes The City shall cooperate with State and regional agencies in evaluating the effectiveness of high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on State highways. If State Route 101 is widened to add travel lanes, the additional capacity should be reserved for HOV and transit use. 7.1.9 Transportation Funding The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.0.4 prior to the 2015-17 Financial Plan. In meeting the “approximately proportional” goal of the policy, the guidelines may take into consideration such factors as the need for multi-year planning and budgeting, the recognition that projects may benefit multiple modes, that non-city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major interchange improvements) may be identified as special cases, that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes. PH1 - 129 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-25 Types of Streets 7.2 Design Standards The City’s roadway system is shown in Figure X. The City shall require that improvements to the City’s roadway system are made consistent with the following descriptions and standards: 7.2.1 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) The total number of vehicles that use a particular street throughout the day (24 hours). 7.2.2 Vehicle Level of Service (LOS) Level of service is a letter grade representation of the quality of traffic flow based on congestion. A. Level of Service (LOS) "A" is free-flowing traffic while LOS "F" is extreme congestion. B. At LOS "D," the recommended standard, drivers can expect delays of 35 to 55 seconds and sometimes have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Vehicle may stack up at intersections but dissipate rapidly. C. At LOS "E," delays increase to 55 to 80 seconds and drivers frequently have to wait through more than one cycle of a traffic signal. Stacked lines of cars at intersections become longer. 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for Figure 2 STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP Descriptions (2) of Street Types Existing ADT/LOS (1) Maximum ADT/LOS Desired maximum Speeds (3) Local Commercial Streets directly serve non- residential development that front them and channel traffic to commercial collector streets (reference black line streets on Figure #2). 5,000 25 mph Local Residential Streets directly serve residential development that front them and channel traffic to residential collector streets (reference black line streets on Figure #2). 1,500 25 mph Commercial Collector Streets collect traffic from commercial areas and channel it to arterials. 10,000 25 mph Residential Collector Streets collect traffic from residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 (3) 25 mph Residential Arterials are bordered by residential property where preservation of neighborhood character is as important as providing for traffic flow and where speeds should be controlled. LOS D CVC* Arterial Streets provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas LOS E (Downtown) LOS D (other routes) CVC* CVC* Parkway Arterials are arterial streets with landscaped medians and roadside areas, where the number of cross streets is limited and direct access from fronting properties is discouraged LOS D CVC* PH1 - 130 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-26 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for Figure 2 STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP Descriptions (2) of Street Types Existing ADT/LOS (1) Maximum ADT/LOS Desired maximum Speeds (3) Highway/Regional Routes connect the city with other parts of the county and are used by people traveling throughout the county and state and are designated as primary traffic carriers. Segments of these routes leading into San Luis Obispo should include landscaped medians and roadside areas to better define them as community entryways LOS D CVC* Freeway is a regional route of significance where access is controlled. LOS D CVC* *Speed Limits are dictated by prevailing speeds per the California Vehicle Code (CVC). NOTES 1. To determine the classification of a particular street segment, refer to Figure #2: Streets Classification Map and Appendix E. Appendix E includes the most recent traffic counts and estimates of level of service (LOS). Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a particular street. In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this table. Note that all ADT should reflect volumes typically experienced when all schools are in session. To account for seasonal shifts ADT shall be calculated using an annual average daily traffic (AADT) for individual volumes and the threshold shall be adjusted up to 15%. 2. Desired maximum speed means that 85% of motorists using the street will drive at or slower than this speed. To account for seasonal shifts speeds shall be calculated using an annual average or for individual speed surveys the threshold shall be adjusted up by 2.7 mph. 3. For Chorro and Broad Streets (north of Lincoln Street), and Margarita Avenue the maximum desired ADT goal is 5,000 ADT. PH1 - 131 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-27 FIGURE 2 CIRCULATION ELEMENT STREETS CLASSIFICATION MAP PH1 - 132 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-28 8 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 8.0 Policies 8.0.1 Through Traffic The City shall design its circulation network to encourage through traffic to use Regional Routes, Highways, Arterials, Parkway Arterials, and Residential Arterial streets and to discourage through traffic use of Collectors and Local streets. 8.0.2 Residential Streets The City should not approve commercial development that encourages customers, employees or deliveries to use Residential Local or Residential Collector streets. 8.0.3 Neighborhood Traffic Speeds To the extent permitted under the California Vehicle Code, the City shall endeavor to reduce and maintain vehicular speeds in residential neighborhoods. 8.0.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management The City shall ensure that neighborhood traffic management projects: A. Provide for the mitigation of adverse impacts on all residential neighborhoods. B. Provide for adequate response conditions for emergency vehicles. C. Provide for convenient and safe through bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 8.0.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines The City shall update its Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines to address voting, funding, and implementation procedures. 8.0.6 Non-Infill Development In new, non-infill developments, dwellings shall be set back from Regional Routes and Highways, Parkway Arterials, Arterials, Residential Arterials, and Collector streets so that interior and exterior noise standards can be met without the use of noise walls. 8.0.7 New Policy The City shall not approve development that impacts the quality of life and livability of residential neighborhoods by generating traffic conditions that exceed the thresholds established in Figure 2. The City shall also not approve development which further worsens already deficient residential neighborhood traffic conditions as established in Figure 2. New development shall incorporate traffic calming features to minimize speeding and cut-through traffic. 8.1 Programs 8.1.1 Traffic Management Plans As funding permits the City shall provide neighborhood traffic management services for residential areas that have traffic volumes or speeds which exceed the thresholds established in Figure 2. PH1 - 133 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-29 8.1.2 Traffic Control Measures A. The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes exceed standards set by Table 7.1 Descriptions and Standards for the Street Classifications Map. 8.1.3 Quality of Life The City shall analyze residential streets for their livability with regards to traffic noise, volumes and speed. Traffic calming or other intervening measures may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. 8.1.4 City Vehicle Operation The City shall direct operators of City vehicles, excluding police patrols, not to use Residential Collector or Residential Local streets as shortcut routes for non- emergency City business. PH1 - 134 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-30 9 STREET NETWORK CHANGES 9.0 Policies 9.0.1 New Development The City shall require that new development assumes its fair share of responsibility for constructing new streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian paths and bus turn-outs or reconstructing existing facilities. 9.0.2 Public Participation The City shall provide for broad public participation in the planning and design of major changes to the street network. 9.0.3 Arterial Street Corridors The City shall seek to improve the livability of existing arterial streets through redesign of street corridors. 9.0.4 Project Implementation Street projects should be implemented in the appropriate sequence to ensure that development does not precede needed infrastructure improvements. 9.0.5 Right-of-Way Reservation The City shall require rights-of-way to be reserved through the building setback line process or through other mechanisms so that options for making transportation improvements are preserved. 9.1 Programs 9.1.1 Building Setback Lines The City will establish building setback lines for routes listed on Table #4. 9.1.2 Prado Road Improvements The City shall ensure that changes to Prado Road (projects A.1, A.2, B.4 and C.1) and other related system improvements are implemented in a sequence that satisfies circulation demands caused by area development. The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange (project C.1) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report for the interchange project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California Department of Transportation. 9.1.3 Street Amenities Plan The City shall adopt and regularly update a plan and standards for the installation and maintenance of landscaped medians, parkways, signs, utilities, street furniture, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Within the Downtown the street amenities shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan design guidelines. PH1 - 135 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-31 9.1.4 Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center The City will evaluate complete street designs that maximize the shared right of way for all users as a method for achieving the overall objective of the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center to improve the pedestrian environment in the downtown.. 9.1.5 Dalidio/Madonna Road/McBride Development As part of any proposal to further develop the Dalidio-Madonna-McBride Area, the alignment and design of extensions of Froom Ranch Way and Calle Joaquin connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) shall be evaluated and established. 9.1.6 Streetscapes and major roadways In the acquisition, design, construction or significant modification of major roadways (highways / regional routes and arterial streets), the City shall promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways or corridors that promote the city’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish this, the City shall: A. Establish streetscape design standards for major roadways; B. Encourage the creation and maintenance median planters and widened parkway plantings; C. Retain mature trees in the public right-of-way; D. Emphasize the planting and maintaining of California Native tree species of sufficient height, spread, form and horticultural characteristics to create the desired streetscape canopy, shade, buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired streetscape characteristics, consistent with the Tree Ordinance or as recommended by the Tree Committee or as approved by the Architectural Review Commission. E. Encourage the use of water-conserving landscaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other pedestrian-oriented features to enhance the streetscape appearance, comfort and safety. F. Identify gateways into the City including improvements such as landscaped medians, wayfinding and welcoming signage, arches, lighting enhancements, pavement features, sidewalks, and different crosswalk paving types. G. Encourage and where possible, required undergrounding of overhead utility lines and structures. H. When possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single, low-profile standard. I. In the Downtown, streetscape improvements shall be consistent with the Downtown Pedestrian Plan. PH1 - 136 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-32 Figure 3: Transportation Capital Projects- (Note: Revisions to this Figure will occur later.) FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS I. Alternative Transportation and Design Projects A. Transit Programs: include projects identified in the adopted Short Range Transit Plan; maintai n a downtown shuttle service as part of the City’s overall transit system (re 2.8 – 2.12) B. Bike Lanes and Paths: Compete a continuous network of bike lanes and paths by 2000 (re # 3.3 and Objective #3, page 7) C. Railroad Bicycle Path: Obtain railroad right-of-way to establish a separated bike path and pedestrian trail re 3.13) D. Pedestrian Paths and Sidewalks: Complete a “Pedestrian Transportation Plan” and program the construction of pedestrian facil ities (re 4.7, 4.8) E. Neighborhood Traffic Management: Install traffic control facilities and devices in neighborhoods to support the street classification standards (re 5.2, 6.5 and 6.6) F. Livable Streets: Adopt standards, redesign and landscape arterial streets to improve their livability (re 8 .5, 8.12, 14.10) G. Highway 101 Visual Enhancement: Work with Caltrans and the County to enhance the visual character of Highway 101 (re 14.7) II. Potential Major Street Network Changes Projects Project # Street Section Description of Potential Change Lead Agency Primary Funding Responsibility Implementation New Roads A.1 Prado Road Build to Highway/Regional Route standards w/ Class I bike paths & bridges for wildlife corridors (City Limits to Broad Street) City Development (1) Build if Dalidio area develops A.2 Prado Road Build to Parkway Arterial Street standards (Freeway W / to Madonna Road) City Development Build if Dalidio area develops A.3 Buckley Road Extend as Arterial Street westward to South Higuera St City Development Build if development occurs A.4 Bullock Lane Extend a Residential Collector to connect with Tank Farm Road City Development Build if Orcutt area develops A.5 Sacramento Drive Extend as Commercial Collector to connect with Orcutt Road at Duncan Road City Development Build if area south of Orcutt develops PH1 - 137 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-33 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS A.6 Bishop Street Extend Bishop Street to connect with South Street City City CIP Project; will require redesign of South-Broad intersection A.7 Sante Fe Road Extend road to connect with Prado Road (extended) City/County Development Build if area north of Tank Farm develops Road Widening Projects B.1 Higuera Street (High to Marsh) Acquire property and widen to allow four travel lanes, center turn lane, bike lanes, etc., & implement Downtown Plan concepts City City CIP Project and as adjoining parcels redevelop B.2 Orcutt Road (Broad to Johnson) Complete widening to 4 lanes City Development/City Build as adjoining parcels develop or redevelop and fill in gaps B.3 Tank Farm Road (S. Higuera to Broad) Widen to Parkway Arterial standards City / County Development Build as part of Airport Area development B.4 Prado Road (Higuera west to 101) Widen street and bridges to 4 lanes City Development/City Secure ROW and construct as area develops B.5 South Higuera St (Madonna to City Limits) Complete widening to 4 lanes City Development/City Capital Improvement Project B.6 Los Osos Valley Toad (Madonna to Highway 101) Widen to Parkway Arterial standards City Development Build if Irish Hills area develops B.7 Santa Rosa (Olive to Foothill) Install turn lanes and median access controls (see Appendix D) City State / City State/Federal Programs Freeway Interchanges C.1 Prado Road (3) Interchange Build full interchange at 101 Caltrans Development Build if funding secured from Airport area and Dalidio area development C.2 Los Osos Valley Road Modify ramps Caltrans State/ Development Needed when LOVR widened as Parkway Arterial from Madonna to Freeway (project PH1 - 138 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-34 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS Interchange B.6) C.3 Route 101/ Santa Rosa Interchange Changes to ramp system (2) Caltrans State STIP C.4 Broad Street @ 101 Close north on and north off ramps Caltrans State State Program Other Projects D.1 Monterey St (Santa Rosa north to Grand) Preserve right-of-way for up to 4 lanes & other uses City City Capital Improvement Project D.2 Orcutt Road (at the Railroad) Build an overpass at the railroad City State Subject to State funding priorities D.3 Prefumo Cyn Rd (Los Osos Valley Rd west) Install landscaped median City City Needed to improve the street’s visual quality D.4 Garden Street (Marsh to Higuera) Establish one (1) travel lane with pedestrian enhancements with possible closure in the future City City Accomplish as part of implementing a downtown master plan D.5 Broad Street (Palm to Higuera) Monterey Street (Nipomo to Broad) Close streets, maintain services access, expand Mission Plaza City City Close streets consistent with the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center NOTES 1) “Development” means that the proposed changes to the street system would be paid for by the developers of adjoining property or properties that directly impact the street section or facility. In general, development -funded projects will be constructed at the time that development occurs. However, projects may be built prior to develo pment when it is necessary to complete an important circulation link. In these cases, future developments may be assessed for existing improvements. PH1 - 139 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-35 FIGURE 4: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS 2) Freeway access should be improved at the Route 101 / Route 1 interchange by maximizing the use of exist ing street corridors and minimizing the removal of buildings. 3) The design of the Prado Road interchange and modifications to the ramp system for the Los Osos Valley Road interchange will b e determined as part of Project Study Reports (PSRs) required by CalTrans. The alignment of Prado Road northwest of Route 101 and its connection point to Madonna Road will be coordinated with the City’s consideration of plans to expand commercial development consistent with t he General Plan Land Use Element. PH1 - 140 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-36 10 TRUCK TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION The delivery of most goods and materials to businesses in San Luis Obispo is done by trucks. Delivery services are essential to the functioning of the City. However, commercial trucks can cause traffic congestion in the downtown, and create noise and safety problems in residential areas. The following policies and programs spell out how the City intends to manage delivery services so that problems associated with truck transportation are minimized. 10.0 Policies 10.0.1 Truck Routes The City shall require STA-sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 5. 10.1 Programs 10.1.1 Idling Trucks Trucks should turn off motors when parked. The City shall work with the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) for guidance in establishing standards that address air and noise pollution from idling trucks. 10.1.2 Home Occupations The City's Home Occupation Permit Regulations should be amended to ensure that commercial trucks are not used to make regular deliveries to home occupations in residential areas. 10.1.3 Commercial Loading Zones The City shall continue to provide reserved commercial truck loading zones in appropriate downtown areas. 10.1.4 Truck Circulation The City shall adopt an ordinance regulating the movement of heavy vehicles. PH1 - 141 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-37 11 AIR TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION The City and County of San Luis Obispo are served by the county-owned airport located off Broad Street near Buckley Road. The airport allows people to fly private aircraft and to use commercial carriers to connect with national and global commercial carriers. The following policies and programs address the continued use of the county airport. Additional policies and programs can be found in the City’s Land Use Element. 11.0 Policies 11.0.1 Interstate Air Service The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services. 11.0.2 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The City shall develop an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to address noise and safety concerns. 11.0.3 Compatible Land Uses The City shall regulate land use surrounding the airport so that it is compatible with airport operations and does not threaten the continued use of the airport. 11.0.4 Development Projects The City will require development projects and subdivisions within Airport Planning Zones #1 through #4 to include measures that protect the health, safety and comfort of residents and employees. 11.0.5 County Aircraft Operations The City shall work with the County to continue to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use Element. 11.0.6 Public Transit Service The City shall encourage improved public transit service to the County airport soon as practical. 11.1 Programs 11.1.1 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft The City shall work with the County Airport to encourage the use of quieter and more environmentally sensitive aircraft. 11.1.2 Airport Facilities Development The City shall work with the County Airport to support the further development of airport facilities and attract additional passenger airline services. Possible PH1 - 142 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-38 improvements include, but are not limited to: instrumented landing systems, radar, and improved passenger waiting facilities. 11.1.3 Airport Funding The City shall work with the County Airport to pursue funding opportunities, such as Airport Improvement Program grants. PH1 - 143 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-39 12 RAIL TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION The Union Pacific Railroad owns and maintains a railroad that extends through the county. AMTRAK uses the Union Pacific line to provide passenger service to San Luis Obispo with connections to the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas, and other coastal cities. Rail transportation is energy efficient and can provide convenient connections to destinations throughout the state. The following policies identify how the city supports rail service. 12.0 Policies 12.0.1 Rail Service The City shall support the increased availability of rail service for travel within the county, state and among states. 12.0.2 State and Federal Programs The City shall support State and Federal programs for the expansion of passenger rail service to San Luis Obispo. 12.0.3 Transit Service Connections The City shall provide transit service to the train station in accordance with its Short Range Transit Plan. 12.0.4 Intra-city Transportation Needs The City supports using the railroad right-of-way to help meet multimodal inter-city transportation needs. 12.1 Programs 12.1.1 Daily Train Connections The City supports maintaining daily train service connecting San Luis Obispo with points north and south, with departures and arrivals in the morning, mid-afternoon and evening. 12.1.2 Intra-county Rail Service The City shall support San Luis Obispo Council of Governments in evaluating the feasibility of passenger rail service to connect points within the county. PH1 - 144 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-40 13 PARKING MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION San Luis Obispo's central business district includes the highest concentration of commercial, office and governmental uses in the city. Parking is needed for patrons of downtown businesses, tourists and employees. Use of curb-side parking in residential areas can affect the character of these areas. The following policies identify the City's role in providing and managing downtown parking and addressing neighborhood parking needs. Commercial Parking 13.0 Policies 13.0.1 Curb Parking The City shall manage curb parking in the downtown to encourage short-term use to those visiting businesses and public facilities. 13.0.2 City Parking Programs City parking programs shall be financially self-supporting. 13.1 Programs 13.1.1 Parking Management Plan The City shall maintain and regularly update its Access and Parking Management Plan (every 5 years). 13.1.2 Monitor Public Parking The City shall regularly monitor the use of public parking in the downtown. 13.1.3 Park and Ride Lots The City shall coordinate with SLOCOG during periodic updates to SLOCOG’s Park and Ride Lot Development report to evaluate the need for and location of park-and- ride lots to serve commuters. 13.1.4 Public Parking Structures The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study. 13.1.5 Curb Parking Evaluation The City shall continue to work with the Downtown Association to evaluate the use of curb space in the downtown and identify opportunities for creating additional parking spaces. 13.1.6 Downtown Trolley The City shall continue to operate the downtown trolley as a parking management tool to reduce congestion. PH1 - 145 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-41 14 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKING MANAGEMENT 14.0 Policies 14.0.1 Residential Parking Spaces Each residential property owner is responsible for complying with the City's standards that specify the number, design and location of off-street residential parking spaces. 14.0.2 Neighborhood Protection Neighborhoods shall be protected from spill-over parking from adjacent high density uses. 14.0.3 Neighborhood Parking District The City’s Residential Parking District Program shall be updated to review the criteria and clarify the process for establishing a district. (Note: This is not a financing district.) 14.1 Programs 14.1.1 Neighborhood Parking Permits Upon request from residents or other agencies, the City will evaluate the need for neighborhood parking permit programs or other parking management strategies in particular residential areas. 14.1.2 Financing Districts The City will investigate the feasibility and desirability of establishing parking financing districts. PH1 - 146 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-42 15 SCENIC ROADWAYS INTRODUCTION The following provisions address the scenic importance of local roads and highways in the San Luis Obispo area. 15.0 Policies 15.0.1 Scenic Routes The route segments shown on Figure 6 and in Figure 11 of the Conservation and Open Space Element – Scenic Roadways Map --are designated as scenic roadways. 15.0.2 Development Along Scenic Routes The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources form streets and roads. Development along scenic roadways should not block views or detract from the quality of views. A. Projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway should be considered as "sensitive" and require architectural review. B. Development projects should not wall off scenic roadways and block views. C. As part of the city's environmental review process, blocking of views along scenic roadways should be considered a significant environmental impact. D. Signs along scenic roadways should not clutter vistas or views. E. Street lights should be low scale and focus light at intersections where it is most needed. Tall light standards should be avoided. Street lighting should be integrated with other street furniture at locations where views are least disturbed. However, safety priorities should remain superior to scenic concerns. F. Lighting along scenic roadways should not degrade the nighttime visual environment and night sky per the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordina nce. 15.0.3 Public Equipment and Facilities The City and other agencies should be encouraged to avoid cluttering scenic roadways with utility and circulation-related equipment and facilities. A. Whenever possible, signs in the public right-of-way should be consolidated on a single low-profile standard. B. Public utilities along scenic highways should be installed underground. C. The placement of landscaping and street trees should not block views from Scenic Routes. Clustering of street trees along scenic roadways should be considered as an alternative to uniform spacing. D. Traffic signals with long mast arms should be discouraged along scenic roadways. 15.0.4 County Role The City shall work with the County to protect and enhance scenic roadways that connect San Luis Obispo with other communities and recreation areas. PH1 - 147 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-43 15.0.5 Scenic Highways The City will promote the creation of Scenic Highways within San Luis Obispo and adjoining county areas. This support can happen when: A. Reviewing draft county general plan elements or major revisions to them. B. Reviewing changes to the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a member agency of the San Luis Obispo Council Regional Transportation Agency. C. Reviewing development projects that are referred to the city that are located along routes shown in the Conservation and Open Space Element. D. Actively participating in the development and periodic updates of the US 101 Aesthetic Study of San Luis Obispo County. 15.0.6 Designation of Scenic Highways The City will advocate that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or the County designate qualifying segments of Highways 1, 101 and 227 as Scenic Highways. 15.1 Programs 15.1.1 Visual Character The City will participate with Caltrans, the County and other cities to establish a program for enhancing the visual character of the Highway 101 corridor consistent with the US 101 Aesthetic Study for San Luis Obispo County. 15.1.2 Architectural Review Guidelines The City shall revise its Community Design Guidelines to incorporate concern for the protection of views and vistas from scenic roadways. 15.1.3 Street Corridor Landscaping The City shall adopt a street corridor landscaping plan for scenic roadways. Indigenous species will be used unless shown to be inappropriate. 15.1.4 Billboards Both the City and the County should enforce an amortization program for the removal of billboards along scenic roadways . PH1 - 148 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-44 16 CIRCULATION ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION, PROGRAM FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT INTRODUCTION The following policies should guide city departments in budgeting for and implementing this Circulation Element. 16.0 Policies 16.0.1 City and Regional Growth The City shall continue to be an active member of SLOCOG’s regional board to address regional transportation issues in San Luis Obispo County. 16.0.2 Encourage Alternative Transportation Programs or projects that reduce dependence on single-occupant vehicles and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation shall be considered prior to roadway capacity increasing projects. 16.0.3 City Funding The City's Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shall support the programs, plans and projects identified in this Circulation Element. 16.0.4 Alternative Mode Program Objectives Funding for street projects and parking structures shall not compromise the City’s ability to fund its alternative mode programs or projects. 16.0.5 Circulation Element Update The City shall update its Circulation Element regularly to address significant changes in transportation planning, programming, legislation, and/or city priorities. 