Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/1994, 1 - PLANNING COMMISSION AND EIR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT. ��iII�IIII�IIIIII�IIIIII,���������Iplllfli IIID IIID sAn luis oaspoc��ty . 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 24, 1994 TO: City Council Members FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director VIA Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Planning Commission and EIR Reporting Requirements for the Circulation Element. The City Council has made amendments to the draft Circulation Element. Staff has reviewed these amendments to determine: ❑ If the environmental impacts of the amendments are addressed by the Final EIR for the Land Use/Circulation Element. The Community Development Director is responsible for evaluating the amendments. If the director determines that the amendments may cause new significant environmental impacts, then an "EIR Supplement" must be prepared, circulated, reviewed by the Planning Commission and certified by the City Council. Certification of the supplement must occur before the Council adopts the Circulation Element. This process will take three to four months. If the director determines that the amendments-will not cause new significant environmental impacts, than an "EIR Addendum" must be prepared that makes the minor changes needed to the parent EIR to make it complete. The EIR addendum would be prepared and considered by the Council at the time that it adopts the Circulation Element. Depending on the scope of the addendum, it could be available for Council consideration along with the final draft Circulation Element in November, 1994. ❑ If the proposed amendments constitute substantial modifications to the daft Circulation Element, have not been previously considered by the Planning Commission, and require referral to the Commission for recommendations. State law provides the following direction: 65356. Legislative Body Action (in part) However, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the planning commission for its recommendations. The failure of the commission to report within 45 calendar days after the reference, or within the time set by the legislative body, shall be deemed a recommendation for approval. /rtDThe city of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. v` Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. The following chart identifies amendments that staff believes warrant Planning Commission review. The Community Development Director has determined that no new significant environmental effects have been raised that will require the preparation of an EIR Supplement. An addendum to the EIR will be prepared for Council consideration. Following the table is a brief analysis of each potentially- substantial modification. COUNCIL SUPPORTED AMENDMENTS TO THE DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT Requires PC Referral Requires Supplemental Environmental Review Reclassifying Chorro/Pismo Streets as No as "Collectors" Establishing a LOS "C" standard for No arterial streets, Highway/Regional Routes and the Freeway Reclassifying Orcutt/South Higuera Streets No as "Highways/Regional Routes" (Amendments as of CC meeting of October 18, 1994) For amendments that staff has identified in the table above, the City Council should decide if they constitute substantial modifications to the Circulation Element or not. If determined to be substantial, the Council must refer them to the Planning Commission or modify the amendment in such a way that referral is not required. If the amendments are considered substantial, the City Council should establish a time frame for receiving the Planning Commissions recommendations. This time frame will be short if the Council's goal of adopting the Circulation Element by December 1, 1994 is to be achieved. Staff would recommend that Commission recommendations should be complete by November 11