16.1 Programs 16.1.1 Transportation Work Program Transportation Work Program shall be regularly updated as part of the City Financial Plan. The work program must be consistent with the Circulation Element, will cover a five-year period, shall be updated to include modified projects and costs if warranted, and will establish: A. Implementation schedules for all City transportation programs and projects including those described in the Circulation Element. B. A comprehensive funding strategy which identifies funding for each program type by source and amount. 16.1.2 Multi-Modal Impact Fee The City shall update its multimodal transportation impact fee ordinance in accordance with State Law (AB1600) that requires developers to fund their fair share of projects and programs that mitigate city-wide transportation impacts caused by new development. PH1 - 149 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-45 16.1.3 Evaluation of Alternatives Prior to implementation of a project identified in this element, the City shall reevaluate its need and include an analysis of alternatives that can achieve the desired results at lower costs and with less environmental impacts. Alternatives include: A. Other projects listed in the Circulation Element; or B. Projects made feasible by new or improved technology not existing when this Element was adopted. 16.1.4 Evaluate Transportation Effects Major development proposals to the City will include displays of the proposal's interfaces with nearby neighborhoods, and indicate expected significant qualitative transportation effects on the entire community. PH1 - 150 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-46 APPENDICES Appendix A: Level of Service (LOS) Definitions Appendix B: Scenic Roadway Survey Methodology Appendix C: Summary of Circulation Element Projects & Programs Appendix D: Operational Changes to Santa Rosa Street Appendix E: List of Streets and Estimated ADT/LOS Appendix F: City Council Resolution Adopting This Circulation Element PH1 - 151 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-47 APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Street Segments Level of services (LOS) is a qualitative measurement of the degree of congestion on a roadway. LOS is described by a letter scale from A to F. "A" represents the best service and "F" represents the worst service. LOS E occurs when the volume of traffic approaches the road's capacity. LOS E is characterized by low operating speeds and numerous delays with much congestion. LOS F represents a forced flow situation with more traffic attempti ng to use the road than it can handle. LOS F is characterized by stop-and-go traffic with numerous, lengthy delays. The photographs (taken from the Highway Capacity Manual) illustrate the six grades of level of service. The level of service on urban streets and intersections are described with the same scale and have similar congestion associated with them. Level of Service Definitions Level of Service (LOS) Description of Signalized Intersections Volume / Capacity Ratio A Little or no delay (under 5 seconds per vehicle. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. < .59 B Minimal delays in the range of 5 – 15 seconds per vehicle. Generally occurs with good progression and short cycle lengths. An occasional approach phase is fully used. .60 - .69 C Acceptable delays in the range of 15 – 25 seconds per vehicle. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, and most drivers feel somewhat restricted. A significant number of vehicles stop, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. .70 - .79 D Moderate delays in the range of 25 – 40 seconds per vehicle. The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable, with drivers sometimes having to wait through more than one red indication. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. Queues develop but dissipate rapidly. .80 - .89 E Significant delays in the range of 40 – 60 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences, with long queues forming upstream of intersections. Drivers may have to wait through several red indications. .90 - .99 F Represents jammed conditions with excessive delays of over 60 seconds per vehicle. This condition often occurs with over-saturation, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Resulting queues may block upstream intersections. > 1.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1985 PH1 - 152 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-48 APPENDIX B SCENIC ROADWAY SURVEY METHODOLOGY 1. Identify the visual resources. 2. Conduct field investigations: A. Identify the Freeway, Highway-Regional Routes and arterial streets (reference Figure #2). B. Designate points of view along each street. C. Record observations. 3. Transfer field observations onto a worksheet and assign valences to each visual unit. 4. Multiply good or fair or poor (3, 2, 1) views by major or minor (2, 1) assessments. A. Good (3) Major visual unit (2) B. Fair (2) X or = 1 - 6 C. Poor (1) Minor visual unity (1) 5. Sum the products for each point to determine a visual index value at each point. 6. Calculate the statistical mean, median, and mode. 7. Categorize the visual quality index numbers into High, Moderate, and Low classifications. 8. Map the Scenic Roadways with a High or Moderate classification. PH1 - 153 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-49 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF CIRCULATION ELEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Trip Reduction Objective 6 Education Programs for Alternative Transportation X Objective 17 City Employee Telecommute Guidelines X 1.4 Downtown Congestion Reduction X 1.8 Route 1 Trip Reduction Efforts X 1.9 Trip Reduction Plan for City Employees X 1.10 Voluntary Employer Trip Reduction Program X Transit Programs 2.4 Cal Poly / Cuesta “No Fare” Transit Programs X 2.8 Long-Range Transit Plan X 2.9 Bulk-Rate Transit Pass Program X 2.10 Downtown Trolley System X 2.11 Cuesta Commute Bus Service X 2.12 Centralize Transit Service Management X 2.13 Comprehensive Marketing Program Bicycle Transportation 3.3 Complete Bikeway Network X 3.8 Cal Poly Incentive Program X 3.9 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update X 3.10 Cal Poly & Cuesta Bicycle Plans X 3.11 Cal Poly & Cuesta Master Plan Updates X 3.12 Modifications to Zoning Regulations X 3.13 Railroad Bicycle Path X Walking 4.5 (A) Install Crossing Controls X PH1 - 154 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-50 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program 4.5 (B) Downtown Bulb Outs & Crosswalks X 4.5 (C) Median Islands at Intersections X 4.7 Prepare Pedestrian Transportation Plan X 4.8 Sidewalk Installation X 4.9 Handicapped Ramp Program X 4.10 Suggested Route to School Program X Street Standards 5.3 Joint City / County Design Standards X 5.4 Subdivision Regulations Revisions X Neighborhood Traffic Management 6.5 Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans X 6.6 Neighborhood Protection Methods X 6.7 Traffic Calming Workshops X 6.8 Other Neighborhood Traffic Studies X 6.9 Managed City Vehicle Routing X Traffic Flow 7.1 Traffic Management Priorities X 7.6 Ongoing Traffic Monitoring X 7.7 Transportation Surveys X 7.8 Computerized Traffic Model X 7.9 HOV Lane Evaluation X Street Network Changes 8.8 Building Setback Lines (Projects on Figure #4) Prado Road (A.1) X (establish as part of Margarita Area Specific Plan) Prado Road (A.2) X (establish as part of Dalidio Area Development Plan) Buckley Road (A.3) X (work with county to establish alignment) PH1 - 155 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-51 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Bullock Lane (A.4) X (establish as part of Orcutt Area Specific Plan) Sacramento Drive (A.5) X Bishop Street (A.6) X Sante Fe Road (A.7) X (work with County to establish alignment) Higuera Street (B.1) X Orcutt road (B.2) X Tank Farm Road (B.3) X Prado Road (B.4) X South Higuera (B.5) X Los Osos Valley (B.6) X (work with county to establish requirements) Santa Rosa Operational Improvements (B.7) X (work with CalTrans) Prado Road Interchange (C.1) X (work with CalTrans) Los Osos Valley Interchange (C.2) X (work with CalTrans) Santa Rosa / Route 101 Interchange (C.3) X (work with CalTrans) Monterey Street (D.1) X Orcutt Road Overpass (D.2) X 8.9 Prado Road as Route 227 X 8.10 Project Study Report: Prado Road Interchange X 8.11 Landscape Plans and Standards X 8.12 Commercial Core Street Design Analysis X 8.13 Santa Barbara – Santa Rosa Street Connection Study X 8.14 North Coastal Routes Transportation Study X 8.15 Dalidio Area Connector Road Study X 8.16 Maino-Madonna Area Frontage Road Study X Figure #4 Street Network Changes Coordination X Figure #4 City-Sponsored Street Network Changes (1) Bishop Street Extension (A.6) X PH1 - 156 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-52 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Higuera Street Widening (B.1) X Santa Rosa Operational Improvements (B.7) X Route 1 – 101 Interchange (C.3) X Broad Street Ramp Closures (C.4) X Orcutt Road Overcrossing (D.2) X Prefumo Road Medians (D.3) X Garden Street Modifications (D.4) X Downtown Broad-Monterey Streets Modifications (D.5) X Truck Routes 9.3 Truck Idling Regulations X 9.4 Home Occupation Permit Regulations X 9.6 Provision of Commercial Loading Zones X 9.7 Commercial Truck Parking Regulations X Air Transportation 10.6 Transit Service to Airport X 10.7 Environmentally Sensitive Aircraft X 10.8 Airport Land Use Plan Update X Parking Management 12.4 Update Parking Management Plan X 12.5 Monitor Downtown Parking Use X 12.6 Park & Ride Lot Analysis X 12.8 Downtown Curb Space Utilization Study X 13.2 Neighborhood Parking Permit Programs X Scenic Roadways 14.8 Highway 101 Corridor Enhancement X 14.9 ARC Guidelines Revision X 14.10 Landscape Plans for Scenic Roadways X 14.11 Billboard Abatement Program X 14.12 Billboard Controls X PH1 - 157 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-53 Reference Summary Description New Program Expanded Program Existing Program Element Implementation 15.10 5-Year Circulation Element Updates X 15.12 Transportation Work Program X 15.13 Transportation Impact Fee Program X 15.14 Capital Projects Reevaluation X 15.15 Major Projects Impact Reporting X Number of Programs 69 20 10 (1) City sponsored street projects are those listed on Figure #4 and referenced above where: The City is identified as the “lead agency,” and The City has primary funding responsibility or the street project is not associated with new development. PH1 - 158 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-54 APPENDIX D OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO SANTA ROSA STREET Project Intersection Description B.8 (a) Santa Rosa/Foothill Construct an east-bound right turn lane on Foothill B.8 (b) Santa Rosa/Olive Construct a north-bound right turn lane on Santa Rosa B.8 (c) Santa Rosa/Walnut Construct a west-bound left turn lane and an east-bound left turn lane on Walnut PH1 - 159 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-55 APPENDIX E LIST OF STREETS AND CURRENT ADT/LOS ESTIMATES Street Segment Count Location ADT (2) Count Date LOS (3) Year Estimated Commercial Collector Capitolio (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad 5,100 8-13-92 -- -- El Mercado (S / Madonna) S / Madonna 9,500 8-15-91 -- -- Industrial (Broad – Sacramento) E / Broad 2,300 4-4-92 -- -- Palm (Chorro – Santa Rosa) W / Osos 4,700 11-12-92 -- -- Sacramento (Orcutt – Industrial) Santa Fe (Buckley – Prado) Residential Collector Augusta (Bishop – Laurel) W / Laurel 2,900 6-26-91 -- -- Bishop (Johnson – Broad) W / Johnson 2,700 3-22-90 -- -- Broad (Foothill – Lincoln) N / Murray S/ Serrano 4,400 2,500 1-15-92 1-30-92 -- -- -- -- Buchon (High – Johnson) E / Osos W / Carmel 5,300 1,700 10-15-92 3-18-88 -- -- -- -- Bullock (Orcutt – Tank Farm) S / Orcutt Chorro (1) (Palm – Highland) N / Lincoln 11,000 1-15-92 -- -- Flora (N / Southwood) S / Sydney 800 12-18-92 -- -- Fredricks (Grand – Hathaway) W / Kentucky 1,200 10-18-92 -- -- High (Broad – Higuera) E / King 2,700 2-6-92 -- -- Highland (Ferrini – Patricia) W / Stanford 2,400 3-22-90 -- -- Laurel (Johnson – Flora) Lincoln (Broad – Chorro) W / Chorro 3,700 1-15-92 -- -- Margarita (E / Higuera) E / Higuera 2,600 7-10-91 -- -- Mill (Grand – Chorro) W / Pepper 2,300 7-23-92 -- -- Oceanaire (LOVR – Madonna) S / Lakeview 1,900 8-07-86 -- -- PH1 - 160 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-56 Street Segment Count Location ADT (2) Count Date LOS (3) Year Estimated Patricia (N / Foothill) N / Foothill S / Foothill 3,900 4-4-92 -- -- Pismo (Higuera – Johnson) W / Johnson 4,200 5-7-92 -- -- Prefumo (LOVR – CL) W / LOVR 3,400 10-8-92 -- -- Ramona (Patricia – Broad) W / Broad 4,500 1-16-92 -- -- San Jose – La Entrado (Ramona – Luneta) S / Foothill 1,200 12-12-88 -- -- San Luis (Calif – Andrews) E / California 1,700 4-9-92 -- -- Southwood ( E / Laurel) E / Laurel 1,800 11-30-88 -- -- Sydney (Flora – Johnson) E / Johnson 1,700 10-10-86 -- -- Residential Arterial Broad (South – Pismo) -- -- A 1991 California (Taft – Cal Poly) -- -- A – B 1991 Foothill (Broad – CL) -- -- A 1991 Grand (Mill – Cal Poly) -- -- A 1991 Johnson (Pismo – Orcutt) -- -- A 1991 South (Beebe – Broad) -- -- A 1991 Arterial Broad (Pismo – Higuera) -- -- A-F 1991 Buckley (Broad – Higuera) -- -- A 1991 California (Taft – San Luis) -- -- A 1991 Chorro (Palm – Pismo) -- -- A-C 1991 Foothill (Broad – California) -- -- A-D 1991 Highland (Ferrini – Cal Poly) -- -- A 1991 Higuera (Johnson – City Limits) -- -- A-E 1991 Johnson (Pismo – Monterey) -- -- A 1991 Laurel (Johnson – Orcutt) -- -- A 1991 Los Osos Valley (Route 101 – Higuera) -- -- B-D 1991 PH1 - 161 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-57 Street Segment Count Location ADT (2) Count Date LOS (3) Year Estimated Los Osos Valley (North City Limits / Madonna) -- -- A 1991 Madonna (Higuera – LOVR) -- -- A-C 1991 Marsh (Higuera – California) -- -- A-B 1991 Monterey (Chorro – Route 101) -- -- A-F 1991 Orcutt (Broad – Tank Farm) -- -- A-C 1991 San Luis (California – Johnson) -- -- A 1991 Santa Barbara / Osos (Broad – Higuera) -- -- A-D 1991 Santa Rosa (Walnut – Pismo) -- -- A-C 1991 Parkway Arterials Los Osos Valley (Madonna – Route 101) -- -- A 1991 Prado (Route 101 – Madonna) -- -- NA Tank Farm (Higuera – Orcutt) -- -- A 1991 Highway / Regional Routes Broad ( S / South) -- -- A-D 1991 Foothill (CL – Los Osos Valley) -- -- A 1991 Los Osos Valley (W / City Limits) -- -- A 1991 Orcutt (S / City Limits) -- -- A 1991 Prado (Route 101 – Broad) -- -- A 1991 Santa Rosa (N / Walnut) -- -- A-C 1991 South Higuera (S / City Limits ) -- -- A 1991 Freeway Route 101 (throughout) -- -- A 1991 NOTES 1) For Chorro Street, north of Lincoln Street, the maximum ADT goal is 5,000 ADT. 2) Traffic counts will be different for various segments of a particular street. 3) In some cases, a range of LOS ratings are shown on Appendix E for "Arterial" streets because of the variability of traffic flow conditions along a particular corridor; and some street segments approaching intersections may have poorer LOS than shown in this table. PH1 - 162 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-58 APPENDIX F PH1 - 163 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-59 PH1 - 164 Circulation THE GENERAL PLAN 2-60 PH1 - 165 Attachment 5 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS (GPI 15-12) WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of $880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011-2013 Financial Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in circulation issues in the City of San Luis Obispo and public involvement was essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on-line tools, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, three advisory body meetings, seven Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF-LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant’s circle of influence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended goals, policies, and programs in the Circulation Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Circulation Element to be considered through the Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the draft Circulation Element after the environmental review process of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF-LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Circulation Element presented at the hearing on January 28, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the PH1 - 166 Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) Page 2 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the goals, policies, and programs in the Draft Circulation Element as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this _______________________, 2014. Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________ Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _/s/ J.Christine Dietrick_____________________ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney PH1 - 167 Page intentionally left blank. PH1 - 168 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10 :30 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk CKV 0I, sm) iuis c1mspo 990 Palm Street Sari Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 8(6,7317102 FW: General Plan Circulation Element Up -date From: David Albrecht [mailto:daveabrecht @me.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:11 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: General Plan Circulation Element Up -date Good morning, RE :ERRED JAN 28 2014 C 'LO CITY AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date - v) Item* On behalf of the members of the San Luis Obispo Bicycle Club, I urge you to approve the General Plan Circulation Element Up -date at your special meeting this evening. The San Luis Obispo City Council recently committed additional funds to bicycle infrastructure projects and we applaud you for that vital step in making bicycling safer in town. Adoption of the Circulation Element up -date will solidify these planned improvements and guide transportation needs for all future development in the city. The beauty of Circulation Element Up -date is that it is a product of your LUCE committee. This committee of residents are committed to a future San Luis Obispo that stresses alternate forms of transportation and active forms of transportation that will keep the community livable and healthy. Thank you for your time and, again, I urge you to adopt the Circulation Element Up -date this evening. Sincerely, David Abrecht Bicycle Advocate San Luis Obispo Bicycle Clubsp Sent from my Wad Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Begin forwarded message: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:48 PM Kremke, Kate Fwd: LUCE update From: "Marx, Jan" <imarx ,slocity.org> Date: January 14, 2014 at 2:38:41 PM PST To: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia a,slocity.org >, Subject: FW: LUCE update Agenda correspondence L? JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Dale_! Item# Z12 -L... "Goodwin, Heather" <hgoodwin(2slocity.org> - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Karen Adler [mailto: fudge 805 gcharter. net] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:21 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Carlyn Christiansen; Smith, Kathy Subject: LUCE update Dear Mayor & City Council Members: On behalf of the residents of the Alta Vista Neighborhood, we strongly object to the idea of multi - family housing being built near Cal Poly! This would not be appropriate in established R- 1 and R -2 neighborhoods. We are already fighting for our survival with the possible addition of new freshmen dorms adjacent to our neighborhood. Adding multi - family units would be the final nail in the coffin. Please give this serious consideration and do not approve this suggestion. Thank you, Karen Adler - Chairperson of AVNA 1676 Fredericks St. SLO, CA 93405 � r Y 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO January 14, 2014 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Land Use Elements Recommendations Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, JAN 15 2014 - AGENDA -- f.MESPONDENCE Item # ice/ �l /Lf lo(4 1 I as)ly- The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce wishes to acknowledge the diligence and perseverance of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) Task Force volunteers, its Planning Commission members, City staff and all of the community members and groups that have weighed in over the last several months on the updating of this very important document. Outreach, several community forums and numerous meetings have taken place and resulted in valuable ideas for our future. The work of the LUCE Task Force has been diligent, with every member contributing to the final outcome. We would like to commend them for their lengthy and committed service. As you are aware, the Chamber formed its own task force last spring in order to support long term plans adopted by the City that are of particular interest to our members and to provide perspective on shared values such as providing affordable housing, supporting head of household jobs and preserving the character and quality of life enjoyed in San Luis Obispo. As previously stated, we believe this update is an opportunity for the City to align with key priorities and strategies included in the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP), Climate Action Plan, and the General Plan Annual Report. Specifically, we recommend that projected and planned residential capacity align with these documents, and that we create an environment that allows for diversity in both housing type and density in order to attract and grow jobs here. We continue to believe that mixed use projects and consideration of raised height limits where appropriate will serve our community well. We also propose that the City should take into consideration its growth beyond the 2035 horizon as the purpose of the LUCE update is not to preserve existing neighborhoods as they are today, but rather to look forward to the needs of future generations. In addition to these general comments, similarly to past letters we offer up the following language recommendations to section 3.9.8 Tourism and a newly created 3.9.9 Economic Development sections, s 805.781.2670 sirrhaml:cr. . r 805.543.1255 a p,t91n.�;Nfi e slochamber0slochamber,org �lrti tr. n, scvtrt 3.9.8 Tourism 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO The City shall: A. Develop and help implement aggressive tourism marketing programs; B. Encourage development of additional conference facilities and meeting space C. Work with arts organizations and community venues in promoting arts oriented tourism; D. Support agritourism, culinary tourism, ecotourism and voluntourism programs; E. Develop destination concepts such as bicycle tours, historical tours and rail tours; F. Encourage development of appropriate recreational facilities for golf, tennis, equestrian activities, hiking, swimming, fishing and competitive athletic events. In addition, the Chamber has been a strong advocate for efforts advancing economic growth in our region, and in order to support the implementation of the City's Economic Development Strategic Plan, we are proposing the following new addition to the revised LUCE: 3.9.9 Economic Development The City shall: A. Maintain San Luis Obispo as the business hub of the county; B. Encourage existing business growth and head -of- household job creation by maintaining appropriate availability of land for diversity in commercial development type; C. Pursue creative methods to finance current and future infrastructure needs to support business growth and enhance community well- being, such as 1. Increasing broadband access, 2. Implementing circulation improvements, 3. Supporting the growth and success of the SLO County Airport; D. Partner with Cal Poly and Cuesta College to invest in growing the entrepreneurial ecosystem In closing we would again like to thank all of those that have contributed to this document. As the roadmap for our future, it is important and the careful work of the participants is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Stacey White, AIA, LEED AP BD +C Chair, SLO Chamber of Commerce LUCE Task Force Cc: Eric Meyer, Chairperson, LUCE Task Force Michael Draze, Chairperson, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department 7 605.781.2670 slt�ch tmk�srs�iy F- 805,543.1255 visi��la cnrr r slochamber0slochamber.org slo biar,esscoN Goodwin, Heather From: Codron, Michael Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:45 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting Attachments: SLOLUCE 11- 14- 13.docx From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [mailto:sierraclub8 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:41 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting Dear Councilmembers — Attached are the comments submitted by the Sierra Club to the LUCE Update Task Foce on the LUCE Resource Protection chapter for your information when you deliberate on this section at your upcoming meetings. Thank you, Andrew Christie, Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805- 543 -8717 From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [mailto:sierraclub8 @gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:37 PM To: 'kmurry@slocity.org' Subject: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting Hi Kim — Please distribute the attached comments to the LUCE Update Task Force members for tonight's meeting. Thanks, Andrew Christie, Director Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805 - 543 -8717 Nov. 14, 2013 S I E RRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 Dear LUCE Update Task Force Members, Santa Lucia Chapter P.O. Box 15755 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 (805) 543 -8717 www. santalucia. sierraclub. org Following are the comments of the Sierra Club on the proposed revisions to the Resource Protection chapter of the LUE. 6.0.3 Land Use Element Map Revision Resource Mapping is retained at 6.0.2 but the proposed deletion of the following section eliminates the purpose of the program. As written, 6.0.3 provides the reason why the Resources Mapping program exists and its role in determining the locations for appropriate development. We see no purpose in deleting the rationale for the Resource Mapping program from the description of the program. 6.1.1 Open Space and Greenbelt Designations We strongly agree with the decision not to delete and relocate this information to "the new uses and standards table" and to keep it as it is and where it is. The COSE update process of 2005 -06 made clear that City staff and elected officials need to be reminded frequently of the definition and uses of Open Space. That language should be readily available to them, and to the citizens of San Luis Obispo for the likely future occasions when the City will need to be reminded. This information belongs where it is, intact, prominently featured in the City's General Plan, in the location where anyone would expect to find it when looking for it, under Open Space Policies, not diverted to a table. We suggest this rule of thumb be followed throughout the update process: Major policies belong under their policy headings, not shifted to tables. 6.1.4 Interim Open Space Regardless of any restrictions that may be "covered in Section 8.0, Specific Planning Areas," the overarching description of the nature and purpose of Interim Open Space should remain in the Resource Protection chapter. As to the issue of takings, a designation of Interim Open Space would appear to be a clear indication to any future land purchaser that the land in question may be eventually zoned in a manner incompatible with future development proposals. If "as worded, this designation has potential implications for a takings finding," it is the job of the city council, on advice of the city attorney, to apply the policy in such a way as to avoid such implications. 6.1.5 Interim Open Space Uses and Parcel Sizes We register the same objection as above to the text proposed for deletion. 6.1.6 Eventual Uses We register the same objection as above to the text proposed for deletion. 6.2 Hillside Policies All hillside policies should remain where they are with greater emphasis rather than being moved to Special Planning Areas. Protection of hillsides was 1 of only 4 service areas in the LUCE Survey for which city residents and business owners said they were willing to pay more. The Update should reflect this priority. 6.2.7- B The Woodland Drive area This should not be deleted as significant parts of it are not developed, re 2.5 acres just above Skylark, as well as remaining Upper Goldtree lots and County Property -- see pg. 1 -I I 1 consultant comment box. 6.2.7 -C Orcutt area The reference to specific development limit line at 460 feet should be retained. 6.3.3 Architectural Guidelines Architectural guidelines should be retained as it states the City's underlying presumption and intention that "all hillside development occurs on sensitive sites, where architectural review is required. The Community Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need architectural review." Though the current design guidelines may include this now, retaining the language here preserves the city's presumption and intention to protect hillsides. 6.4.5 Porous paving As the measures suggested here go beyond "porous paving," we suggest replacing this title with the more accurate and comprehensive "Runoff reduction and groundwater recharge." We suggest adding "and new development" to "Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas," and appending the following to the suggested measures: "ample landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained to facilitate percolation, consisting of rain gardens, vegetated bioswales constructed wetlands and/or trees planted with mulched root zones." 6.5.1 Previously Developed Areas Policies protecting creeks -- a top priority of residents responding to the LUCE Survey and one of only four things which they were willing to pay more for — should not be deleted. Before agreeing to delete the policies for limiting potential flood damage, we suggest Task Force members ascertain that listed policies A through D proposed for deletion are in fact identical to those in "the City's flood plain ordinance, setbacks, specific plans, and design standards," per the text proposed to replace the current list of policies. If the current list in the General Plan represents policies in addition to those to be found elsewhere, they should be maintained as written. Per the stated rationale for their deletion -- "state and federal standards change over time" — the Task Force should determine if this list does in fact represent state and federal standards or are the City's standards adopted in exceedence of state and federal standards. If the latter, they should be retained. Thank you for your attention to these concerns, Andrew Christie Chapter Director Goodwin, Heather To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Proposal for a Pedestrian Advisory Committee From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:42 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Proposal for a Pedestrian Advisory Committee agenda correspondence Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 f E� \Jti JAN, 28 2014 Sr O Cs Q — AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Datear- Item* From: allancoope(�)gmail.com [allancoope @gmail.com] on behalf of Allan Cooper [acooper @calpoly.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:39 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Mandeville, Peggy; Johnson, Derek Subject: Re: Proposal for a Pedestrian Advisory Committee Dear Mayor Marx and Council Members - My sister has arrived in town today and is taking me out to dinner. So, I am unable to attend your Council meeting tonight as planned to make my presentation. However, I was advised by our SOD core committee members last night to add two more caveats to our list of concerns. We are urging you to public notice all upcoming Pedestrian Plan Citizen's Advisory Task Force meetings and to allow opportunities for public comment. In closing, please seriously consider our suggestion for establishing a "Pedestrian Advisory Committee" so that pedestrian issues receive the same depth and breadth of consideration as do bicycling issues. - Allan On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Allan Cooper < wrote: Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 3:20 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk c;lt,y Of s111 luis omspu 9yo Palm Street Sari l uis Obispo, CA 93401. tel j 805.78 .7,oz FW: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2 :45 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element Agenda Correspondence Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 JAN 2 8 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date`Jc -; - — item# 4 From: allancoope @gmail.com [allancoope @gmail.com] on behalf of Allan Cooper [acooper @calpoly.edu] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 2:02 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John; Mandeville, Peggy; Johnson, Derek Subject: Comments on the Draft Circulation Element Date: January 27, 2014 To: Mayor Jan Marx and Council Members From: Allan Cooper, Chair Save Our Downtown Subject: Draft Circulation Element Save Our Downtown and I have reviewed this draft document and heartily support its endorsement of a Downtown Pedestrian Plan (DPP). As an aside, we will be following with great interest how the proposed DPP Citizens Advisory Task Force will be constituted and its timeline for task completion. We have a few concerns which we have addressed below: Modify Figure 3: "Neighborhood Traffic Management Areas" to include an additional area from Nipomo to Pepper and from Pacific to Highway 101. The Downtown Core Neighborhood, the Mission Orchard Neighborhood and the Mill Street Neighborhood are all in need of traffic management plans. 4.0.8 Bicycle Transportation Coordinator The City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the bicycle transportation plan policies and programs and shall continue to rely upon the Bicycle Advisory Committee to provide additional guidance in this area 5.1.2 Sidewalk Pedestrian Network For areas outside of the Downtown, the City will pursue shall implement its program for the installation of sidewalks to complete a continuous and connected pedestrian network throughout the community. V., 171 5.1.21 City shall support the allocation of staff and resources to coordinate and implement the downtown and Citywide pedestrian plan policies and programs and shall rely upon a newly formed Pedestrian Advisory Committee to provide additional guidance in this area. 13.1.4 Public Parking Structures The City shall only approve construction of additional public parking structures after considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study. The location of future public parking structures shall not be confined solely to those sites which are publicly - owned but shall be based on optimal access to the greatest number of users. Thank you for your due diligence and please contact us should have any additional questions regarding this matter. JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE � � Regarding: Draft Land Use Element Review Date �, Item# To: Honorable Mayor Marx & the City Cou cifY o From: Allan Cooper, Chair S.O.D. ® /,w F// yr On behalf of Save Our Downtown, I have read over the draft Land Use Element. I discussed the following with some of our members who were attending today's January 13, 2014 meeting and they all concurred with these comments. So far, we are very pleased with the work of the LUCE Task Force. We are therefore urging you to adopt the following new programs and policies (the underlines are mine): 1) New Program: The City shall prepare an inventory of uses in the Downtown Core. Particular attention shall be given to identifying uses at the street level as these uses directly impact the pedestrian experience and vibrancy of the Downtown. This information shall be used to target business support and attraction to achieve a desirable mix of uses in the Downtown. 2) New Program: The City shall incorporate into its zoning regulations specific criteria for evaluating use permits for bars /taverns, night clubs and late night drinking establishments. 3) New Program: The City will modify its Community Design Guidelines to enhance Safety and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design. Changes shall include, but are not limited to, inclusion of design statements on: Enhanced lighting of building alcoves in Downtown area Wayfinding signs to better direct pedestrians and motorists in non - residential areas ❑ Visibility into entry and access points on non - residential buildings Design solutions that minimize the potential for graffiti 4) New Program: The City, working with the Downtown Association, businesses, landlords, and residents will consider emergency callboxes at strategic locations in the Downtown. 5) New Program: The City working with the Downtown Association, Downtown businesses and residents shall develop a program to encourage lighted storefronts and street frontages throughout the night. 6) New Program: All specific plans shall identi , design features utilized to enhance public safety. 7) New Program: The City shall conduct a nighttime safety audit of key areas of the City to see where deficiencies in environmental design may exist and should be improved. Key Areas should be defined as areas experiencing higher crime than City average by SLOPD. 8) New Program: The City shall implement the Economic Development Strategic Plan and other appropriate strategies for business retention and expansion with a focus on those providing head -of- household jobs. However, we urge you deem the Downtown Core not just the Santa Margarita area to be also worthy of your business retention and expansion strategies. 9) New Policy: City shall promote a healthy mix of downtown street -level businesses that emphasizes retail stores, specialty shops and food service rather than bars or taverns. Save Our Downtown is also urging you to support the following land use directives (some of which have been carried over with revisions from the previous Land Use Element): 1) The City shall work with the Downtown businesses and residents, the BID, and Chamber of Commerce to manage impacts from downtown drinking establishments, and if necessary, enact additional regulations to ensure that the late night environment in and near Downtown is safe and pleasant. 2) The City shall develop a master plan for San Luis Obispo Creek in the Downtown area. 3) Public Art should be placed along pedestrian paths. Traffic calming and pedestrian safety should be enhanced, where appropriate, through such features as road tables, pavement changes, bulb outs and scramble intersection signals. Landscaping should mitigate harsh micro - climates. 4) The City shall update the Downtown Concept Plan by 2016 and shall regularly update the plan as required to address significant changes in or affecting the Downtown area including the opportunity for meaningful public input. 5) Provide midblock or other significant pedestrian connections 6) Continuous Storefront: There should be a continuous storefront along sidewalks, at the back of the sidewalk, except for the Courthouse and City Hall blocks, plazas, recessed building entries, and sidewalk cafes. 7) Walking paths along the creek in the Downtown core should be provided and extended as links in an urban trail system, provided this will not further degrade wildlife habitat value of the riparian ecosystem. 8) Visual Resource Study: The City shall undertake a study of visual resources within the Downtown core area to identify potential locations for new public -owned open places with access to views of important scenic resources. The City will consider acquisition of one or more of these open places as resources permit. A range of options for property acquisition, including development agreements, will be considered, consistent with the City's fiscal policies and objectives. We do have few concerns remaining. Staff has been directed to explore the implications of combining the pedestrian plan with the bicycle plan. Even though the pedestrian plan and the bicycle plans should be coordinated with one another we would hope that these two plans would not be combined and particularly with regards to the Downtown Core. We also have some concerns with the following text: "The City will shall consider including features of "A Conceptual Physical Plan for the City's Center" (Downtown Concept Plan) in the approval of projects in the Downtown, recognizing that the plan is a concept and is intended to be flexible as appropriate." There is no mention of coordinating, far less integrating, the Downtown Concept Plan into existing Zoning Regulations, architectural review guidelines, engineering standards and capital improvement programs. At the very least, we believe that the 2016 update of this plan should be coordinated with the newly adopted Pedestrian Plan and that there should be mention of this in the amended Land Use Element. Thank you for your due diligence and please don't hesitate contacting us if you should have any questions. JAN 14 2014 Kremke, Kate From: Goodwin, Heather AGENDA Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 9:59 AM CORRESPONDENCE To: Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: LUCE Update Date V o, ,,X item# q1 y Agenda correspondence Begin forwarded message: From: "Marx, Jan" <imarxgslocit .org> Date: January 14, 2014 at 9:58:10 AM PST To: Brett Cross <brettcrossgyahoo.com> Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia(2slocity.org >, Subject: RE: LUCE Update "Goodwin, Heather" <hgoodwin(j�slocity.org> Thank you for your comments, Brett. Please include our city clerk in future emails to council, so they can be posted on our website as Agenda Correspondence. All the Best, Jan Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 From: Brett Cross [brettcross @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:34 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: LUCE Update Just a couple of points. 1. 1.13 Costs of Growth The City shall require the costs of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by the new develop ment, unless the community chooses to help pay the costs for a certai n development to obtain community -wide benefits. Question ?. The community will choose how ?. Election ?, community input ?. 3 -2 vote of the City Council ?. 2. 2.2.1 Mixed Uses &and Convenience The City shall promote Neighborhoods shall include a mix of compatible uses in neighborhoods to serve the daily needs of nearby residents, including schools, parks, churches, and convenience retail stores. This policy would encourage convenience retail stores within a neighborhood designation. Do you really want to do that ?. What is the the thinking. I don't really want a Quicky Mart literally "in" my neighborhood. 3. 2.2.8 Parking The City shall discourage the development of Llarge parking lots should be avoided. and require pParking lots shoul d be screened from street views. In general, parking should not be provided located between buildings and the public streets. What type of screening is going to be considered ?. 8' high block walls ?. The City essentially allowed that type of screening for the high density housing along Los Osos Valley Rd at Madonna. 4. 2.2.4 Street Access The City shall ensure Nnew residential developments or and redevelopments involving large sites, should be are designed to orient low- density housing to local access streets, and medium- or high- density housing to driveways accessible from collector streets. That policy basically eliminates mixed densities within a development. Go look at Devaul Ranch, is that what you want ?. 5. 2.4.2 Density Changes The City shall approve re- zonings that increase density in existing residential areas only if it finds that the following are not adversely impacted: neighborhood character and identity; compatibility of I and use; impact on services and facilities (including schools). In addition, the City shall find that proposed density changes meet policies related to neighborhood amenities (Policy 2.1.7); compatible development (Policy 2.2.9) and residential project objectives (Policy 2.2.11). Staff needs to give some examples. Obviously they have something in mind. This is open ended rezoning of established neighborhoods. 6. 2.4.3 Residential Conversion The City shall approve proposals to conv ert residential properties along major streets to office or commercial uses onl y when there already is a substantial non- residential character to the corridor, the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land use, and adequate off -st reet parking can be provided. Where appropriate, replacement dwellings shall be provided as part of the project. What is the definition of a major street ?. 7. 2.5.3 Amenities The City shall encourage devel opment of attractive Mmultifamily housing likely to be occupied by students should to provide the amenities which that students may otherwise seek in single - family areas, to provide an attractive alternative. Is location a factor ?. Or can you just build this attractive multi family housing miles away from campus ?. C Obviously I haven't gone through the whole document but there is this thinking that at General Plan needs to be generalized in its wording. It doesn't have to be. If the community wants or desires a particular feature those policies and programs should be specific and detailed as to create that. There needs to be a discussion regarding what the policies are intended to create and not so vague as to be almost uncertain in there affect. Sincerely, Brett Cross San Luis Obispo 4 Kremke, Kate From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 3:00 PM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: comments on EIR Upper Monterey for special city council meeting 1/14/14 Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 1 805.781.7102 AGENDA Gt FIRESPONDENCE Date. t 0 -y-Item #_If� - - - -- Original Message - - - -- // qh Lt From: Debra Farwell [mailto:dif53 @earthlink.net] 1 2�-3j j Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:56 PM J To: Mejia, Anthony; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John Subject: comments on EIR Upper Monterey for special city council meeting 1/14/14 Kim Murry, Deputy Director Community Development Department City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements Update Scoping Meeting for NOP Copies to City Council Members Jan. 9, 2014 Kim, I am submitting written comments, based on my oral presentation to the Planning Commission on Wednesday Jan. 8th. My concerns are directed toward the Upper Monterey Area LUCE Update and what appears to be a lack of knowledge about current conditions that we as neighbors, face day to day. I realize that at this point, the language for the NOP is standardized and non - specific, due to the large scope of the update. I will use the N.O.P. paperwork provided at the Dec. 7, 2013 Future Fair as a guideline for my comments. I'd appreciate it if you could please pass along my written comments to the Commission, as they consider the EIR for the LUCE Update. I appreciate your time and consideration. will e-mail my comments on the City Council myself, to save you some time. On page 1, Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal, dated 12/2/13, the second section, Project Location. Please note "Waterways" with San Luis Obispo Creek and Chorro Creek listed. I'd like to point out that there is a small (depending upon drought) year -round creek, which crosses our property. I believe that the source for the creek is along the foothills of the Cal Poly Grand Ave entry, along Slack St. It travels toward Hwy 101, to cross Wilson St. and behind houses along Park. It crosses behind VFW Hall on Mill St. near the Vet's Building. It crosses Palm St. and travels across resident property lines and can be found next to Frank's Hot Dogs on Monterey St. and California. I believe it passes along Monterey St. down to join San Luis Creek at the concrete culverts near the Anderson Hotel. Street run -off and gutter drainage passes directly into this small local creek, finding its' way eventually into the downtown creek system. While "no zoning changes have been proposed ", the language of the Update reflects an intent to increase the density of hotels, restaurants and a possible conference center along the Upper Monterey Corridor. With increased density, there will be more hazardous materials discharged into our creek. Increased garbage storage, auto drainage on streets, air and dust pollution will be washed by surface water into the creek in our neighborhood, to join the larger San Luis Creek. During my lifetime, I've lived closely to the creeks in my neighborhood. I've lived here on Palm St. for 39 years, next to our small creek. In 1971 -1972 1 lived over Muzio's Grocery Store in Downtown San Luis. We spent a good deal of time listening to the frogs in the creek in front of the Mission. Since the 70's there has been a significant decrease in the Summer frog chorus downtown and on our own property. Frogs have been considered the "canary in the coalmine ", by some environmental researchers. Please address supportive biological environments as required in the Biological Resources section of the EIR in relation to frogs and other impacted fauna. My second point of concern about the LUCE for the Upper Monterey Street Area is noise. In addition to auto traffic, the music of restaurants, impacts our environment. Frank's Hot Dogs have 2 speakers facing the outside eating patio. The "canned music" is audible about % a block away on Monterey and California. Daily sound volume and wind are factors in how far the sound travels. Add to that, the traffic noise. An additional source of loud noise and dust, are the "professional" landscape maintenance, which blows clean the businesses along Monterey and California. An increasing number of businesses and landlord's, use the "blow and go" type of landscaping. Noise is a Potential Environmental Impact, which needs to be assessed, in the EIR for the LUCE Update. Please address this very intrusive factor that we who live on the Monterey Street corridor live with daily. My third concern is related to restaurant and business garbage within the Upper Monterey Street Area. Over the last 5 years, the numbers of raccoons, opossums and rats have been increasing. These critters get into the numerous garbage containers along Monterey Street and use the creek as a transportation system. With the blessing of US Fish and Wildlife, I trapped 5 raccoons myself, between November and December. The raccoons killed one opossum and I trapped another. I still have raccoons coming in at night. The rats are a constant. The garbage containers are left open, wet garbage leaks out through the container onto the pavement, which can wash into the gutter system. The critters are destructive, digging and destroying landscaping. In additional, they are a health hazard. Please consider the impact that restaurant and business garbage has on the surrounding neighborhood, within the Hazardous Materials section of the EIR. Under the Aesthetics section of potential environmental impacts, light and glare is addressed. Currently the Lamplighter Hotel has security lights facing away from the hotel into the parking lot, due to vandalism and concerns of theft. They shine away from the hotel into the windows of the residence across the street. The neighbor has unsuccessfully approached the hotel in attempts to have the lights turned away from the house. Due to terrain, the Lamplighter Hotel towers about 4 stories above our homes, if one is standing on the corner, of Grove and Palm St. Security lights are rotated outwards, but the lights shine for quite a distance beyond the hotel. When we first moved into our home, we could see the Milky Way. Now, we are lucky if we can see the brightest stars /planets. Light pollution needs to be addressed in the EIR, with the current and any future density that is considered. View shed has been greatly reduced during the last decade on our 2 blocks of Palm Street. We used to be able to see mountains to the East and to the West from our home. Now, we have lost all view to the West and partial view to the East. A two story house was built to the West. We were assured that there would be no impact. However, due to the foundation being raised for flood purposes, and over height ceilings, we lost our view from our sun porch. Positioned on a slope, the Lamplighter Motel renovation expends 4 stories. It has a huge impact on the neighborhood view shed. I am concerned about any remodels that extend upward, blocking both sunshine and view to our neighborhood. Please consider the impact of buildings, which block the view or sunlight of pre- existing residences. This hasn't been taken into account in the past, leaving us with visual blights. z There is no mention of the environmental impact of odor into a residential neighborhood. This is a huge issue for those of us living along Palm Street. Starting around 6 AM, Franks' starts breakfast with onions and bacon cooking. As the day progresses, the smells are of hamburger and sometimes rancid grease. Depending on the wind, it is possible to detect odors from the railroad tracks on Palm, to Grove Street at Monterey. I have a lovely garden, but when I walk outside, it isn't my flowers I smell. It is onions, bacon and burgers from Franks'. All of my neighbors have complained as well. It is nauseating, to smell the odors every day. One can smell bread from Splash Cafe and Mexican food from Pepe Delgados walking along Monterey Street. By far, Franks' odors travel the farthest and are the most constant. For the neighbors with 2 -story homes, the odors seem to enter their higher windows easier. While odor isn't directly listed on the N.O.P. Potential Environmental Impacts to be Assessed, please discuss odors related to restaurant food prep and garbage storage. Being able to enjoy our homes and gardens is directly effected by the smells in the air around us. Increasing hotel, restaurants and possible conference center density, will make it worse, if the current problems aren't mitigated. I appreciate your consideration of these concerns. Increased traffic will make the intersection at California and Monterey Street even less safe. It has limited visibility and some high -speed traffic. Bikes, skateboards, pedestrians, food delivery trucks and autos all share a very small space. In walking through our neighborhood, it appears that very little forethought was used in creating a residential and business community. This is a good opportunity to improve upon the mistakes that were made in the past. Thank you for allowing our input into the process. Debbie Farwell Palm Street 3 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:19 PM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: Fwd: LUCE language recommendations of aggressive tourism Begin forwarded message: R 17- JAN 28 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date Item #_!L'\ `I,,`I1u.'I -2y From: debbie farwell <dif532earthlink.net> Date: January 27, 2014 at 9:58:33 PM PST To: "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpentgslocity.org >, "Marx, Jan" <jmarx e,slocity.org >, "ashbaugkslocity.org" <ashbaugcr�,slocit y.org >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmithkslocity.org >, "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristinslocity.org> Cc: "Mejia, Anthony" <amejia@slocity.org> Subject: LUCE language recommendations of aggressive tourism Jan. 27, 2014 Subject: Recommendations for aggressive tourism within LUCE Update Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, The more I learn about the Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan Update, the more I appreciate the work that has been done by staff and volunteers alike. Thanks to all, who are part of the process. It certainly is a very complicated and monumental task. Clearly, there are a variety of interests, perspectives and values to balance for an equitable outcome. I have concerns about the Chamber of Commerce LUCE language recommendations for Tourism and Economic Development. I ask your close attention to the proposed changes in the LUCE Task -Force language. These concerns should also be addressed in the EIR studying the Upper Monterey Street Area. The Chamber recommendation that the LUCE TF language (3.9.8) be changed to "the City shall develop and help implement aggressive tourism marketing programs" is irresponsible. Governor Brown has already declared a State of Emergency for the State of California due to drought, Jan. 15th, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture declared San Luis Obispo County to be one of 27 Counties in the state, to be declared a "natural disaster area" due to drought. Within our own County, both Paso Robles and Cambria are facing critical water shortages. Each of these communities, are considering mandated intervention to curtail their own water usage. Residents and commercial users alike are faced with cutting back on water consumption. Is it wise to promote aggressive tourism, which will bring in additional autos, people and water needs by visitors? Increased air - pollution, water consumption and resource demands, will impact the City and County alike. The Chamber recommendation for Jobs /Housing Relationship (1.4) within the scope of the LUCE EIR is certainly worth further study. The severe lack of affordable housing for working class persons within the city of SLO puts workers and those with limited financial means at the mercy of landlords seeking to maximize profitability of their property. It can take up to two years to get into low -cost housing. Within our neighborhood along the Marsh, Higuera, Monterey and Palm Street corridors, numerous single- family homes have been converted from residential dwellings to offices. These homes would have been ideal for working class families who could walk to schools and work from a small, downtown home. These conversions from residential to office or commercial use begin on corner lots and then march along house to house, to gradually encompass an entire block. There has been a large reduction in low -cost, affordable housing within the Upper Monterey Street Area during the last two decades, due to conversion. As a result, the feeling and character of the neighborhoods from Upper Monterey Street to the downtown area has dramatically changed. The types of jobs created by tourism are most often low- paying public service sector jobs. That is how Big -Box Hotels are able to increase their profitability and pass along the numerous local taxes that make them so appealing to cities. The Tourist Industry is seen as the vehicle for economic development and infrastructure maintenance. Yet the very workers, needed to provide public service for the Tourism Industry, have been forced to live outside the city by lack of housing. This isn't unique to San Luis Obispo! The July 24th 2013, U.N. General Assembly on Sustainable Tourism points out negative impacts, which have occurred as a result of unchecked tourism, While there are positive aspects of tourism, it is recommended by the U.N. that there must be a balance created with "local control, community wellbeing, cultural richness, physical integrity ... and environmental purity". Residents have a vested interest in their neighborhoods. It is not just an economic interest. A neighborhood should imply a home, sanctuary in reality, not just words. When local workers are unable to obtain affordable housing, creating new minimum wage employment, further degrades the quality of life, rather than improving it. To even consider aggressive tourism in light of severe drought conditions is unwise. The impacts of tourism on water usage, air - pollution, loss of local affordable housing in existing neighborhoods, are just a few of the possible, negative impacts. Nurturing existing residential neighborhoods must be a priority to maintaining a healthy, vibrant downtown community. The City has no place in aggressively pursuing any particular form of business, to the detriment of residents living within the city. Thank you for your consideration. Debbie Farwell, 39 year Palm Street resident t1i'/". Í-r ll il--l.:,:l': .r i- I 1 JAN 0 7 2014ApaUSKI MONOSKI M¡.PPNN CUMBERLAND & GnEEN np ATIoRNEYS AT LAW Post Office Box 3835 ' San Luis Obispo, California 93403-3835 T 805-543-0990' F 805-543-0980' zttww.ammcglaw.com l' . l.i t:. 1,." fanuary 6,20t4 Honorable Jan Marx, Mayor City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Re: Pacific Beach High School Property Objection to LUCE Designation as Park Dear Madame Mayor and Members of the City Council: Our firm represents the San Luis Coastal Unified School District. We have been asked to review the City's LUCE process as it would impact the District's Pacific Beach School Property' The current recommendation is to designate a portion of that property as a public park' On behalf of the District, we must object to this designation and point out that designating a significant portion of the Pacific Beach Property as a park would result in a taking of the District pıperty without payment of just compensation. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission -tf q^SZl 4S3 U.S. St5. As set forth in Nollan and the many cases following, requiring a park on ihe pacifrc Beach property would require a determination of the relative impacts of the proposed project and a determination that there is a nexus between the proposed development and the ieqíirea park dedication. Certainly such a showing cannot be made at the LUCE stage nor does it seem ìit.ty that any proposed development would trigger the requirement for a park dedication. 'We also note that the School District already provides many acres of open space recreational ground in SanLuis Obiçpo, In faet, we would feel safe in assumingthat onl-v.the City provid". -or". Therefore, to again look to the School District to meet the City's perceived need for park space is unreasonable and unjust. The District does recognize the need for public park spacì but would ask the City to recognize that the District is already doing its fair share and more. Finally, we would like to once again make the City aware that the District's iriterest in developing its surplus property is solely to generate revenue to educate the youth of San Luis Obispó. Ãny p.op.rty dedicated to a public park will not be available to generate money for educàtion. We urge the Council to balance the competing interest and recognize the paramount importance of education. AGENDA CORRESPONDENOH Date*_*"-"--*ltem '1. ,'þt *\z'J Paso Robles Office: 1948 Spring Street . Paso Robles, CA9346-7620 ' T 805-238-2300 'F 805-ZS8-2322 Honorable Jan Marx, Mayor January 6,2014 Page2 Based upon the foregoing, we would urge the City Council to designate the entirety of the Pacific Beach Property as Commercial Retail which will allow both retail and residential development. Such a designation avoids a takings claim and represents the highest and best use of the property for commercial, residential and, indirectly, educational purposes. We thank you for your consideration. Re spectfully submitted, ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP THOMAS D. GREEN TDG:tlg f:\forms\templates\ammg templates\new lh.dot Kathy Smith, Council Member Carlyn Christianson, Council Member Dan Carpenter, Council Member John Ashbaugh, Council Member Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Kim Murry, Community Development cc: city of san Luis osispo January 28, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager Communit, JAN 2 8 2014 �_. .: Deve opment Department Planning Division AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date!!- Item# aL� I 'I--1, IIti.'ize VIA: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared by: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Land Use Element update: Resolution and Input to Elements To recognize Council direction regarding proposed changes to Chapter 7 of the draft Land Use Element, staff has prepared the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) for Council consideration. Attachment A of the Resolution contains the complete Airport Chapter in legislative draft format with language that has been updated subsequent to Planning Commission review. Language edits subsequent to Planning Commissions are found in the introductory sentence that occurs prior to the first policy and include two new programs proposed in this chapter. Updated language is shown in italics. If the Council determines that changes are supported in other areas of the Land Use Element that relate to the Circulation Element advertised hearing, the attached Resolution can be revised to reflect Council modification. The Council did receive correspondence recommending some additional language and modifications to portions of the Land Use Element. Tonight's hearing is not agendized to reconsider language in the Land Use Element as the continuance was for the expressed purpose of Chapter 7. Staff will be prepared with a public hearing approach should the council want to address correspondence received since January 14, 2014. Finally, staff received several questions and recommendations regarding the draft Circulation Element subsequent to Planning Commission review. The input is provided in Attachment 2 with Planning Commission draft page numbers where applicable. Input regarding changes are shown organized by chapter with new language in bold (to distinguish from the Task Force /Planning Commission new language which shows in underline) and deleted language is shown as strike -out. Please contact Kim Murry with any questions at kmurry(?slocity.org or via phone at 781 -7274. Attachments: 1. Resolution for changes to Chapter 7 2. Other input /questions Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING CHAPTER 7 (AIRPORT) OF THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS (GPI 15 -12) WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of $880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011 -2013 Financial Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, to date input has been received through public outreach, including but not limited to two different on -line tools, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF -LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant's circle of influence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered through the Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the draft Land Use Element after the environmental review process of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF -LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis 2 Attachment 1 Obispo that Chapter 7 (Airport) of the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 28, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. AIRPORT CHAPTER. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the policies and programs related to the Airport Chapter in the Draft Land Use Element shown in Attachment A as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. 1. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J.Christine Dietrick Christine Dietrick, City Attorney . 2014. 3 Attachment 1 ATTACHMENT A 7 AIRPORT AREA POLICIES TNOTE TO REVIEWER: The City is working with an airport safety expert to develop a new set of guidelines for development near the airport. Policies in this section apply to the Airport Area, as shown on Figure 8 and represent the Airport Influence Area subject to airport safety, noise height, and overflight standards. 7.1 Regional Service The City shall support tThe airport's wiR continued to verve service to the region, consistent with the approved Airport Master Plan.- and FAA - approved Airport Lavout Plan, I Policv 7.1 12 Stvle 1 ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currencv 1 ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete 1 ❑ Relevance J ❑ Resources i 7.2 Airport Land Use Plan Land use densit and intensit shall careful) balance noise im acts and the ro ression in the degree of reduced safety risk further away from the runways, consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines. The City shall use the Airport Master Plan forecasts of aviation activity as a reasonably foreseeable projection of ultimate aviation activity sufficient for Ion -term land use tannin ur oses. 9e °'�oprv;e„ "void- be-permitted -only Of it ,.°„SIS+cnt• with -the San Luis Obis . Prospective buyers of property whie" subject to airport influence should be so informed. Policy 7.2 J 0 Style ❑ Clarity 10 Currency 10 Relocate 10 Complete 10 Relevance 10 Resources Edited for style only. NEW POLICY 7.3 Airport Safety Zones Airport Safety Zones shall be consistent with California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook guidelines and substantiated by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan activity forecasts as used for noise planning purposes. I NEW I ❑ Stvle 1 ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currencv I ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete I ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources 1 I NEW POLICY I 7.4 Airport Noise Compatibility The_Gitac._shall use the aircraft noise_ analy _s,is.prepared_foruthe_Airport_ Master_ Plan__ Environmental_I,mpact Report as_an accurate mapping_of the_Iong_term noise impact of theairport.s aviation_activity_that is_tied to the ultimate, facilities_ development depicted in the _FAA - approved_ Airport Lavout,Plan_The._City shall use the 60 dB CNEL_aircraft_noise contour__( ?F and State aircraft noise plannnc standa_rdj_as_ the threshold 4 Attachment 1 for new urban residential areas. Interiors of new residential structures shall be constructed to meet a maximum 45 dB CNEL. NEW 7.5 City Annexation and Services ] Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources The..City.'Rte o shall actively pursue annexation of the A:airport Aarea as. noted -in „the. Airport Area Specifjc Plan. Airport Area land inside the urban reserve shall be considered for annexation if it meets the criteria stated in Policy 1.12.4 . and., provisio.n,s_in_ fhe Airport Area Specific, Plan. Annexation of areas that do not meet these interim annexation criteria may be annexed- subject -to completion of environmental -and economic studies and a specific plan: Pending- annexation: Any urban development approved by the County shall be consistent with City development standards-, and Urban development and provision of adequate resources and services needed citywide shall be closely monitored. Policy 7.3 0 style,[ ❑ Clarity ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources Edited for style only. Interim criteria are no longer applicable since specific plan has been adopted. 7.6 Greenbelt Protection The City shall ensure aAnnexation of the Airport Area Specific Plan-,-whether-,# occurs as sne actior�or- severai, shallil is consistent with the growth management objectives of maintaining areas outside the urban reserve line in rural, predominantly open space uses. An Airport Area aAnnexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of the greenbelt near the Airport Area, through one or more of the following methods: Dedicating an open -space easement or fee ownership to the City or to a responsible land - conservation organization. Paying fees to the City in -lieu of dedication; which- -that shall be used within a reasonable time to secure greenbelt open space near the Airport Area. 11 Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources Edited for style only. 7.7 Internal Open Space The City shall ensure areas designated for urban uses in the Airport Area Specific Plan, but not necessarily each parcel, should include open areas as site amenities and to protect resources, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. In addition, the City shall ensure wildlife corridors across the Airport Area shall be identified and preserved. Policy 7.5 [ D Style i El Clarity 111 Currency 10 Relocate 11 Complete ID Relevance ❑ Resources First sentence is not necessary as an element doesn't need to say you must comply with other elements. TO BE UPDATED Figure 9: Airport Area z Attachment 1 GM Y 0 0 Airport Area SMI Eels CHMSPO City Limit Line N Airport Area Figure 9 10 Style 10 Clarity_ I IZI Currency 10 Relocate I ❑ Complete 10 Relevance I ❑ Resources Figure 9 will be updated once airport section is complete. Currently doesn't show full extent of area covered by RASP. 0 Attachment 1 7.8 Development Before Annexation Areas which are designated for eventual urban development in the Airport Area Specific Plan may be developed during the interim with rural residential or rural commercial uses. In such areas, County development standards and discretionary review should assure that projects will not preclude options for future urban development consistent with the City's planning policies and standards. Before any discretionary County land -use or land- division approval for such areas, a development plan for the site should be prepared, showing that circulation, water and other utility, and drainage proposals will be compatible with future annexation and urban development, _and condit,ions,of approval should include payment of City fees regui,red, to. mitigate, traffic., housi_n,g., and open space. impacts. Any development within the urban reserve approved by the County prior to annexation should comply with City standards for roadway cross - sections, bus stops, walking and bicycle paths, landscaping, view protection, setbacks, preferred site layouts, and architectural character. 7.6 1 ❑ Style 1 ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currency 1 ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete 1 ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources Minor edits proposed. 7.9 Transit Service The City shall work with SLQCQG, the County. RTA, the Airport, and area businesses to extend tTransit service linking development - sites - -w +th -the -- citywide - bus - system- should -be -- provided concurrent with any additional urban development in the- Airport - Areato the air art and Count areas south of the City. Policy 7.7 1 0 Style 10 Clarity ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance © Resources Policy reworded to promote the continued efforts of this extension. The City will prepare a eGifin plan fer land , habitat nretentien , n„ latien , utilities, and dope within the Airport Area Policy 7.8 1 ❑ Style I ❑ Clarity ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate 0 Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources The Airport Area Specific Plan has been completed and adopted. 7,91 Bus +tress- parka -- 7 -sJ -A -Lac -a #ion -arid Uses- Business -parks may be developed in areas designated for them.. Business parks are to accommodate - research and development and -light manufacturing-in-a-cam pus- like setting, They should- provide high quality design- -of- public and private facilities. Land designated for a business park- should -not be further divided- or developed until the City annexes, the area and approves a master-plan-for-the business park. Attachment 1 7.9.1 1 ❑ Style I ❑ Clarity 1 ❑ Currency 10 Relocate [ 0 Complete I ❑ Relevance I ❑ Resources Relocated to new uses and standard table (Table 1). 7: g:2: --- Building - Intensity Building IGGation and intensity standards will be provided On a speGifiG pIaR for eaGh business part The ratio of huMino floor oree to site area 6hall not exceed 1.0. The Zoning Reoulotione. building height and let Geverage, and rninimum setbacks frorn streets other property I; ;e6, as well as procedwes for eXeept;ens to such standards in special oirG rnstanoeo rl Ainllin riqay he provided only as retaker n ertere. OF art of n speCially eppmve 4aixed use de;,f °clop+ #fie eppfoprlate4es4ential - deity- weL4k"e --set sid ing the max'mum res'deRtial density allowed on aRy neighboring residential area. (A'sE), see thP- res'denfial sedion for POI!GieG on density bonuses for affordable heu6ing+ Policies 7.9.2 [ ❑ Style I ❑ Clarity I ❑ Currency IV Relocate Relocated to new uses and standard table (Table 1). ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources PROGRAMS 7:-0-.3---- Specific -Plan- Attachment I Prog.7.10 10 Style 10 Clarity I ❑ Currency I ❑ Relocate 0 Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources The Airport Area Specific Plan has been completed and adopted. 7.10 Airline Service and Impacts The City will shall continue to work with the County and regional airlines to assure that regional airline services are continued and expanded to adequately serve the needs of the population in the service area of the airport, and - conditions -in -the-vicrinity -of— the - airport are ,.,,.,stem will + r4rG Fiat*E)n Clement p0liGies Prog.7.11 10 Style 10 Clarity 10 Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete 0 Relevance ❑ Resources Policy has been refocused to address airline service. It is not necessary for policy to require compliance with another element. 7.11 Growth Management The City will annex the Airport area denoted in the Airport Area Specific Plan and accommodate incremental development consistent with the growth management policies, including those concerning adequacy of resources and services and development paying its own way. Pro . 7.12 ❑ Style 10 Clarity 1 ❑ Edited to clarify applicability to AASP. ❑ Relocate 7.12 Open Space Dedication and In -lieu Fees In approving development proposals, the City will assure that Airport Area properties noted in the Air ort Area S ecific Plan secure protection for any on -site resources as identified in the Conservation and Open Space Element. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City's southerly urban reserve line. The City shall set fee levels that would be appropriate in- lieu of open space dedication. Prog.7.13 111 Style 10 Clarity 10 Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete 0 Relevance ❑ Resources Edited to clarify applicability to AASP. NEW POLICY 7.13 County Airport Land Use Plan The Citv shall continue to work with the County Airport Land Use Commission to strive to achieve consistency between the County Airport Land Use Plan and the City's General Plan. If consistency cannot be achieved, the City shall preserve and maintain as a plausibje alternative its constitutional land use and statutory authority to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission with regard to adopting General Plan policies that are consistent with the purposes of the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Attachment 1 State Aeronautics Act and State Law,., Ap.pli_cable. sections of th.e. Zoning Regulations and Sp,ecific_Pl.ans, shall be amended accordingly. _ NEW ❑ Style ❑ Clarity I ❑ Currency ❑ Relocate ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance ❑ Resources NEW PROGRAMS 7.14 Airport Overlay Zone The City shalt create an Air or# Overlay Zone category to cvdi airport compatibility criteria identified in the cteneralplan for those areas located within the A T rt Influence Area consistent with the to rements of tide_ California..State Aeronautics Act_{CaI Pub. Utilities Code. Section 21670, et. sea.) which establishes stale_wide - requirements for airpyrt_fand _ use compatibility piar�ning. the California__ Airport Land Use Planning__ Handbook_ which is . published bar the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics to support and amplify the State Aeronautics Act requirements, and rather related federal and state requirements rela #r "n to airport land use comp ibilit tannin . lm lementation of the comp a ibilit Iicies will be accomplished Lhrough the Abort Land Use and Zoning Code. NEW O Slvle O Clarity D Currency D Relocate I D Complete D Relevance O Resources 7.15 Airport Land Use and Zoning Code The City shall update its Zoning Regulations to address allowable uses and de_yglggment standards for areas located within the Airport Influence Area consistent with the requirements of the State Aeronautics Act, Caltrans Handbook and related state and federal requirements relating to airport land use compatibility. These development standards will include, but not limited to, intensity and density limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations and other hazards to flight, noise insulation requirements, buyer awareness measures, nonconforming uses and reconstruction and the process for airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City consistent these development standards. NEW O Style 10 Clarity D Currency D Relocate D Complete D Relevance D Resources 10 Other Input Circulation Element Input Introduction. Goals and Modal Split Objectives Pages 2 -7 through 2 -11 Attachment 2 Page 2-8: 1.5 Transportation goals 5 Make the Downtown city more functional and enjoyable for pedestrians, especially in areas with high volume pedestrian traffic, including the Downtown. Page 2 -9 1.6 Encourage Better Transportation Habits 2 Ask the San Luis Ob spo Regional r fanspeftatio n g o Encourage SLOCOG and SLORTA to establish an objective... Page 2-9 1.7 Promote Alternative Forms of Transportation 1 Complete a network .....of the city by 2000 2035 Page 2-9 1.8 Manage Traffic Eliminate 9 (this is covered in Chapter 7 of the LUE) Tr of fic_keduc•tion Pages 2 -12 through 2 -14 Page 2.0.3 The City shall encourage employers within the city limits to participate in trip reduction programs and also work with the County to work with employers outside „r the City limits to encourage employers located outside the City to also participate in such programs. Transit Service Pages 2 -15 through 2 -I8 Page 2 -17 3.1.3 The City will maintain a downtown trolley service as part of its overall transit system as funding permits. Page 2-17 3.1.7 Consolidated Regional Transit Center. The City shall work with other agencies to develop a regional transit center downtown. Bicycle Transportation Pages 2 -18 through 2 -22 Page 2-18 4.0.3 The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify an Qu additional rights of way as become available. Pa eg_2 -22 New program: The City should consider a bicycle licensing program to address bicycle loss and theft problems. 11 Other Input Attachment 2 Walking Pages 2 -22 throu h 2 -24 Page 2-24 5.1.2 The —For areas outside of the Downtown, the City will ptir!tte shall implement its program for the installation of sidewalks to eample+° a continuous and connected pedestrian network, giving areas with the heaviest pedestrian traffic priority in funding. Traffic Management Pages 2 -28 through 2 -34 Page 2-29 7.0.4 In order to increase support for non - automobile travel, the City shall strive to allocate transportation funding across various modes taking into account to the modal split objectives for 2035 as shown-in Figure 1. Page 2 -30 7.1.9 The City shall develop and adopt guidelines that implement Policy 7.0.4 prior to the 2015 -17 Financial Plan. In meeting the " " goal of the polite the guidelines may take into consideration such factors as the need for multi -year planning and budgeting, the reca itimthat projects may benefit multiple modes, that non -city funding sources may be used to meet or exceed the objectives for particular modes, that some extraordinary capital projects (e.g. major interchange improvements ) may be identified as special cases that emergencies or threat to public health or safety may require special treatment, and that certain enterprise and special funds may be restricted to use for specific modes. Neighborhood Traffic Management Pages 2 -35 through 2 -40 Page 2 -37 8.1.3 When este by ° ghbefhoods, The City shall analyze residential streets shall be ^naly-z�for their livability with regards to traffic noise, volumes and speed, as well as the volume of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Traffic calming or other intervening measures may be necessary to maintain the resident's quality of life. Page Figure 3. Add Neighborhoods near Cal Poly as Traffic Management Areas. Street Network Changes Pages 2 -41 through 2 -48 Page 2 -46 The City shall implement closures to off and on ramps as recommended by Cal Trans, where appropriate. (see 2 -47 chart) Page _2 -42 9.1.2 The sponsors of development projects that contribute to the need for the Prado Road interchange or overpass (project C.1) will be required to prepare or fund the preparation of a Project Study Report for the interchange or overpass project. The Project Study Report shall meet the requirements of the California Department of Transportation. Page 2 -43 9.1.5 San Luis Ranch (formerly Dalidio Development. As part of any proposal to further develop the San Luis Ranch (formerly Dalidio Area, the alignment and design of extensions of Froom Ranch Way 12 Other Input Attachment 2 and Calle Joaquin connecting with Prado Road (west of Route 101) shall be evaluated and established, if consistent with the Calle Joaquin Master Plan and approved specific plan. Truck Transportation Pages 2 -49 through 2 -51 Page 2-49 10.0.1 The City shall require STA -sized and CA legal trucks to use the City's truck routes as designated in Figure 5 and actively patrol trucks cutting through neighborhoods. Air Transportation Pales 2 -52 through 2 -54 Page Endorse PC deletion of 11.0.2 through 11.0.4 (including partial policy 7.2.3) Page 11.0.1 The City shall support and encourage expansion of air transportation services in compliance with the adopted San Luis Obispo County Airport Master Plan. Page 2 -53 11.0.5 The City should eneaufage shall work with the County to continue to address aircraft operations so that noise and safety problems are not created in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use Element, consistent with the California State Aeronautics Act. Page 2 -54 11.1.4 Delete, as did the Planning Commission Rail Transportation Paves 2 -55 through 2 -56 Page 2-55 Introduction The S°uthefft--Union Pacific Transportation Gempan-y—jRailroad owns and maintains a railroad tracks that extends through the county. Pie 2 -55 12.0.1 T Passenger Rail Service (heading) Page 12.0.2 The City shall support regional, State and... Page 2-55 12.0.3. Train Station and Transit Service Connections (heading) The City shall work with the Train Station management to upgrade the facility and visitor services, and shall provide transit service to and from the Train Station in accordance with its Short Range Transit Plan. Page g -55 12.0.4 The City supports using the railroad right -of -way to help meet multimodal inter -city intra -city transportation needs. Page 12.1.1 The City supports maintaining and increasing daily train service.... NEW Freight Rail Service 13 Other Input Attachment 2 The City shall advocate the improvement of safety and inspection standards for freight cars, which are often used by freight trains to transport hazardous materials through the City. NEW Idling trains Trains should turn off motors when parked. The City will work with the Air Pollution Control Board to address strategies for reducing air pollution from idling trains. Circulation Element Implementation and Program Funding Pages 2- 64through 2 -66 Page 16.0.4 Funding for street projeets and parking struetures shall n Reword as follows: Utilization of General Fund resources for street projects shall take into account the City's commitment to fund its alternative mode programs or projects. Page NEW POLICY The City shall encourage SLOCOG to consider initiating a county wide revenue measure devoted to local transportation funding on the basis of population, so that San Luis Obispo County becomes a "self- help" county. 14 MEMORANDUM City of San Luis Obispo- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: January 13, 2014 TO: Mayor & Council VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manager FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Land Use and Circulation Element Update – Task Force Motions with Meeting Dates The Task Force took action both through consensus and through motions as they reviewed and edited the draft Land Use and Circulation Elements. The Council requested Task Force votes be provided for context as the Council considers the draft elements. The attached document updates the agenda correspondence previously provided with dates the motions were made (highlighted after each item) so that minutes from the respective Task Force meeting may be referenced where desired. Please contact Kim Murry at kmurry@slocity.org with any questions. Received January 13, 2014 SLO City Clerk Agenda Correspondence Date: 1/7, 1/14, 1/28 Item: PH1 LUCE Task Force Motions 2 Table of Contents Task Force Motions – Land Use Element .............................................3 Introduction and Goals ............................................................................................................................. 3 Land Use Designations .............................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1 – Growth Management............................................................................................................ 7 Chapter 2 – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods .......................................... 7 Chapter 3 – Commercial & Industrial Development Policies ................................................................... 9 Chapter 4 – Downtown ........................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 5 – Public & Cultural Facilities................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 6 – Resource Protection ............................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 7 – Airport Area ........................................................................................................................ 15 Chapter 8 – Special Focus Areas ............................................................................................................. 16 Chapter 9 - Sustainability ........................................................................................................................ 20 Chapter 10 – Healthy Community .......................................................................................................... 21 Task Force Motions – Circulation Element ........................................ 22 Chapter 1: Introduction, Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2 – Traffic Reduction ................................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3 – Transit Service ..................................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 4 – Bicycle Transportation ........................................................................................................ 27 Chapter 5 - Walking ................................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 6 – Multi-modal Circulation (replaces Chapter 8, Traffic Flow) ................................................ 28 Chapter 7 (Chapter 6 in TF version) – Traffic Management ................................................................... 29 Chapter 8 (Chapter 7 in TF version) – Neighborhood Traffic Management ........................................... 30 Chapter 9 – Street Network Changes ..................................................................................................... 30 Chapter 10 – Truck Transportation ........................................................................................................ 31 Chapter 11 – Air Transportation ............................................................................................................. 31 The Task Force made no changes to this section. .................................................................................. 31 Chapter 12 – Rail Transportation ........................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 13– Parking Management ......................................................................................................... 32 Chapter 14 – Neighborhood Parking Management ............................................................................... 32 The Task Force approved this section as proposed. ............................................................................... 32 Chapter 15– Scenic Roadways ................................................................................................................ 32 Chapter 16– Circ. Element Implementation ........................................................................................... 32 LUCE Task Force Motions 3 Task Force Motions – Land Use Element September 18, 2013 – December 10, 2013 Introduction and Goals On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Richardson, to approve the LUE Introduction and Goals as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Richardson, to approve the following existing wording for the last paragraph of the Introduction: “Policies in the Land Use Element and the General Plan Land Use Diagram are designed to be consistent and complementary with all other General Plan elements.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 11:2 vote. Community Values On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to send this section back to staff for rewriting including presenting the information in bullet points without including conclusions. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Member Brown proposed this new goal: “These policies and programs shall serve as a blueprint, guiding the City and its various entities in priority setting and resource allocation. It is LUCE Task Force Motions 4 understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation, but shall not change the goals and intent.” On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Whitney, to adopt this new goal as part of the LUE update and place it as the second point under Approach to Planning in the Introduction for Community’s Goals. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. City Form – San Luis Obispo should: Goetz suggested: “Create compact mixed use neighborhoods that locate housing, jobs, recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to each other.” Member Rademaker added “maintain existing and….” On motion by Member Goetz, and seconded by Member Crotser, to insert this language in the City Form section. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Rowley, Saunders and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 10:3 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Rademaker, to add a new bullet to Community’s Goals, Environment about encouraging energy efficiency and practices in the City’s urban design. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the remainder of the section as amended and with the direction given to staff. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force member Rowley RECUSED: None LUCE Task Force Motions 5 ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 12:1 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the following sections of the Introduction to the Land Use Element in the December 10, 2013, Transmittal Memorandum as amended: Public Participation, Background to the 1994 Land Use Element, Background to the 2014 Land Use Element, Community Values, Preamble to the Land Use Element and San Luis Obispo’s Vision. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Land Use Designations Figure 1: County Land Use Designations Map (p.4) and Land Use Designations Outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area (pp. 34-36) On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to eliminate any reference to density for this county open space land. AYES: Task Force Members Crotser, Juhnke, Rademaker, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Quaglino, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion failed on a 4:9 vote. On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Brown to define a maximum density for each area, indicate that there is a presumption of no housing in open space, and place UOS after UAG in the chart on pages 34-36 of the December 10, 2013, Transmittal Memo. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 6 On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to approve as presented the County Land Use Designations Map (p.4 of the Transmittal) and Land Use Designations Outside the LUCE Planning Sub-area (pp. 34-36 of the Transmittal) with the amendments made in the prior motion. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. On a motion by Task Force Member Brown, seconded by Member Bremer, to support the organization of land use designations into a table format as shown in the draft Land Use Element. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion by Task Force Member Juhnke, seconded by Member Crotser to support the density increase in Medium High Density Residential from 18 du/acre to 20 du/acre. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino ABSTAIN: Task Force member Rowley DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 11:0 vote with one abstention. On a motion by Task Force Member Rademaker, seconded by Membe r Whitney to not support minimum densities for Medium and High Density Residential land use designations. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: Committee Member Crotser RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 11:1 vote LUCE Task Force Motions 7 Chapter 1 – Growth Management On a motion by Task Force Member Meyer, seconded by Member Bremer to delete Policy 1.4 (Jobs-Housing Relationship). AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On a motion by Task Force Member Brown, seconded by Member Goetz to approve the Growth Management Chapter with revisions and direction as noted. AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino DATE: 11-6-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. Chapter 2 – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Brown to revise the introduction to read: The City shall preserve, protect, and enhance the City’s neighborhoods and strive to preserve and enhance their identity and promote a higher quality of life within each neighborhood. AYES: Committee Members Rowley, Meyer, Saunders, Crotser, Richardson, and Bremer NOES: Committee Members Dandekar and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 6:2 vote. On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Rowley to put in additional language to describe housing types, replace “vibrant” with “quality” and remove next to last bullet on page 1-52 that refers to network of facilities. AYES: Committee Members Crotser, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: Committee Members Bremer, Dandekar, Richardson, Whitney, and Meyer LUCE Task Force Motions 8 RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion fails on a 3:5 vote. On a motion by Task Force Member Dandekar, seconded by Member Bremer to put in additional language to describe housing types and replace “vibrant” with “quality” but to retain the bullet item referring to interconnectedness. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Richardson, Whitney, and Meyer. NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT:Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke. DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passes on a 6:2 vote. On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Bremer to endorse Policy 2.2.1 language as proposed in draft element. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Richardson, Whitney, and Meyer NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT:Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passes on a 6:2 vote. On a motion by Task Force Member Crotser, seconded by Member Richardson to endorse Policy 2.2.9 language as proposed in draft element with revisions to subsection I and E and correction to citation in subsection H as discussed. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Richardson, and Meyer NOES: Committee Members Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passes on a 5:3 vote. On motion by Committee Member Richardson, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to support the new policy 2.4.2 with a minor revision to remove the word “significantly” on line two of the policy. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Meyer, and Richardson NOES: Committee Member Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke. DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 5:3 vote LUCE Task Force Motions 9 On motion by Committee Member Richardson, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to support the new policy 2.4.2 with a minor revision to remove the word “significantly” on line two of the policy. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Meyer, and Richardson NOES: Committee Member Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 5:3 vote. On motion by Committee Member Richardson, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to support the Policy 2.5.2 as proposed in the legislative draft. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Meyer, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Committee Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Saunders ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 6:1 vote (Saunders abstained). On motion by Committee Member Dandekar, seconded by Committee Member Crotser to approve the Residential Neighborhood chapter with changes as noted throughout the Task Force discussion. AYES: Committee Members Rowley, Meyer, Saunders, Crotser, Richardson, Dandekar, Whitney, and Bremer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Brown, Rossi, Goetz, Quaglino, Multari, Rademaker, and Juhnke DATE: 11-7-2013 The motion passed on a 8:0 vote Chapter 3 – Commercial & Industrial Development Policies On motion by Member Rossi, seconded by Member Quaglino, to develop a program to allow visitor-serving uses in office zones adjacent to commercial properties in the Downtown and Monterey Street. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Multari, Quaglino, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 LUCE Task Force Motions 10 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion by Member Whitney, seconded by Member Brown, to remove the reference to “sea cruises” in 3.9.8.D. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Crotser, Dandekar, Quaglino, and Rossi RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 The motion passed on an 8:4 vote. On motion by Member Rossi, seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the Commercial and Industrial Development section of the Land Use Element with the modifications agreed to above. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to approve all of the Commercial & Industrial Development changes, except CI 4, listed on page 19 of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve CI 4 as presented on page 19 of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 11 Chapter 4 – Downtown On motion by Member Multari, seconded by Member Crotser, to use language in 4.1 that states, “Entertainment facilities such as nightclubs and theaters shall only be in the Downtown.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Dandekar and Quaglino ABSTAINED: Task Force Member Rossi RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Juhnke, Rademaker, and Richardson DATE: 11-14-2013 The motion passed on a 9:2 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Quaglino, to delete the fourth bullet point in 4.3 and have staff reformulate the sunlight guidelines, motion also to include direction regarding word changes of “well-lit” and “interesting.” AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Juhnke, to approve the following wording for 4.11: “Downtown development nearby publicly-owned gathering places shall respect views of the hills. In other locations Downtown, views will be provided parallel to the street right-of-way, at intersections where building separation naturally makes more views available, and at upper-level viewing decks.” AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Meyer, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 8:5 vote. On motion by Member Goetz, seconded by Member Juhnke, to add a bullet point to 4.14.4 about proximity of housing to convenient transit connections. AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Rademaker, Richardson, and Rossi, NOES: Task Force Members Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney LUCE Task Force Motions 12 RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 9:4 vote. On motion by Member Rossi, seconded by Member Multari, to make two changes to the first paragraph of 4.14.4 Building Height: 1) replace “set back” with “step back”, 2) replace “60 feet” with “50 feet”, 3) remove “vertical” from the first sentence, and 4) replace “shall not obstruct” with “shall respect” in the second sentence. AYES: Task Force Members, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker , Richardson, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Meyer, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 7:6 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, seconded by Member Juhnke, to approve the Programs section with the above noted changes. AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 11-20-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to put a period after “late night drinking establishments” and delete the list of criteria in DT 7. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: Task Force Member Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 12:1 vote. On motion by Member Quaglino, and seconded by Member Crotser, to replace “shall consider” with “shall” in DT 8. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson LUCE Task Force Motions 13 DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 11:2 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the remaining items in the Downtown section of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting as presented with the exception of replacing “over” with “rather than” in DT 2. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve the Safety-related Policies and Programs section on pages 3-4 of the Transmittal Memorandum for this meeting with these changes: 1) the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design program to read as suggested above, 2) the order of the bullets in the same program be changed so that “Visibility into entry and access points on non-residential buildings” be the first bullet, 3) that the next program will read “The City, working with the Downtown Association, businesses, landlords and residents will develop emergency callboxes at strategic locations in the Downtown” and 4) adding a program that states “The City, working with the Downtown Association, Downtown businesses, and residents shall develop a program to encourage lighted storefronts and street frontages throughout the night.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 5 – Public & Cultural Facilities On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Crotser, to change the wording of 5.8 to read “The City shall continue to encourage inclusion of public art in all projects as appropriate.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None LUCE Task Force Motions 14 ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the policies and programs in the Public and Cultural Facilities chapter as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 6 – Resource Protection On motion by Member Juhnke, and second by Member Brown, to approve 6.3.1.1 Madonna Inn Area as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. On motion by Member Quaglino, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve 6.2.7.J and 6.2.7.K as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Multari ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the Resource Protection chapter as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi LUCE Task Force Motions 15 DATE: 11-25-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, seconded by Member Quaglino to replace the words “previously developed” with “urbanized” in the first paragraph and to delete A-D in the existing policy. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve Resource Protection programs as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 7 – Airport Area On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Juhnke, to refer proposed updates to policies 7.1. and 7.2, and the two added policies to the Council with the statement as follows: The Task Force supports the City Council’s efforts to have fact base d consideration of noise and safety zones and recommends the Council consider the proposed airport policies and their legal ramifications. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Brown, to include the County Airport Land Use Plan program with the previous four policies discussed earlier for consideration at the City Council level. LUCE Task Force Motions 16 AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Rossi, to approve the rest of the airport chapter as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 8 – Special Focus Areas On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the language about the CalFire/Cal Poly property, North side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll), and the Alrita properties as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. 8.2.1 Foothill Boulevard/Santa Rosa Area On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Richardson, to approve the section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 13:1 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 17 Mid-Higuera, Madonna Inn Area, Sunset Drive-in Theatre Area, Pacific Beach Site, Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area, LOVR Creekside Area, Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site On motion by Task Force Member Rossi, and seconded by Task Force Member Quaglino, to approve the above sections as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Interim Open Space zoning On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Richardson, to endorse the approach to replace the Interim Open Space zoning with policy direction as part of Special Focus areas for all the properties except the Alrita property and the property on the north side of Foothill. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on an 11:2 vote. Introduction On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Special Focus Areas introduction section as amended to include the addition of “environmental site constraints” to A, and to split the last paragraph on page 1-123 into two with the second paragraph beginning, “The additional special planning areas…”. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 10:2 vote. Margarita Area Specific Plan On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Crotser, to revise the MASP section to state, “The City shall consider the Margarita Area Specific Plan as potentially appropriate for additional residential development.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney LUCE Task Force Motions 18 NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. DALIDIO Chart On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Bremer, to change the chart to allow 500 maximum units for housing, leave the commercial at 200,000 sq. ft. maximum, change office to office/high tech, remove maximum acreage for parks, allow visitor serving up to 150 rooms, change bullets to letters, change community serving to neighborhood commercial, and provide clarifying language regarding Prado Road infrastructure . AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. DALIDIO On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Whitney, that offsite mitigations for the 50% open space not be allowed. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion failed on a 4:9 vote. DALIDIO Chart On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Richardson, to add a footnote to the chart stating that in appropriate circumstances it may be acceptable to substitute not more than ten percent of required open space off -site. AYES: Task Force Members Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Meyer, Multari, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion failed on a 5:8 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 19 DALIDIO Chart On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to add a footnote to the chart stating that in appropriate circumstances it may be acceptable to substitute not more than a small portion of on-site open space for offsite open space. AYES: Task Force Members Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Richardson NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Dandekar, Meyer, Multari, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion failed on a 6:7 vote. UPPER MONTEREY On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Whitney, to approve recommended wording changes for 8.2.2 and include safety to the list of items to be addressed in a master plan, and inclusion of residents in adjoining areas as well as business and property owners in developing the master plan for the area . AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. UPPER MONTEREY On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Juhnke, to include evaluation of Ordinance 1130 as part of the master plan and design guideline development. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown and Rossi DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Madonna on LOVR On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Juhnke, to delete the percentages for 8.1.5 except the 50% for open space/agriculture and assign the designation CN/CR. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None LUCE Task Force Motions 20 ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown, Rossi and Saunders DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 11:1 vote. Avila Ranch On motion by Member Multari, and seconded by Member Junke to add a bullet point to indicate provision of a neighborhood park, to modify the Airport Area Specific Plan to either exclude the area or designate it as a special planning area with the AASP, to remove the percentages, make this area plan consistent with others by providing for a minimum 50% for open space/agricultural but include an asterisk noting that up to one-third may be provided offsite or through in lieu fees consistent with the Airport Specific Plan, open space requirement can be reduced to 30% if RHNA housing affordability levels are met on -site, shorten the first bullet point with a period after “affordability levels,” add “open space” on the first line of the third bullet. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: Task Force Member Richardson ABSENT: Task Force Members Brown, Rossi, Rowley and Saunders DATE: 11-26-2013 The motion passed on a 11:0 vote. Chapter 9 - Sustainability On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Quaglino, to approve this section as amended, with the exception of the preamble and 9.6. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve adoption of the preamble and 9.6 as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Crotser DATE: 12-4-2013 LUCE Task Force Motions 21 The motion passed on a 13:1 vote. Chapter 10 – Healthy Community On motion by Member Meyer, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the Healthy Community chapter including a new clean air policy and a program to develop a resource guide to facilitate design that promotes healthy and active lifestyles. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 12:1 vote. On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve the Review and Amendment and Implementation sections as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Rossi DATE: 12-5-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 22 Task Force Motions – Circulation Element September 18, 2013 – December 10, 2013 Chapter 1: Introduction, Goals and Objectives On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the following new goal in the Circulation Element: Introduction, Goals, and Objectives: “Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all circulation modes.” AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve modification of the modal share splits to be 50% for vehicles, 10% for public transit, 20% for bicycles and 20% for walking, car pools and other forms; and also to direct staff to provide more data to the Planning Commission. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Dandekar, Juhnke, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 9:5 vote. Members Juhnke and Saunders stated that their no vote is based on frustration about not having the data to back up the modal splits. Member Saunders stated that she regretted not having the opportunity to vote just on the bicycle share. On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve Figure 1 Modal Split Objectives as presented except for the changes to the modal split approved in the last motion. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Dandekar, Juhnke, Richardson, Rowley, and Whitney RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Multari DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 8:5 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 23 Chapter 2 – Traffic Reduction On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Rowley, to not delete the first sentence in the Introduction on page 2-12. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 13-0 vote. On motion by Committee Member Multari, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to accept the recommended changes in wording for 2.0.1 Multi-level Programs. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: Committee Members Rowley and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-2 vote. On motion by Committee Member Rowley, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to support the recommended changes but to remove the wording “when appropriate” from 2.0.2 Flexible Work Schedules. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Committee Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on an 11-3 vote. On motion by Committee Member Multari, seconded by Committee Member Brown to amend the draft language to “The City shall encourage employers within the city limits to work with the County to encourage employers outside the City limits to participate in trip - reduction programs, including commuter benefit options to reduce the amount of commuters who drive alone in their vehicles. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney LUCE Task Force Motions 24 NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 13-0 vote (Rossi abstained; Crotser absent). On motion by Committee Member Rademaker, seconded by Committee Member Juhnke, to accept the proposed wording for 2.0.4 Downtown Congestion with the addition of the language “establish and” prior to the word “promote.” AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 14-0 vote (Crotser absent). On motion by Committee Member Juhnke, seconded by Committee Member Bremer, to use the following language in 2.1.1: “The City shall participate and cooperate with county agency efforts in establishing countywide trip-reduction programs.” AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Members Rossi and Whitney ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-0 vote (Rossi and Whitney abstained; Crotser absent). On motion by Committee Member Rowley, seconded by Committee Member Rademaker, to accept the recommended deletion to the wording of 2.1.2 Average Vehicle Ridership. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney. NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Members Brown and Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-0 vote (Brown and Rossi abstained; Crotser absent). LUCE Task Force Motions 25 On motion by Committee Member Quaglino, seconded by Committee Member Brown, to approve recommended changes for 2.1.3 Trip Reduction. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Brown, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Rossi ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 13-0 vote (Rossi abstained; Crotser absent). On motion by Committee Member Multari, seconded by Committee Member Richardson, to approve the following wording for 2.1.4 City Trip Reduction: Th e City shall maintain and, where cost effective, improve its trip-reduction plan for City employees. AYES: Committee Members Bremer, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyers, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, and Saunders NOES: Committee Member Whitney RECUSED: None ABSTAIN: Committee Member Brown ABSENT: Committee Member Crotser DATE: 9-18-2013 The motion passed on a 12-1 vote (Brown abstained; Crotser absent). On motion by Comm. Member Saunders, seconded by Comm. Member Rademaker, to retain the references to air quality in 2.0.5 with original language. AYES: Task Force Members Brown, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney NOES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rossi, and Meyer RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion failed on a 5:10 vote. On motion by Member Juhnke to recommend language for 2.0.5 as follows: The City will support programs that reduce traffic congestion and maintain air quality. If air quality degrades below legal standards, or level of service (LOS) standards are exceeded, the City will pursue more stringent measures to achieve its transportation goals. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, and Whitney NOES: Task Force Member Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 LUCE Task Force Motions 26 The motion passed on a 14:1 vote. Chapter 3 – Transit Service On motion by Task Force Member Brown, and seconded by Task Force Member Quaglino, to support the Transit Services section revisions as discussed with the exception of Program 3.1.3. AYES: Members Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Members Bremer, Juhnke, and Rossi DATE: 10-2-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion by Task Force Member Brown, and seconded by Task Force Member Crotser, to support Program 3.1.3 as written. AYES: Members Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Members Bremer, Juhnke, and Rossi DATE: 10-2-2013 The motion passed on an 11:1 vote. On motion by Member Brown, seconded by Member Rademaker, to approve 3.0.6 as presented (with correction of letter assignments A-D under 3.0.6). AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 27 Chapter 4 – Bicycle Transportation On motion by Task Force Member Quaglino, and seconded by Task Force Member Brown, to support the Bicycle Transportation policies revisions as discussed. AYES: Committee Members Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Bremer, Juhnke, and Rossi DATE: 10-2-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. Task Force members revised Policy 4.0.3 in light of the discussions and agreed to add language to 4.0.3: The City shall collaborate with SLO County to coordinate planning and development of county bikeways to support a regional bike network and identify and acquire additional rights of way as they become available. On motion by Task Force Member Quaglino, and seconded by Task Force Member Rademaker, to approve the programs discussed and agreed upon in 4.1 and the revised policy 4.0.3. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. On motion Member Rossi, seconded by Member Brown, to recommend deletion of 4.0.7 and the addition of the new program and the two new policies listed above. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 28 Chapter 5 - Walking On motion by Member Juhnke, and seconded by Member Bremer, to approve the policies and programs in Section 5 as discussed and agreed upon. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. As allowed by the American with Disabilities Act, the City shall consider existing neighborhood character, including topography, street design, existing density, and connectivity when identifying and prioritizing the installation of sidewalks . On motion by Member Saunders, seconded by Member Brown to use Member Multari’s language listed above for this new policy. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. Chapter 6 – Multi-modal Circulation (replaces Chapter 8, Traffic Flow) On motion by Member Rowley, seconded by Member Juhnke, to change the minimum LOS standard for bicycles from C to D and add this word “shall” before “maintain level of service minimums” in Policy 6.0.B. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: Brown and Meyer RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 13:2 vote. On motion by Member Rademaker, seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the footnote language as amended for Table 6.0.1 as follows: LUCE Task Force Motions 29 Exceptions to minimum pedestrian LOS objectives & standards may apply when it is determined that sidewalks are not consistent with neighborhood character, including topography, street design, and existing density. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 15:0 vote. On motion by Member Juhnke, seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Multimodal Priorities section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Richardson, Rademaker, Rowley, Saunders and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Member Rossi DATE: 10-30-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Chapter 7 (Chapter 6 in TF version) – Traffic Management On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rademaker, to remove “desired” where it appears in the Circulation Element description table. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Rossi, to approve the Description and Standards for Figure 2 with the following changes: retain the sentences struck out in Note 1, add wording to indicate that the traffic counts are done when schools are in session, correct the end of the last sentence in Note 1 to read “up to 15%,” delete “desired” in the Circulation Element table, and define the street segments of Broad Street. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None LUCE Task Force Motions 30 DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Chapter 8 (Chapter 7 in TF version) – Neighborhood Traffic Management On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve section 7 as amended and with those sections referenced that will return for further discussion at a future meeting. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Policy 8.1.2 On motion by Member Richardson, and seconded by Member Dandekar, to delete the new policy and replace it with the first sentence of the old language: “The City will undertake measures to control traffic in residential areas where traffic speeds or volumes exceed standards set by policy 5.2. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Dandekar, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Quaglino, Rademaker, Richardson, Rossi, Rowley, Saunders, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: None DATE: 12-10-2013 The motion passed on a 14:0 vote. Chapter 9 – Street Network Changes On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Rowley, to approve Section 9 as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. LUCE Task Force Motions 31 Chapter 10 – Truck Transportation (Policies are numbered 9 in TF-LUCE draft) On motion by Member Brown, and seconded by Member Rowley, to approve Section 9 as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz , Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 11 – Air Transportation The Task Force made no changes to this section. Chapter 12 – Rail Transportation On motion by Member Quaglino, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Rail Transportation section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: Task Force Member Rowley RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on an 11:1 vote. Member Rowley stated she voted no because she does not believe the intent of the word “support” in 10.0.2 is clear. LUCE Task Force Motions 32 Chapter 13– Parking Management On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the Parking Management section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney, Rademaker, and Meyer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar, Richardson, and Rossi DATE: 10-16-2013 The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. Chapter 14 – Neighborhood Parking Management The Task Force approved this section as proposed. Chapter 15– Scenic Roadways On motion by Member Rademaker, and seconded by Member Crotser, to approve the Scenic Roadways as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rowley, Saunders, Rademaker, Rossi, and Whitney NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 13:0 vote. Chapter 16– Circ. Element Implementation On motion by Member Crotser, and seconded by Member Brown, to approve the Circulation Element Implementation and Management section as amended. AYES: Task Force Members Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Meyer, Multari, Quaglino, Rademaker, and Rossi NOES: Task Force Members Rowley, Whitney, and Saunders RECUSED: None ABSENT: Task Force Members Dandekar and Richardson DATE: 10-17-2013 The motion passed on a 10:3 vote. JAN 14 2014 Kovesdi Consulting Land Use & Environment "Building Legacies" January 14, 2014 AGENDA To: City Council Members ORRESPONDENCE From: Rachel Kovesdi D.��Item# i Re: Dalidio (San Luis Ranch) Open Space /Agriculture ;2-01 L/ We are asking your Council to incorporate a provision to consider a small portion of the required Open Space /Agriculture to be relocated off -site, through the Specific Plan process. We believe that it is in the City's best interest, as well as the project's, to keep doors open to creative planning options. Please consider: • The City Council should maintain its discretion through the Specific Plan process to consider alternatives in order to balance City goals and objectives. • We are NOT requesting a reduction in total acreage or percentage of this component, only the opportunity to analyze whether there is more valuable open space that the City may want to preserve, in addition to the on -site ag /open space component. • The current conceptual site plan maintains 66.5 contiguous acres of organic farmland (to be operated with SLO City Farm). • When the LUCE Task Force deliberated on this issue, only two of its members were specifically against relocating any portion of the ag /open space component off -site. The other members determined that maximum acreage off -site, mitigation ratio, type and locations of land appropriate for consideration are policy questions for the Planning Commission and City Council to determine during Specific Plan process. • The City's Natural Resource Manager has identified a number of properties that may be more valuable to the City than additional acreage on the project site. The Planning Commission and City Council will have full discretion as to whether any of the potential options and multipliers presented are sufficiently valuable to allow for the relocation of a small percentage of the project site's ag /open space. • The LUCE EIR should include an option for a small portion (up to 10 acres or 15% of the required ag /open space) to be located off -site - even if that alternative is ultimate rejected - so that comprehensive information is available during a joint City Council /Planning Commission pre -app study session for the project's Specific Plan. • We 're requesting that the following language be inserted in the Performance Standards: "A small portion of on -site open spate /agriculture (up to 10 acres or 15% of the required ag /open space) may be relocated off -site by the City Council through Specific Plan approval." Kremke, Kate JAN 14 2014 From: Goodwin, Heather Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:42 AM To: Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: City Council LUCE item on 1 -14 -14 agenda AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Agenda correspondence Date !/ Item# Begin forwarded message: ) V, From: James Lopes <jameslopeskcharter.net> Date: January 14, 2014 at 10:39:22 AM PST To: Anthony Mejia <amejiakslocity.or > Cc: Heather Goodwin <hgoodwinkslocit y�org >, Kim Murry <kmurrX(a]slocity.org> Subject: City Council LUCE item on 1 -14 -14 agenda Dear Mr. Mejia, I am requesting the City Council to continue the hearing on the Land Use and Circulation Elements on tonight's agenda to a date certain, to afford time for staff to extensively announce the hearing, respond to my and others' comments, and time for council's adequate consideration. Would you please inform the council by copying this email to them? The LUCE has been in the review of a dedicated task force for over 15 meetings, and the Planning Commission held two hearings on the Land Use Element. Although the work of these essential volunteers has to be commended and admired, these meetings were opaque to the public largely and admittedly to me specifically. Task Force topics were bounced around in a confusing manner, and legislative drafts were hard to find. And, the hearing tonight comes right after the busy holiday season. Planning Commission hearings were held right in the middle of the season (Dec. 12 and 16)! This is an important matter, and extensive public outreach is needed beyond city website and email lists. While some articles announced a workshop, this hearing has not had advance warning in the newspaper, unless you are devoted to the legal ads. Being on the LUCE email list, I received an email yesterday about the hearing tonight. The draft LUE was included with the email, so I spent hours commenting on issues in a letter that the council will receive today. However, we know they are not going to be able to analyze, much less have staff review and make recommendations, on all of my comments today. I am requesting the continuance to give time for council to refer all comments to staff for a one to three week review and staff report for a second hearing one month or so from now. This continuance probably would not jeopardize the grant for the LUCE update, which requires a Draft LUE and Draft EIR by June. If this continuance could jeopardize that deadline, I ask that, instead of continuing this hearing, the council "table" the comments it cannot in good conscience consider and act on tonight, until the Land Use Element is reviewed again after the Draft EIR. This review would not only be for EIR mitigations and alternatives, but for late- coming participants and comments that are not in the scope of CEQA requirements for the EIR. Important policies need to be added or reviewed in the Draft LUE, and these 1 salient non -EIR issues should also be addressed in a final round of hearings after the Draft EIR is published. With either approach, the council might want to require that an extensive media outreach effort be made between staff and the newspaper and other outlets, before another hearing. As a former public land use planner, I am aware that general plan updates usually need several hearings to air all concerns and review detailed proposals. This City should embrace that reality and begin outreach especially as the Draft EIR is published, for broader community involvement in a final round of public hearings on all issues. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Jamie Lopes James Lopes 1336 Sweet Bay Lane San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ph. 805 - 781 -8960 2 1336 Sweetbay Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 January 13, 2014 City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 RE: Comments on Planning Commission LUCE recommendation Dear Mayor and Council Members: JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Dates lhyjo 1J 2,x /1 q Please consider my concerns about the recommended Planning Commission Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update below and in the following outline, which uses the legislative draft. The LUCE has gone forward without the analysis that typically precedes a plan update, regarding the existing and planned capacities for growth, the existing plan's anticipated usage of those capacities, and issues that address plan increases in resource and infrastructure usage. Examples are the City's water supplies and the traffic capacities of Highway 101 and other regional roads. Instead, you are being asked to "approve" recommendations that do not have this information or guidance, for what is purported to be a sustainable city plan. A solution would be if the Environmental Setting section of the Draft EIR is utilized to guide a second round of analysis and policy- making, where the existing plan is modified in a Phase 2 of the LUCE update. If this is the presumed approach, it should be made more explicit how the Draft EIR will guide the preparation of a sustainable city plan. More detailed comments follow: GROWTH MANAGEMENT 1. 1.0 Overall I ntent — p. PH 1 -62 a. Add the following preamble paragraph or similar text: "The City intends to retain ample resources and major, costly infrastructure capacity for the use of future generations, for a very long -term horizon of 100 years (approximately seven generations). The City will manage growth within the city boundaries to avoid major environmental and fiscal impacts which could degrade the quality of life of its residents." 2. 1.0.1 Growth Management Objectives — p. PH1 -62 a. Please add an objective D, renumbering accordingly: "D. The City shall minimize increases in commuter traffic on Highway 101 and regional roads that are used for commuting." OR: b. Add an optional objective D, renumbering below it: "D. City growth is balanced to retain the designated safe traffic capacity of Highway 101 and regional roads that are used for commuting." James Lopes January 13, 2014 10. 2.2.5 Neighborhood Pattern — p. PH1 - 81 a. This policy is nonsensical by its omissions. An extensive policy would list the features of a neighborhood as was done for Neighborhood Amenities, and guide the location of these features to create a gradation of density away from arterial streets, focal points for small public spaces and parks and civic uses, neighborhood centers for small -scale retail and office uses, street connections in a frequent grid pattern, and natural area conservation areas, and so on. It may be that the intent with this policy was to encourage street linkages between new and existing neighborhoods: "The City shall require that all new residential development should be integrated physically by streets and other routes with existing neighborhoods... " b. Additional points should be added to address the comments above: "Neighborhoods shall be designed in an urban block pattern with: i. a frequent grid of streets, alleys and other routes, which connect to advacent streets and routes, ii, a downward gradation of housing density away from arterial and collector streets, iii. higher density housing near focal points, schoolss and neighborhood centers; iv. central focal points on streets for small public spaces and parks and civic uses: v. edge locations of small -scale neighborhood centers for retail, office and civic uses; vi. open spaces for natural area conservation, flood control and habitat protection." 3 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 11. 3.2.1 New or Expanded Areas of Neighborhood Commercial Use — p. PH1 - 98 a. Most existing neighborhood centers have no or inadequate pedestrian access through parking lots. This policy needs to address this as the first point, renumbering: "i. Sidewalk access from the street to building and store frontages." POLICIES 12. 8.3.2.4 SP -2, Dalidio Specific Plan Area — p. PH1 — 160 a. The purpose of development on this world -class prime agricultural land, should be to minimize the footprint of development, perhaps even with the City's financial support for expensive infrastructure and structured parking. The project here could be an urban corridor of street - fronting buildings such as located on State Street in Santa Barbara, with parking in structures behind them. This kind of retail and tourist environment could include an internal pedestrian street as seen in The Grove in L.A., or Santana Row in San Jose. This sort of environment would attract the department store(s) and entertainment uses that are desired by many. Policies could encourage the neighboring Promenade property to redevelop with the concept. If this is interesting, the City needs to set the stage for it in these standards: James Lopes January 13, 2014 b. Add the following at the beginning of the Purpose: "This project site should be developed to minimize the loss of prime agricultural soils for intensive farming by minimizing the development area or "footprint." The preferred concept is for a compact corridor of large - scale buildings fronting Dalidio Drive, as a boulevard behind a wide sidewalk environment with rear structured 12arking. Retail entertainment and tourist uses shall integrate and connect well with each other along this boulevard concept. Dalidio Drive, internal streets and paseos are encouraged to execute a robust pedestrian environment. The extent of development should not occur past a line even with the rear of the U.S. Post Office parcel on Madonna Road." Continue with the proposed text. 13. 8.3.2.6 SP -4, Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area — p. PH1 — 163 a. This area is probably too impacted with jet and other airplane noise to be viable under the flight paths of so many planes. The City cannot in good conscience expect people to live inside their houses with windows closed in all weather in order to avoid noise impacts, much less to go out into their yards. This property was thoughtlessly added at the last minute in the County update of the area plan also in 1994. It should be limited to very low intensity, exterior storage yard kinds of industrial uses to minimize a potentially huge employee increase. b. Whether or not it is feasible to develop residential on the Avila property, the specific plan area should be moved or expanded further east on Buckley Road to the corner with Davenport Creek Road. It should include non -prime land between Jesperson Road and Buckley Road. This area should be viewed as the sacrifice area for housing the thousands of existing and future commuting employees to the airport area, to achieve some resemblance of a.job /housing balance in the City's plan and zoning. This concludes my comments. Thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, James Lopes city of SAn luiS OBispO Community Development Department Planning Division January 14, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared by: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Land Use Element update: Updated Resolutions To address potential conflict of interests on the part of Council members, two areas of the Land Use Element will be separately discussed prior to Council consideration of the remainder of the Element. To recognize those separate actions and allow one Council member to return after his item of potential conflict is resolved, separate Resolutions have been developed to replace Attachments #6 and #7 of the staff report. Those Resolutions are attached for Council use in tonight's special meeting. Resolution1 - General Hospital RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS (GPI 15 -12) WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of $880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011 -2013 Financial Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on -line tools, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF -LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant's circle of influence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered through the Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the draft Land Use Element after the environmental review process of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF -LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 14, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Resolution1 - General Hospital Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the policies related to the General Hospital site shown in Attachment A in the Draft Land Use Element as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of , seconded by AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Council members Carpenter and Ashbaugh The foregoing Resolution was adopted this Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mej ia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J.Christine Dietrick_ Christine Dietrick, City Attorney and on the following vote: 12014, Resolutionl - General Hospital ATTACHMENT A 8.3.3.5 General Hospital Site The General Hospital site includes County -owned property including the old hospital building (which is planned to remain as an office / treatment facility) and lands behind the facility. Lands behind the hospital building that are inside the City's Urban Reserve line will be designated as Public (for existing public facility) and a range of residential uses (Low Density and Medium Density Residential) and will include the ability to support residential care, transitional care use, and other residential uses consistent with the adjacent areas. The remaining site outside the City's Urban Reserve line will remain as Open Space. The City shall seek to secure permanent protection of the open space outside of the urban reserve line as part of any development proposal. The undeveloped portion of this site on the southwest side of Johnson Avenue will remain designated for Public uses. Resolution 2- Foothill RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS (GPI 15 -12) WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of $880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011 -2013 Financial Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on -line tools, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF -LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant's circle of influence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered through the Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the draft Land Use Element after the environmental review process of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF -LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 14, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Resolution 2- Foothill Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. SECTION 1. SPECIAL FOCUS AREAS. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the policies related to the North Side of Foothill site shown in Attachment A in the Draft Land Use Element as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of . seconded by AYES: NOES: ABSENT: RECUSED: Council member Ashbaugh The foregoing Resolution was adopted this Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mej ia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ J.Christine Dietrick Christine Dietrick, City Attorney and on the following vote: , 2014. Resolution 2- Foothill ATTACHMENT A 1.12.7B Foothill Annexation: The northern portion of the Foothill property, and the creek area shall be annexed as open space. Development on this site should be clustered or located near Foothill Boulevard, with the northern portion of the site and creek area preserved as open space. 8.3.3 Special Planning Areas North Side of Foothill (Bishop Knoll) Future development of this area shall address open space requirements under 1.12.7 and open space buffers in accordance with Conservation and Open Space Element policy 8.3.2. This area shall be subject to Architectural Review to ensure consideration of hillside and resource protection; circulation and access, and transition to existing neighborhoods. The steep hillside should be dedicated as Open Space and residential lots grouped at the bottom of the hill closer to Foothill. Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak. Circulation connectivity shall be provided to Los Cerros Drive. Density shall be limited to 7 units /acre as modified for slope under the Zoning Ordinance. Resolution 3 - LUE minus Airport Chapter RESOLUTION NO. (2014 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ENDORSING THE DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT TO BE CONSIDERED THROUGH THE EIR PROCESS (GPI 15 -12) WHEREAS, the City received a Strategic Growth Council grant in the amount of $880,000 with strict performance timeframes to update the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, in June 2011, the City Council approved goals for the 2011 -2013 Financial Plan including additional funding to support the update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, public participation has been a long tradition in land use issues in the City of San Luis Obispo and public involvement is essential in updating the 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements; and WHEREAS, to date input has been received through two different on -line tools, five community workshops, one workshop at Cal Poly, 31 Task Force meetings, seven Planning Commission hearings, two traveling open houses in six locations, and a community survey returned by over 2,000 respondents; and WHEREAS, the public participation strategy calls for a Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (TF -LUCE) to inform the update process at key milestones, provide feedback and recommendations and disseminate information to each participant's circle of influence; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended goals, policies, and programs in the Land Use Element based upon input from the community and the Task Force; and WHEREAS, endorsing the draft Land Use Element to be considered through the Environmental Impact Report process is an important milestone step in the update of the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the Council will have additional opportunities to further review the draft Land Use Element after the environmental review process of the Land Use and Circulation Elements update; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by the TF -LUCE, Planning Commission, and staff presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that the Draft Land Use Element presented at the hearing on January 14, 2014 as amended by Council shall be considered through the environmental review process as part of the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update. Resolution 3 - LUE minus Airport Chapter Council Resolution No. XXXX (2014 Series) Page 2 SECTION 1. DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT. A portion of the project description to be considered as part of the EIR process includes the goals, policies, and programs in the Draft Land Use Element (without Chapter 7: Airport) as modified by City Council, an official copy of which shall be maintained in the Office of the City Clerk referencing this Resolution. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing Resolution was adopted this __ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony J. Mejia, CMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ /s/ J.Christine Dietrick Christine Dietrick, City Attorney , 2014. Goodwin, Heather From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 8:21 AM To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Cc: Johnson, Derek Subject: FW: LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Agenda correspondence for 1 -14 and 1- 28 -14. Jan Howell Marx Mayor of San Luis Obispo (805) 781 -7120 or (805) 541 -2716 JAN 13 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ` - -7 - Item# T'h I i-, +.14 I- Z$ —ILf From: Peg Pinard [pinardmat @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 6:11 PM To: Murry, Kim Cc: Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Jeanette Trompeter; Dave Congalton; Allan Cooper Subject: LUCE Downtown Pedestrian Plan Kim Murry Please distribute this to the LUCE members before Wed. meeting. Thank you. Dear LUCE Members, The Old Town neighborhood is directly adjacent to the downtown and is obviously going to be the neighborhood most impacted by proposed changes to the downtown. I am writing as a long time resident and an advocate for the Old Town neighborhood. Once again your agenda includes plans that will impact our neighborhood and whose residents have no idea that this discussion is even going on. Since absolutely no outreach to our neighborhood has occurred, as is mandated in the city's constitution, it's General Plan, and reaffirmed over and over again by multiple city councils, you are having this discussion without any benefit of knowing the existing problems for the neighborhood and their experiences living so close to downtown. Your input would be so much more helpful if you could be addressing the issues that currently plague us and building from there. How can you `build' something useful if the current foundation is crumbling? I'll give you some examples in a minute, but first I'd like to address a core issue that seems to be forgotten and, since that is happening, renders a lot this update `planning' practically moot. Some background information may be helpful. In the early 70's (yes, some of us do go back quite a ways!) there were multiple conflicts between the neighborhoods surrounding downtown and the downtown itself. One issue was zoning - as there was a push to convert existing, comparatively inexpensive housing, into offices. Those of us who joined the bicentennial momentum of `preservation' of historic resources wanted to preserve the `neighborhoods' that we had sunk our major investments into. It was not our vision to have empty office buildings sitting vacant after 5 o'clock every day, and all day on weekends and holidays, surrounding our otherwise family- oriented homes. Attempted changes in zoning was one battle. Another was circulation. Families did not want to have a freeways in front of their homes (especially when they were putting their heart and soul into restoring them) and yet, moving lots of traffic quickly around the downtown was a primary city goal. This resulted in more and more fast moving, one - way streets. These were just two of the many issues that needed to be resolved if the city wanted to have a viable neighborhood surrounding downtown. And THAT was the key question! As those of you who are planners may recall, the number ONE requirement for a safe and healthy downtown was the existence of people who lived in and around the downtown. Without the presence of residents surrounding downtowns, there arose a `no man's land' that people generally felt unsafe passing through. In isolation, the old downtowns were seen as, basically, unsafe. Transient populations did not provide the same investment in "neighborhood watch" practices that home -owner occupied residences did. Residents from Old Town, especially as they went out for an evening stroll, pushed strollers, walked dogs, etc. were the 'eyes and ears' of the town and provided that sense of safety that other cities would give their eye teeth for - and, who were scrambling to find ways to recreate it, That was one advantage SLO had over the other cities, it was still that kind of `lost in time' community that hadn't yet seen the demise of its downtown. The downtown business owners and the neighborhood residents got together and, basically, recognized this unique and vital symbiotic relationship. Businesses agreed to take the pressure off the neighborhoods for being targets for spot- zoning and that's how west side of Pismo became the dividing line between commercial /office zoning and residential. The push for speedy traffic through the neighborhoods was also removed as the circulation plan and safety and resident livability became the goal instead. The neighborhood became very supportive because, after all, access to a safe, healthy downtown was why we moved here! Our presence accomplished many of the other city goals, like easing traffic congestion and improving air quality since we could walk to wherever we needed and leave our cars at home. This was a true definition of a WIN -WIN with the entire community benefitting in the long run. The reason I'm going into this in such detail (though believe me, I could bend your ears for hours with A LOT more) is because, as I see it, over these past few years, actions from the city and its `committees' have been unnecessarily ignorant of what we worked so hard for. It appears that what we accomplished is now being taken for granted - and, when things are taken for granted and not understood why they were put in place to begin with, then, sadly, you lose them. The census during the last General Plan update showed the number of non -owner occupied residences for the city being around 60 %. The proportion was higher surrounding downtown - so this was a delicate balance to work to maintain if the city was to keep a stable neighborhood surrounding its downtown. An important statistic at the time was to realize that it wasn't just the number of people compressed into a neighborhood that made a difference as crime statistics were a lot higher in the denser R -3 neighborhoods than in R -I or R -2. The idea that just increasing density provided that sense of safety was completely debunked. Well, here we are, and the latest population statistics showed the city as having near 70% of its housing now being non -owner occupied. What is so interesting is that most of these former residents didn't move away because of jobs or other reasons people move. Many simply moved to other areas in the county. The reason given most often for why they moved was that they had "had it" with the city! The many reasons people gave are gist for another discussion but, the point I'm trying to make here is that this city now has a population distribution resembling Isla Vista. The halo is off that sense of safety and family friendly - for not only the downtown, but also its surrounding neighborhood. The incredible proliferation of bars, of drunks and drunken behaviors, noise — and yes... especially of leaving the residents'out -of -the -loop' has had very real consequences. Many Old Town residents testified at the council when they finally heard about the new punitive laws and potential $10,000 fines they were going to be subjected to under the proposed "Historic Preservation Ordinance" and yet many of their concerns were ignored. The council promised that it would address those problems and that simply never happened. Not long ago, as a neighborhood, we submitted an official petition to the council asking to have time on an agenda with them regarding a whole range of problems we were having - and we were turned down. The council's response was that they "weren't interested ". Since then, a number of these long time families have also moved out of the city. I have heard comments from some of your committee members, from staff, and even council members that it looks like "people don't care" since they aren't coming to meetings. Well, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Residents tried - and were either ignored or turned down. The city's own consultant for the evaluation of the community development department said that it needed to do more in outreach and yet, after using taxpayer dollars to get that advice, they still completely ignored it. There were NO real meetings in the neighborhoods as required by the General Plan or council direction. It is with great sadness that I'm writing this to you. People can only be beaten down so many times before they give up. And, as other cities can testify, once you lose your stable, owner - occuppied population, you lose a lot more than mere numbers. As promised, for whatever good it will do, here are a couple of the problems that residents are facing. You could lean a lot more if you asked them. 1) There is a spillover of people (downtown employees and tourists) parking their cars in our historic neighborhood which is already impacted with its own lack of off - street residential parking. People have added rentals where they didn't provide any additional parking to accommodate them. And, we have many existing houses with multiple residents, each with his/her own car and insufficient off - street parking to accommodate either them or their guests. In the past, our neighborhood presented a petition to the city asking for a `parking district' (signed by over 70% of the residents— and where the requirement for creating a parking district was for only a simple majority) - and we were turned down. However, the issue continues and we would appreciate this being addressed in the downtown pedestrian plan and /or other parts of the update. 2) Just having some "space" in front of our homes doesn't necessarily translate into viable parking places for downtown employees or tourists, as witnessed by these pictures. If the `space' looks like anything more than single parking place then two will try to fit into it. This results in drivers `pushing' it and parking their cars into red lined areas that are needed for residents to be able to get safely in and out of their own driveways. In the older sections of town driveways are usually very narrow and there needs to be safe turning radii. The other picture shows how this parking problem impacts even pedestrian sidewalk pathways. HI: 3) Just so you'll understand a bit more why people aren't coming to meetings they don't even know about and are moving away instead, here is another recent example. Our residential neighborhood was never included in the discussion (or even notified that this was being considered) that the city's long- standing, existing policy of keeping utility boxes in the neighborhoods as unobtrusive as possible was being changed. We awoke one morning to be `graced' with someone's idea of `art' that the city deemed appropriate for our children and grandchildren to have to look at. How would you like to have this in front of your home? One's home is usually a family's major investment and yet we were never even asked if this is something we would like in front of our homes. If residents had agreed that a change in policy was warranted, I'm sure they would have come up with designs more in keeping with the historical context in which they are located. The message was loud and clear that residents simply don't matter anymore. IQ When your discussion and staff report says "in and around" downtown, and you didn't start with asking residents in the neighborhood what the existing problems are that need solving, well, I don't see that `format' as adding to the livability for residents who have already invested their life savings here. I am painfully aware that much of what has damaged and weakened our neighborhood is water under the bridge at this point, however our family and neighbors ask that, in this update, you are aware of the history of our neighborhood, the work we have done to preserve it as an asset to the community, especially the downtown, and carefully examine all proposals for the downtown pedestrian plan for further impacts on our already weakened neighborhood. Sincerely, Peg Pinard Co- founder "Old Town Neighborhood Association" Owner and restorer of the historic Myron Angel House We placed our home on the National Register of Historic Places thus enabling the city's first Historic District. Former Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo Former, Chairperson, San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ("IIA; Of SAI) WlS O1,l';l)0 qgo Palm Street San f (As Obispo, CA 93401 t:el 1805 781.1102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:28 AM Goodwin, Heather FW: Support Circulation Element Update From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:25 AM To: Paul Reinhardt Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Support Circulation Element Update SC III liom mV Vciv.on Win;loss 4G I.I F Smailphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: Paul Reinhardt Date:01 /28/2014 7:15 AM (GMT- 08:00) RECETVED JAN 28 2014 LO CITY CLERK AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date lk item# }a llmz� To: "Marx, Jan" , "Smith, Kathy" , "Ashbaugh, John" , "Carpenter, Dan" , "Christianson, Carlyn" Subject: Support Circulation Element Update Please support the Circulation Element Update. We need to focus on getting people out of their cars. Increasing the network of bike ways. Thanks for your work, Paul Reinhardt San Luis Obispo, California Life Is Flow Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, January 07,20L4 L:12 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: PHI- LUCE Update Minority Repoft PHL LUCE Update Minority Report 7-7-20L4.doc R iVËD JAN 0 7 2014 ct_Ë AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE t- ¡rt -tv | - 2Ø-t1 t_cj Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk {..:1,-v {)lì stn lu¡s $11r.çp(ì qr¡o Paim Strcct San Luis Cbispo, C g34or tel | 8o5 78:.7ro: From : Sa ndra Rowley Imailto : macsa r99@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 20L4 L2:4I PM To: Max, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Mejia, Anthony; Lichtig, Katie; Johnson, Derek Subject: PH1 LUCE Update Minority Repoft Attached please find the TF-LUCE Minority Report for tonight's meeting. Thank you, Sandra Rowley January 7 ,20L4 SUBJECT: Task Force LUCE Minority Report Regarding Process and EIR lnput Dear Mayor Marx and Members of the City Council, Prior to presenting our Minority Report we would like to express our gratitude to the 2OO8 and 2OL2 City Councils for their affirmation of the importance to the City of residents and established neighborhoods. Both councils directed that the process of updating the Land Use and Circulation Elements was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based. Both councils directed that staff use legislative drafts to make proposed changes clear to residents, and both councils directed that the process start with primarily resident involvement. INTRODUCTION Each of you was elected by the residents of this city to look out for their welfare. We hope you will keep this in the forefront of your mind as you provide inputtothe EIR process and, later, when you review the Land Use Element (LUE) update and the Circulation Element (CE) update. PROCESS We are extremely disappointed that Council direction was not routinely followed 1. Meetinss in the neishborhoods . Although two Councils were very clear that this process begin with meetings in the neighborhoods, such meetings never occurred. lt appeared they were not part of the update plans. When reminded (severaltimes) of the requirement for neighborhood meetings, staff instead set up roving workshops where residents, city-wide, could drop in throughout the day. This process did not allow for individual residential groups to assemble and provide their comments and concerns and it severely diluted each neighborhood's input When queried about holding meetings at various elementary schools for neighborhoods in the area we were told the SL00 cost was too expensive. However, there were sufficient funds available to pay half of the SL0,000 speaking fee for Peter Kageyama and purchase at least twenty copies of his book, For the Love of Cities. The City sponsored an Economic Task Force to "inform" the LUE/CE. The Sierra Club asked for an Environmental Task Force; their request was denied. Residents didn't know they needed a Task Force because the General Plan is very clear about the City's requirement to ensure early involve- ment of residents and to hold meetings at convenient times and places within the neighborhoods. 2. Survev. Both Councils directed that the questionnaire be based on the 1988 questionnaire and include updated questions as needed. lnstead questions were altered to the point that an accurate comparison could not be made. The reason given for the changes was to remove inflammatory language; however, substantive changes were, also, made. 3. Recorded votes, not consensus. Had it not been forthe 2OL2Council's specific direction, it is possible that assenting and dissenting votes would not have been recorded. lnitially, as well as 1 periodically thereafter, it was necessary for staff and other task force personnel to be reminded of the requirement to proceed by recorded vote and not by consensus. On September L8, 20L3, the Task Force received the first, partially completed, element from the consultants to review. Shortly thereafter repeated consensus "straw votes" were taken followed by official votes for each section because it was faster. 4. Council directed that definitions should be consistent with the present LUCE and anv proposed . The current definition of "infill" in the General Plan Glossary is development on vacant (emphasis added) sites which are essentially surrounded by urban development, and inside the City limits existing when this element was adopted. "lnfill" is now used to denote development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse efforts that contribute positively to existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas. A partial explanation of what this means can be found in the following statement that refers to new housing built within an existing neighborhood: A mix of housing types, and a range of density within a neighborhood is desirable. This implies that the San Luis Drive neighborhood and other established neighborhoods will be retrofitted with a mix of housing types, a range of density and new commercial development, including a grocery store. 5. Use of the LUE and CE Goals to suide the deve ment of new oolicies and orosrems or revise existing ones. The Task Force and Planning Commission voted unanimously for the existing Goals in both elements to be the "Guiding Principles" for the development of new policies and programs. Council agreed. Thus, all proposed changes were to support the existing Goals prior to being provided for Task Force review. However, after approving some of the text changes, the Task Force was advised that some of the Goals might need to be revised in orderto conform to new policies or programs. 6. documentation of said need. Documentation of need was often not provided. Many substantial changes had "style" or "clarity" shown as the reason for the change. 7. Lesislative Draft. Both Councils directed that a legislative draft be used. The 20L2 Council further directed that everyone needs to know at every stage exactly what language is being proposed for deletion (strike out), or addition (underlined), and by whom. Several task force members thought the Task Force would be reviewing the elements and preparing the legislative draft. However, that was not the case. The consultant team drafted all of the policy language in the legislative drafts. Then their proposed policy language was provided to the Task Force for consideration, putting Task Force members in the position of being reactive instead of proactive. MAIN DRIVER FOR THE UPDATE PROCESS We believe the update process was driven primarily by the grant application, not by the Council. The grant's primary focus was on infill, but infill was not mentioned in the 2008 Council's direction. The 2008 Council directed that the process was to be primarily resident and neighborhood based, but that was not in the grant application. lt does not appear that the inclusion of infill was a requirement for grant approval because grant requests by other cities for General Plan updates that were approved at the same time as our grant request did not focus on infill nor on complete neighborhoods as ours does. 2 COMMUNITY OUTREACH We are, also, extremely disappointed in the community outreach process. The process that was chosen did not result in significant input from city residents. We think one of the reasons residents were not involved was the absence of meetings in the neighborhoods that, among other things, would have informed them of the process and their part in it. ln generalthere was low resident attendance at workshops (about 50 each) and open houses (about L2 each). Attendance was higher at the Future Fairs with, we think, L25 being the highest number of attendees. This is a very small percentage of the City's 44,000 residents. The turnout of residents from neighborhoods that could be affected by proposed land use and/or circulation changes was not good either, Of approximately 38 neighborhoods that could potentially be affected by proposed update changes, only six were sent post cards and only on one occasion (after repeated queries to staff asking whether any of the affected neighborhoods would receive notification). Unfortunately, the post cards were unclear about what was being proposed and few residents responded. A few neighborhoods were energized, incidentally being informed on a someone-who-knew-someone basis... of those, four of the five were able to influence the outcome to some extent. When staff was asked why notification post cards were not sent to all affected neighborhoods, they said it was because of the cost. However, recently, informatively worded post cards were sent by the Police Department to every, or at least most, addresses in the city notifying residents of double fines during WOW Week. Apparently meaningful notification can occur. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION During the meetings that were held at the library, the only public comment allowed occurred at the end of the meeting, afterthe Task Force had discussed, deliberated and, in some cases, voted. Needless to say, after three or four meetings, attendance by the public was minimal. Meetings at City Hall were handled differently, with a public comment period at the beginning and several opportunities to speak throughout the meeting. Attendance improved, but it was still not good. A large percentage of the meetings had only a handful of residents or less. Participation was not easy for the public because, unlike Council agendas, Task Force agendas only generally described items/areas to be covered; it was not until later meetings that more specifics were shown. Occasionally, the Task Force did not know what it would be covering untilthe meeting began. ln many cases too many sections were agendized and the Task Force did not complete all of them in the allotted three hours. Probably as a result of the lack of notice of topicsto be covered and the inabilityto participate initially, there was minimal public input provided during meetings. City staff and consultant input were the primary sources of information that we considered. TASK FORCE ADVOCACY The vast majority of the task force had no history of being advocates for the preservation of the City's established neighborhoods. However, many of the task force members were board members of and/or active in organizations that advocate for real estate development interests. aJ SUMMARY ln our opinion, the process failed to follow Council guidance at every step of the process The City never received meaningful input from residents of the various neighborhoods concerning problems they want corrected or characteristics they liked about their unique neighborhoods and wanted to have protected, what city-wide problems they wanted to have corrected or what they considered to be City assets that needed to be protected. NEXT STEPS 1. Focus on what residents said on the survey. Responses were received from about 2,200 resident households and San Luis Obispo business owners. 2. Bring Neighborhood Mapping back to Council and do away with the Area designations (Staff Report, April 2, 20L3) 3. Provide input for the EIR preparation as follows: a. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the City's established neighborhoods. b. Evaluate the effects of both text changes and alternatives proposals on the potential for increased noise impacts by student/young adults on the City's established neighborhoods. c. Ensure that early and meaningful notice to City residents is part of the EIR community outreach process in accordance with our above comments. Respectfu I ly submitted, Sandra Rowley Carla Saunders Sharon Whitney 4 Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 8:18 AM To: Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: LUCE Update & EIR Scoping Attachments: 140126 LUCE EIR Scoping - Eric Veium.pdf Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk tALN' Of wail IIU:; 01AIyJla 990 Pcalai Sheet. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 805.781.7102 =RECETVED AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date�''�- itPrrM# �'1 1%1114, From: Eric Veium [mailto:ericC&stockmans.com] Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 9:35 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: LUCE Update & EIR Scoping Honorable Mayor and Council, Please see attached letter regarding the LUCE Update and EIR Scoping. Thank you for your consideration. Eric Veium Eric Veium, CEM Principal, Senior Engineer, Stockman's Water & Energy Mobile: (805) 715 -3555 1 Office: (805) 242 -8018 Fax: (805) 242 -6016 1 Email: eric@stockmans.com iiii STOCKMAN'S WATER 6- ENERGY Honorable Mayor and Council, I've come to realize that the supply of homes and the jobs /housing balance are absolutely central to the success of our community as a whole and to my generation's ability to create the life we want for ourselves here. When I am Downtown, where I work, I am energized by the busyness, the bustle, and the aliveness of people on the streets, in shops, and in restaurants. When I am home, in the Railroad District, I enjoy the people walking and biking by, hanging out in the triangle park, and coming and going from nearby restaurants, the train station, and the bike path. When I hike to the top of Terrace Hill, the city melts into an urban forest that is dwarfed by the morros and the natural beauty of our surrounding open space. I am blessed to call San Luis Obispo home. Many of my friends, graduates of Cal Poly, smart, ambitious, and community- minded, who share my passion for this place, have been too often forced to leave because of limited opportunities for employment and difficulty finding and affording a home. I am part of a generation of young people, new families, and innovative professionals who are the future of our community and economy. We want to live near our jobs and in vibrant pockets of energy and activity. We value the ability to go through our day without having to drive. And we want greater confidence that we can afford a home, develop a career, and raise a family here. This LUCE update is such an important opportunity for my peers and for the future of San Luis Obispo, request that your Council include within the scope of the LUCE EIR process the exploration of opportunities to increase housing availability, affordability, and diversity. These opportunities should include increased building heights and increased supply of a diverse mix of new homes. This request is directly supported by stated city goals for Jobs /Housing balance and GHG reductions. I also request that your Council reflect on currently held assumptions about housing and community and if necessary, reconsider and revise those assumptions to reflect the kind of homes and the kind of community that is valued by my generation and the generations that follow. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process. Please let me know how I may help Best Regards, Eric Veium Co- founder, Senior Engineer Stockman's Water & Energy 1009 MORRO ST. STE 206 OFFICE: 805.242.8018 INFO(a)STOCKMANS.COM SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 FAX: 8o5.242.6oi6 WWW.STOCKMANS.COM JAN 28 2014 From: Charlene Rosales <charlene @slochamber.org> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 11:00 AM To: Jan Manx Oanmarx @stanfordalumni.org); Christianson, Carlyn; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: SLO Chamber of Commerce re. LUCE EIR Attachments: SLO Chamber of Commerce re. LUCE EIR 1.24.14.pdf, SLO Chamber of Commerce Addendum re. LUCE EIR 1.24.14.pdf Mayor Marx and Council Members, Please find attached our recommendations regarding items for further study within the scope of the Land Use and Circulation Elements EIR. Thank you for your consideration, AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Charlene Rosales Date -,4.11 Director of Governmental Affairs 1 2t� San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 895 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p (805) 786 -2770 f (805) 543 -1255 www.slochamber. M : www.visitslo.com : www.slo- business.com facebook.com/slochamber: @slochamber 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO January 24, 2014 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Recommendation re. LUCE EIR Dear Mayor Marx and City Council Members, The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to continue our participation in the City's important Land Use & Circulation Element (LUCE) update. This update is the community's opportunity to address current inequities regarding available housing, opportunities for economic growth, infrastructure for all modes of transportation, and address gaps for much needed community amenities. The amendments to the LUCE will provide important guidance for the coming decades of community development. As such, the Chamber would like to provide some additional comments that specifically address the critical need for additional housing capacity in our city. We are certainly not alone in recognizing the benefits of adequately accommodating those who wish to work and live in the same community. The lack of housing available for our workforce is consistently among the top needs identified by residents in annual city surveys; it is the long- standing top business challenge for local employers of all sizes; and it is the chief contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in our region. We have asked throughout this process that the City's jobs- housing goals as identified in numerous documents -- including the General Plan Annual Report, Climate Action Plan, and Economic Development Strategic Plan -- be more specifically addressed in the LUCE update. The city's stated jobs- housing target is 1.5 jobs per housing unit; according to the city's own reports, it appears that we are currently at an approximately 1.8 jobs -to- housing ratio. This performance gap is merely maintained in the current LUCE document. While our community may not achieve its target ideal balance, identifying potential tools to move us closer to this goal and understanding the implications of these tools is critical so that wise future planning decisions can be made. For this reason, the Chamber would like to submit the following suggestions for consideration with the scope of the LUCE environmental impact report (EIR): 1. Building Heights: After careful analysis of all the planning areas within the LUCE document, we have identified specific areas where additional building height may be appropriate to increase the availability of housing while discouraging sprawl. There are many considerations when increasing building height, such as impacts to view shed, however the EIR process can help identify impacts for Y 805.781.2670 slochamber,orq F 805.543.1255 visi!slo com E slochamber ®slochamber.org slo•buiness.com 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO future decision making. In some instances, the existing language already supports potential building height adjustments. Our request is intended to provide more specific direction to the EIR consultant in order to yield more beneficial analysis. While we are not specifically supporting heights to increase in each of these areas at this time, we want this topic to be studied within the scope of the EIR so that the community can make informed decisions long into the future. We have attached specific recommendations to this letter for consideration (See addendum). 2. The Chamber requests the City to consider a program to study height limits citywide and modernize zoning regulations to reflect these updates. We urge that the City direct the EIR consultant to study an alternative in the program EIR that produces specifically the City's own goal of a jobsihousing ratio of 1.5:1. It is imperative that the LUCE addresses our jobs- housing imbalance so that we can strive to minimize it over time. The jobs- housing relationship is at the heart of AB 32 and AB 375, the funding source of the Sustainable Communities Grant for this LUCE update. We urge you to more meaningfully address this inequity and request that you incorporate the study of the items identified above and in the attached language within the scope of the EIR so that we can move one step closer to our collective goal of improving San Luis Obispo economically, socially and environmentally. In conclusion, the Chamber would like to thank the City for embarking on this important undertaking and we appreciate the spirit of open collaboration shown us to date. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stacey White, Chair SLO Chamber of Commerce LUCE Task Force Cc: Eric Meyer, Chairperson, LUCE Task Force Michael Draze, Chairperson, City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Community Development Department T 805.781.2670 slochamber.org F 805.543,1255 visitslo com E siochamber ®siochamber,org sio- buiness.com 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO Addendum: Recommendations for Study within the Scope of the LUCE EIR 1.4 Jobs /Housing Relationship Recommendation for study: Add additional language to the jobs /housing policy The gap between housing demand (due to more job and college enrollment) and supply should not increase. The City shall strive to improve the gap between jobs and housing from the 2014 ratio of 1.8:1 towards the target of 1.5:1. Caltrans Site Recommendation for study: Increase height from 45 to 60 ft. While this area is within the Mid - Higuera Area, the unique qualities and opportunities provided by the site warranted special consideration in the General Plan. This area is planned for redevelopment from a Caltrans office and yard complex to a mixed use development. Commercial uses will be as described under the Tourist Commercial designation with some residential incorporated using a Medium High to High Density Residential component. Redevelopment plans shall consider the suitability of realignment of the Madonna /South Higuera intersection. The site should be developed to serve as a gateway into the community, with consideration of additional open space uses, retention and rehabilitation of the Master List historic structure, and retention of Heritage Trees on the site. Conference center -type uses are encouraged along with other appropriate tourist - serving uses as appropriate for the site.... Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered up to 60 feet with mixed use development. Foothill Boulevard / Santa Rosa Area Recommendation for study: Increase height from 45 to 60 ft. This area, which includes land on both sides of Foothill Boulevard between Chorro and Santa Rosa, is currently developed as commercial centers that include highway and neighborhood serving commercial uses. At the affected property owners' request, the boundary of this area on the north side of Foothill maybe extended to include one or more of the existing commercial properties west of Chorro Street, The City shall work with property owners /developers to redevelop the area as mixed use (either horizontal or vertical mixed use) to include a mix of uses as described under the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial and Medium High to High Density Residential designations. T 805.781.2670 F 805.543.1255 E slochamber ®slochamber.org 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO Building height adjustments up to 60 feet in this area can also be considered with mixed use development that provides additional residential housing. Upper Monterey Recommendation for study: Add a section "i" to the list of actions in this area, with consideration of an increased height limit from 45 to 60 ft. in the area closer to Downtown i. Consider building height adjustments up to 60 feet with mixed use development in the lower Monterey area defined as Santa Rosa St. to California Blvd. Mid - Higuera Area Recommendation for study: Increase from 35 -45 ft. to 60 ft. The City will update the plan for this multi -block commercial area to reflect current needs and changes that have occurred since the 2001 plan was adopted. Building height adjustments up to 60 feet in this area can also be considered with mixed use development. Broad Street at Tank Farm Road Site Recommendation for study: Increase height from 35 to 50 ft. Located at the northwest corner of Board Street and Tank Farm Road, this approximate 10 acre site will be used as a mixed use site, providing for a mix of uses as described under the Community Commercial and Office designations and residential limited to upper floors. Building height adjustments in this area can also be considered up to 50 feet. Areas along the creek on the western edge of the site will be appropriately buffered to provide creek protections. Attention to connectivity and comfort of bicycle and pedestrian circulation will be especially important in the development of this corner. Building Height (Downtown) Recommendation for study: Increase height from 50 to 60 f, for new buildings; increase height from 50 to 75 to 60 to 75 ft, for taller buildings New buildings shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development, shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly -owned gathering places such as Mission Plaza, and should be stepped back above the second or third level to maintain a street facade that is consistent with the historic pattern of development. Generally, new buildings should not exceed 60 feet in height. Tall buildings (60 -75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses, such as: v 805.781.2670 alocr;arnhcar.org F 805.543.1255 vlsasio coop E slochamber®slochamber.org shrblarsossz:orri 895 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3278 Ermina Karim, President/CEO • Publicly accessible, open viewing spaces at the upper levels • Housing affordability in excess of the Inclusionary Housing Requirement • Energy efficiency beyond State mandated requirements • Adaptive reuse of a historical resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation • High residential density (e.g. above 24 units per acre) achieved by a concentration of smaller dwelling units • Street level features such as a public plaza, public seating and /or public art • Increased retail floor area, including multi -story retail • Directly implements specific and identifiable City objectives, as set forth in the General Plan, the Conceptual Plan for the City's Center, the Downtown Strategic Plan and other key policy documents • Receiving Transfer of Development Credits for open space protection or historic preservation • Provide midblock or other significant pedestrian connections Margarita Area Specific Plan Update Recommendation for study: Add back more specific target for study that reflects prior project plans Location: The Margarita Area covers about 420 acres bounded by South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, and the ridge of the South Street Hills in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo. Purpose: Adopted in October 2004, the Margarita Area Specific Plan contains five key principles: open space and sensitive resource production, cohesive neighborhood creation, transit supporting land uses and densities, pedestrian environment, and minimizing infrastructure costs. The approved specific plan includes 868 residential dwelling units, as well as a business park, a neighborhood park, sports fields, and open space areas. Over 40 percent of the land area is designated as open space and 56 acres are designated as parks. The City shall consider this area as potentially appropriate to accommodate additional housing up to 1,200 units. Revision to the Margarita Area Specific Plan will be require if residential development in excess of that accommodated in the plan is proposed. T 805.781.2670 sloc;hamberorg F 805.543.1255 visitslo com E slochamber ®slochamber.org slo- buiness rom Goodwin, Heather Subject: Attachments: FW: Water Delivery Outside City council water wheeling.doc RECEIVED JAN, 2 S 2014 :IT SLO _.1 t:R - - - -- Original Message---- - From: rschmidt @rain.org [mailto:rschmidt @rain.org] Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2014 3:54 PM To: Marx, Jan; dcarpen @slocity.orR; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Water Delivery Outside City Dear Council Members, Attached is a letter on the subject of changing the General Plan to permit utility sales outside the city limits. This is a very very bad idea, a very very RADICAL idea. AGENDA Please don't do it. CORRESPONDENCE My reasons are in the letter. Date.101,& Item* II, )i- 1 I? Richard Schmidt Jan. 25, 2014 RE: Utility Service Outside City Limits To the City Council: I am shocked to learn a majority of the council are ready to toss out about 40 years of city policy and law prohibiting the sale of city water outside city limits. This is just so WRONG! When the city adopted an ordinance prohibiting extension of all city utility service outside the city limits in 1983, it was supported unanimously by Council LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES. It was something they all agreed on because they were smart forward- looking people.' The issues have not basically changed since then: extension of city services to outlying areas is SPRAWL- INDUCING and SHORTCHANGES RESIDENTS WHO HAVE FUNDED THESE UTILITIES. You may say, "It's only non - potable water," but that water induces sprawl just as surely as any other kind of water, for it enables developers to stretch potable water by an eight -to -one or greater ratio. Most urban uses don't require potable water: we can flush toilets as well as irrigate landscaping and perform industrial processes with non - potable recycled water. In fact, toilet flushing with recycled water is a chief strategy recommended in architectural circles for managing water sustainably. (Does it make any sense to use drinking water for diluting poop ?) • You'd do much better promoting toilet flushing, etc., with this water in new business and institutional settings where a dual plumbing system would be feasible. • You'd also do much better thinking long -term about the city's possible future need for this water for potable purposes in the future. Although the "policy" became "law" in its current form in 1983, 1 recall earlier policy formulations going back to at least 1970 which prohibited extending city utility service from that date. Some of you may be aware that I came to SLO in 1970 to be a government reporter for the daily newspaper, which in those days was a NEWSpaper, not the Chamber newsletter it is today. During my time covering SLO City Hall I recall several council discussions of requests to extend services beyond the city limits, and they resulted in a resounding NO, for the commonsense reasons enumerated in this letter. FOR YOU TO OVERTURN THIS POLICY WOULD TRULY BE A RADICAL COUNTER - GOOD - GOVERNMENT MOVE ON YOUR PART WITHOUT ANY PLANNING PRECEDENT IN THIS CITY'S HISTORY. It would move us back to a 1950s planning regime policy -wise. Back in the 1970s, City Engineer Dave Romero proposed just such a long -view scheme: spread treated water on the ground (we only had secondary treatment in that day, not the near - drinkable tertiary effluent of today), let it percolate down to the aquifer, then use windmills to pump it back out for domestic use. Percolating into the ground provides the final purification step in making this semi - purified water drinkable. (This is done on a large scale, minus the windmills, in conservative Orange County; are you aware of this ?) The city's current smugness about its bountiful water supply is without merit. Year before last was the driest on record in California. Last year was even drier. And this year — the way it's going -- could be still drier. How long till our reservoirs reach crisis point if this drought is the "new normal" rather than the assumptions on which reservoir capacities were calculated (using, we now know from historical tree ring studies, the wettest period in a millennium of California history on which to base those capacity assumptions)? Our recycled water is our most reliable water source. Why? The last thing we cut short, long after SLO's landscape looks like Barstow or Boron, is our domestic water use. Thus the recycled water will be there. When push comes to shove, we'll have to use it. Now, of all times, in the face of such climate uncertainty and its effects on surface water, is the least intelligent time in history to even talk about allocating any of our recycled water to others. As for fairness to city ratepayers, letting those who haven't contributed to our utility infrastructure benefit from our "waste" water just isn't right. They will have a "sure" source, while our dried -out reservoirs leave ratepayers in trouble. We've paid for it. It rightfully belongs to us, not to developers on the outskirts. It's just plain unfair to those who've footed the bill to create this water source to deprive them of it. I cannot believe that you actually think you can do this sort of thing, and then go to the voters asking for renewal of Measure Y. Please drop this very bad idea and get it out of the LUCE considerations. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt JAN 14 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ;/ , Item #� +' /� ,r i l m m o1RAn of council E city of san Luis owspo, aammistuation Oeparitment DATE: January 14, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katie Lichtig, City Manager VIA: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Kim Murry, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning SUBJECT: Land Use Element update: Additional input and recommendations Staff received several questions and recommendations regarding the draft Land Use Element subsequent to Planning Commission review. The questions are paraphrased below with staff responses and Planning Commission draft page numbers where applicable. Input regarding recommended changes are shown organized by chapter with new language in bold (to distinguish from the Task Force /Planning Commission new language which shows in underline) and deleted language is shown as strike -out. Questions: 1. What is the enrollment capacity envisioned by the current Cal Poly Master Plan? Current Master Plan envisions approximately 21, 000 students and about 3,200 faculty and staff. 2. Should I be concerned about numbering format in draft Land Use Element? Changes to draft Word document created "automatic numbering" errors which will be corrected in next version. Proper hierarchy will be established. 3. Page 1 -142: Section 8.3.3.9 Pacific Beach site and agenda correspondence received from the School District's attorney. Does staff have a response? Council is not considering any development application, imposing any dedication or exaction requirements, or taking any final action as it relates to the development of the Pacific Beach property at this point. Rather, Council is being asked to identify draft language clarifying the City's long term planning vision and desires for an appropriate and compatible land use of a portion of the property, currently zoned for public facilities, for further evaluation through the EIR. Accordingly, it is staff's perspective that any takings challenge would be premature and that there will be ample opportunity for staff and the Council to consider the application of legal nexus requirements and economic viability arguments in the context of a specific development application for the property. There is currently no application pending with the City. Moreover, a successful taking challenge requires proof of a legally significant deprivation of economic use of private property. At this early planning stage, it is staff's assessment that the change from a Public Facilities designation to one that accommodates Commercial Retail and housing at 36 units /acre provides an increased value for the property that would not adversely impact the current development potential of the property. The property currently serves recreational needs in the community and the Task Force and the Parks and Recreation Commission felt strongly that some park facility needed to be retained to help meet the needs of the community at large and to provide a buffer between new, more intense development from the adjoining single-family neighborhood. Again, all of these considerations and the application of relevant legal standards will be considered in the context of a specific development application by the school district and approval recommendations, including appropriate conditions and exaction requirements which would be made only in accordance with applicable land use law. Goals and Land Use Des %gnations Pa -ges 1 -18 throu.Qh 1 -33: Page 1 -20: Goal 34. Where appropriate, create compact, mixed use neighborhoods that locate housing. fobs recreation and other daily needs in close proximity to one another, while protecting the quality of life in established neighborhoods. Page 1 -25: CHART Definition of High Density Residential (HDR) "This type of development is appropriate outside of R -1 and R -2 zones near Cal Poly, in the Downtown... Page : CHART "O "_zone —eliminate " " (redundant) and eliminate "us pai4 of mixed us pr-qjeel-sll Growth Management Chapter Paws 1 -34 through 1 -49: Paee 1 -37: 1.6.4 The City shall epee discourage the County to er-°ff+° He new pafee s from creating new parcels within the Greenbelt... Page 1.6.7 The City shall work with the County, Cal Poly, other public agencies and nonprofits to protect significant trees, particularly native species, outside of City limits and in the greenbelt... 2 Page 1 -38: 1.7.2 (6th line down) conservation organization open space or agricultural easements... Page 1 -42: 1.10.2 Last sentence: "Cal Poly should actively engage the community during updates or amendments to the Master Plan and fully mitigate impacts to the City, including environmental and quality of life impacts to nearby neighborhoods. PUe 1 -43: 1.11.1 Delete word "pie" in first line. Pa eg_1 -43: Section 1.11.3 The City should analyze the cost /benefits of annexing Cal Poly. Page 1 -45: — 1.12.64 th line down - "...or increasing the cost of such services for current residents or for build out within the urban reserve line. Page 1.12.7 Open Space "1.12.7 C. Dalidio Area properties (generally bounded by Highway 101, Madonna Road, and Los Osos Valley Road) not yet annexed into the City shall dedicate land or easements for the approximately one -half of each ownership that is to be preserved as open space." Page 1 -47: 1.15.4 "The City will continue to paAieipate monitor the County in reviewing and providing input on County projects or general plan amendments that have the potential to impact the City, the Greenbelt, or be inconsistent with City policies. Significant issues will be referred to the City Council. Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods P P—es 1 -50 throggh 1 -67. Page 1 -50: Add New Policy: Neighborhoods with significant pedestrian traffic should have walkable, continuous sidewalks. Page 1 -52: 2.2.1 "The City shall promote, where compatible with established neighborhoods, a mix...." Page 1 -54: 2.2.9 Reinstate deleted words in line one. Add after line one: "Multifamily development is not appropriate in all neighborhoods. Any multifamily development... Reinstate deleted section A. Page 1 -61: 2.4.2 The City shall not approve rezonings that increase density in existing residential areas unless it finds that the following would be improved: neighborhood character and identity... Page 1 -62: After last sentence of 2.5.1: The City shall work with Cal Poly to facilitate faculty and staff owning or renting housing in adjacent neighborhoods. Page 1 -65: 2.9.1 "The City shall work with Cal Poly to evaluate student and community housing preferences and consider revising development standards. 3 Page 1 -67: New Program. Neighborhood Wellness: Continue and enhance neighborhood wellness initiatives, continue to support proactive code enforcement, pursue a residential rental inspection program; improve street cleanliness; increase public safety enforcement, and support neighborhood led initiatives. Commercial and Industrial Development Pages 1 -68 through 1 -83 Page 1 -82: Section 3.5.7.5. The City shall provide incentives to encourage relocation of vehicles sales from the Downtown and Monterev Street areas to other compatible areas. Page 183: Last New program on page: The City shall regularly review the implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and other appropriate strategies for business retention and expansion with a focus on those strategies actually providing head of household jobs. Downtown Pages 1 -84 through 1 -95 Page 1 -87 4.0.1.1 Add a last sentence: The City shall encourage conversion of structures originally built as housing, but subsequently used as offices, back to residential uses. Page 1 -88: New Policy. The Downtown should remain the focus for nighttime entertainment, cultural events and related activities. It should be a � comfortable and safe place at all times. Page 1 -89: 4.0.7 The City shall strive to protect Downtown residential areas from cut - through traffic. Page 1 -95: New Program: The City shall encourage the formation of a Downtown neighborhood association. New Program: The City shall repair defunct drinking fountains and install new ones throughout the Downtown and especially near drinking establishments. New Program: The City shall encourage volunteer groups, such as the Urban Foresters and America in Bloom, to enhance and maintain the urban forest and landscaping features in the Downtown. New Program: The City shall increase Downtown green space and public parks, including pocket parks, as the numbers of people living Downtown increases. Public and Cultural Facilities Pages 1 -96 through 1 -101 Pa ems: 5.1.4 The City shall promote the location of the following uses in health -care areas on rohnson Avenue ne „ Bishop St (Figure 5). 4 Page 1 -101: 5.2.5 The City shall continue to work with the County to develop a plan for meeting additional..... Resource Protection Pages 1 -102 through 1 -117 Page 1 -113: Section 6.3.3 Consistent with the Community Design Guidelines, all hillside areas are considered sensitive sites, therefore all development on hillsides requires architectural review. Special Focus Areas Pages 1 -125 through 1 -146 Page 1 -132: 8.3.2.4 Sp -2 Dalidio Specific Plan Area e. "Preserve at least one -half of this signature working agricultural landscape at the southern gateway to San Luis Obispo as it existed in 1994." Maintain s;g„�agricultural and open space resources on site. Chart-66 acres =50% of 132 acres Page 1 -136: Delete second sentence in footnote. Page 1 -138: 8.3.3.2 b. aleng SapA., Rosa Stree Page 1 -138: 8.3.3.2 f. second sentence "These types of facilities would not be located on the east side of Monterey north of California Street, unless adequate buffers and noise mitigation measures are required to protect the creek and the established neighborhood east of the creek. Page 1 -142: 8.3.3.8 The site may need to be designed to accommodate the u,fffeless Ser -view Eenter realignment of Elk's Lane and /or flood control infrastructure. Sustainability Pages 1 -147 through 1 -149 Page 1 -147: 9.3.3 and allow fer CEQA str-e ,.,. lini g Page 1 -148: 9.3.7 E. ...and reduction or elimination of the use of turf. Collection and use site run off and rainwater harvesting in landscape irrigation is encouraged. Page 1 -148: New Policy: Renew the urban forest: Develop a long term tree planting program to beautify the city, mitigate increased residential density, address die -off, and combat air pollution and global warming. Page 1 -149: New Program: Urban Forest. Update master tree plan and develop recommendations to renew and maintain the urban forest and plant more trees. 9 Healthy Community Page 1 -150 Page 1 -150: 10.3.5 The City shall protect and maintain clean air, the urban forest, and natural open spaces. New Policies offered for consideration: Homelessness: Implement comprehensive strategies to address homelessness in our City in partnership with other entities. Encourage existing, improved, and expanded services (including advocating to the County and other organizations for delivery of case management, drug, alcohol, and detoxification services, and mental health services), support the establishment of a new homeless services center, and pursue good neighbor, safety, and quality of life programs (including restrooms), using technology as appropriate. The City shall establish an Open Space and Agricultural Advisory Board. Long -Term Fiscal Health: Preservation of Essential Services. Develop a comprehensive strategy for preserving essential services, adequately maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, and protecting the City's fiscal health. AGENDA -- CORRESPONDEi Date ' I Item JAN 2 8 2014 E. Jud to City Council, Jan. 28, 2014, Spm Item: LUCE Work, Input into EIR and Traffic Model 1. Thanks, good work so far, but serious questions remain: .Ammw� - Will the great comments of planner Jaime Lopes of Jan. 21 have consequences? Systematic planning, job housing balance etc.? 2. Traffic model: How will the well known statistics below go into the calculations? Americans - especially young people - are driving less and biking more. A SHIFT TO CAR -LITE LIFE �.tk,��r( ."PIt! F'r ISfQ fr- Zif�R.if A7 -tf a Why do we not use the model to test "out of the box" concepts instead of just the politically correct plans? Prado Rd. Fw. Interchange, Prado Rd.; near sport fields, alternatives at Tank Farm /Broad St. Intersection etc. (simulations are INEXPENSIVE and save millions of construction costs). In Model and EIR please apply the planning slogan of Cal Poly President Armstrong: RADICAL TRANSPARENCY! 3. Please put the following mandate into the Circulation Element: "The Urban Street Design Guide" of NACTO 2013 is the basis for SLO. (Many cities and DOTS have already done so) E. Jud, 665 Leff St., 7561729 P .e , ,a JAN 2 8 Wheefin2 Water Outside our Citv Limits: Circulation issues Jan Marx 1 -28 -14 If the City allows any kind of water service to properties outside our city limits, it will be facilitating development next to city limits, and in our greenbelt. (See attached minutes from 1983) This development outside our URL will have need road, bike path and pedestrian connections. It also could create the need for transit. The impacts and growth inducting implications need to be analyzed in the EIR. BACKGROUND "The City Council unanimously prohibited prohibiting the extension of water and sewer services for private use outside of City limits. March 15, 1983. (See CC minutes of 2 -1 -83) 2014 Municipal Code 13.16.010 City not to approve any provision of or entitlement to. After the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, the city shall not approve any provision or entitlement to water or sewer service for the use or benefit of properties outside the city limits. (Ord. 951 § 1, 1983) 13.16.020 Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply to: A. Any property duly annexed after the effective date of the ordinance codified herein; B. Any public or private party with which the city had an effective agreement for provision of services prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified herein; C. Properties which currently receive city water or sewer service without a previously effective agreement; D. Provision of sewer service to the Hidden Hills Mobile Home Park, as provided in the State of California Water Resources Control Board Order. No. WOO 824. (Ord. 951 § 2, 1983) * *The consultant's notes to 1.11.1 (1 -43 or PH 1 -71) say this long standing policy was modified for "style." The consultant states that "Word `potable' added to clarify the service being addressed and changes to the Water and Wastewater Element approved by the Council in 2010" * * This implies that Council approved the wheeling of potable water. This is not true. The Water Element A 7.3.4 says "Consider the potential to deliver available recycled water supplies to customers outside the city limits, including analysis of policy issues, technical concerns and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent with the General Plan." * *The Task Force did not discuss this issue (see notes of November 6, 2013) * *The Planning Commission may have referred to this issue obliquely in the context of urban sprawl, but did not specifically discuss wheeling water. See PH 1 -11, minutes of December 12, 2013 page 3 top paragraph. The PC minutes say that Kim Murry indicated that "the General Plan should provide the policy basis on which to respond to any County proposals" for development on land outside the city URL. AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date ` VTR Item #--20L. City Council Minutes Tuesday, February 1, 1983 - 7:00 p.m. Page 11 Motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Billig, Councilmembers Settle, Dovey, Dunin and Griffin NOES: None ABSENT: None 12. UTILITY SERVICES OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS Council considered an ordinance prohibiting the extension of water and sewer services for private use outside of the City limits. Mayor Billig reviewed for the Council the ordinance provisions. The thrust of her concerns have been the current and future impacts on City residents of premature or ill- conceived projects approved by the County on the City's periphery. Past as well as recently approved projects have created serious potential health and safety problems for the City and its residents relating to waste disposal system failures, inadequate fire protection, water quality control, questionable grading, erosion, and runoff. She wanted a clear message sent to agencies that the City would not be supportive of coming to their rescue with water. Councilman Settle supported this as being a positive effort and could support the ordinance. Councilman Dunin stated he would support the ordinance as it is a standing policy. After brief discussion and on motion of Councilman Settle, seconded by Councilman Griffin, the following ordinance was introduced: Ordinance No: 951 (1983 Series), an ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo probibiting the extension of water and sewer services for private use outside of the City limits. Introduced and passed to print on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Settle, Griffin, Dovey, Dunin and Mayor Billig NOES: None ABSENT: None 10:40 p.m. City Council convened in Closed Session to discuss Litigation matters. 11:35 p.m. City Council reconvened, all Councilmembers present. There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Billig adjourned the meeting to Tuesday, Fepfu ry 8, 1983, at 12:10 p.m. (Pamela Vo es, C i; C rk t c APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 3/15/83 city of Mohns -sml h is owspo Water and Wastewater Table 5: Annual Recycled Water Usage Calendar Year Annual Recycled Water Usage in acre -feet - 2006 7.69 62.36 2007 2008 95.75 2009 137.36 A 7.1 Goal Number of Sites Using Recycled Water 1 I 11 17 Notes: 1- Partial year data reported, October through December 2006_ 2. The City initiated a Construction Water Permit Program (CWPP) on July 1, 2009_ Recycled water usage associated with the CWPP is included with annual recycled water usage. Source: City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, 2010. A 7.1.1 Utilize recycled water for non - potable purposes, thereby offsetting the use of potable water. A 7.1.2 Maximize the use of the City's available recycled water supply for approved uses. A 7.2 Policies A 7.2.1 Recycled Water Supply The City will make available recycled water to substitute for existing potable water uses as allowed by law and to supply new non - potable uses. A 7.2.2 Accounting for Recycled Water The -City will add total recycled water usage from the prior year to the Citys water resource availability on an annual basis. A 7.3 Programs A 7.3.1 Expand the recycled water distribution system to serve customers in the Water Reuse Master Plan area. A 7.3.2 Review development proposals for projects within the Water Reuse Master Plan area to ensure recycled water is utilized for appropriate uses. A 7.3.3 Annual recycled water usage will be presented to the City Council as part of the annual Wafer Resources Status Report and will be added to the City's water resource availability per policy 3.2.1. A 7.3.4 Consider the potential to deliver available recycled water supplies to customers outside the city limits, including analysis of policy issues, technical concerns, and cost recovery, provided it is found to be consistent with the General Plan. 8 -20 Draft Planning Commission Minutes December 12, 2013 Page 3 Comm. Multari noted that the Commissioners need to refer to the Land Use Map to examine the areas that have not been developed and those that are designated Rural Suburban and Residential Rural. He expressed that these might become areas of urban sprawl. Community Development Deputy Director Murry displayed the map and indicated the areas around the Urban Reserve Line that already have been subdivided. Comm. Draze asked if the City will have input if the County rezones any of these areas. Community Development Deputy Director Murry stated the City is provided a referral from the County for any discretionary project that occurs within the Planning Area. She indicated that the General Plan should provide the policy basis on which to respond to any County proposals. Comm. Multari suggested adding a policy stating that the City does not support further subdivision in the City's sphere of influence area to lots smallerthan 20 acres. Comm. Larson stated that he shares the same concerns and recognizes that this is a very difficult issue. He noted that the intent of Table 2 is to recapitulate the higher County zoning designations and define the City's desire to have lower densities in areas that might affect the City's plans for a green belt. He stated that while the City needs to be able to evaluate anything that affects a green belt around the City, it would be better to recognize the City's goal and develop policies without being so detailed. He supported the inclusion of a general and consistent policy statement and a clear graphic representation about the City's sphere of influence, the City limits, the green belt concept, and LAFC's policies and role. Comm. Stevenson stated that he agrees with Comm. Larson and thinks that Table 2 is not necessary. He noted that the County's policies about agricultural preservation are particularly strong, that the County honors the City's boundaries, and that any development that would come close to City boundaries would result in consultation with the City. He supported language stating the City's desire to preserve rural character of the area and the green belt. Comm. Multari stated that the Task Force struggled with this issue and the map was an attemptto acknowledge development and define the rest of the land as open space. Comm. Draze stated that there is a need to have some influence over lands that are close to, but not within, the City limits. He supported a statement stating that it is the City's desire to have development in these areas with no more than one dwelling per 20 acres. Comm. Stevenson stated language should refer to LAFCO's sphere of influence update, done every five years, which has provisions about how any proposals for land use changes would be handled between the City and County and is specific about general plan amendments. He suggested looking at language in Memorandums of Agreement the County has with other cities. Staff member Murry indicated the City has a Memorandum of Agreement with the Countythat provides for referrals and discusses how land use changes will be handled. The Commission proceeded through the legislative draft of the Land Use Element by chapter. PN 1 - 11 TF -LUCE Minutes November 6, 2013 Page 5 Policy 1.9.4 (page 1 -38): Minor revisions to language under sub - section A to read, "Be screened from public views by land forms or lands Gaping vegetation, but not at the expense of habitat. If the visually screened locations contain sensitive habitats or unique resources as defined in the Conservation and Open Space Element, avoid development should be avoided in those areas and instead designed as the clustered developm_e.nt in the form of vernacular farm building complexes, to blend the traditional agricultural working landscape. Policy 1.10.4 (page 1 -40): Task Force members provided minor language changes to retain the word "Council" in the first sentence, and to add, "or companies producing significant numbers of head of household jobs" to the end of subsection D. policy 1.11.1 (page 1 -41): Task Force members changed the language to read, "The City shall continue to communicate with nearby government and educational institutions to address proposed changes in numbers of workers, students, or inmates that have the potential to result in significant adverse land use or circulation impacts on the City or may negatively influence the City's ability to manage growth. Policy 1. 11.4 (page1 -41): Task Force opted to replace the word "plans" with "efforts ". olicv 1.12.6 (page 1 -45): Task Force revised proposed text to read, "The City shall approve development in newly annexed areas only when adequate City services can be provided for that development, without reducing the level of public services or increasing the cost of services for existing development and for build out within the City limits." Policy 1. 12.7 (page 1 -46): Task Force determined that subsection F was still needed to address future Bishop Knolls annexation. On a motion by Task Force Member Brown, seconded by Member Goetz to approve the Growth Management, Chapter with revisions and direction as noted. kip gv-el-) AYES: Committee Members Meyer, Rademaker, Bremer, Brown, Crotser, Goetz, Juhnke, Multari, Richardson, Rowley, Saunders, Whitney �jSGuff NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Committee Members Dandekar, Rossi, and Quaglino OT The motion passed on a 12:0 vote. I )(2,1 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no further comments made from the public. SET TIME FOR NEXT TF -LUCE MEETING: NOVEMBER 7, 2013. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:06 pm. (.,Ityof Land Use THE GENERAL PLAN 4421.11 Annexation and Services a4241.11.1 Water and Sewer Service . .................. The City shall not provide nor permit delivery of City otp able water or sewer services to the following areas. However, the City will serve those parties having valid previous connections orcontracts with the City. A. Outside the City limits; B. Outside the urban reserve line; C. Above elevations reliably served by gravity -flow in the City water system; D. Below elevations reliably served by gravity -flow or pumps in the City sewer system. Polic 1.12.1 10, Ste ❑ Clan ❑ currencX 10 Relocate J ❑ Complete ❑ Relevance JE Resources Word "Potable" added to clarify the service being addressed and changes to the Water and Wastewater Element approved by the Council in 2010. 1.42.21.11.2 _Annexation Purpose and Timing The City may use_Aannexation should he its as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city - approved specific plan or development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads. (See alsG Ca^tlnn port Area) Policy 1 12 2 10 5t e 10 Clari ❑ Currency I ❑ Relocate 10 Complete 10 Relevance 10 Resources Edited for style and to delete unnecessary referenceto Section 7.0. 1.11.3 Annexation of Cal Poly The Cjjty should analyze the suitability of annexing Cal Poly. NEW 10 Style © Clarity 1 ❑ Currency 1 ❑ Relocate 1 ❑ Complete 1 ❑ Relevance 1 ❑ Resources Desire to investigate the advantages of annexation, including capture of sales tax revenues, sharing of services, and so forth were brought up during Community Leader Interviews held during March 2012 1.12.4 Annexation in Airport Area F_qT__ perties in the Airport aArea Specific Plan_, a SpeG'fi(; plan shall be adopted for-the whole aFea. Until a specifiG plan is adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria: 1. The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and 2. The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and 3. The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and \lercinn 1714AI' 11'A 1_111 PH1 - 71 / s V" r ' 4gk•�J `s F s � 1' t��rp •�� � 75� ' ! �`. *4r� � , ('`, tJr ' •y r }'r �s`7 i �y 'y �� � ` � � , a1. rT' fs U, r—Q -kr C 07 CL N � O (D a) Coll w� c CL N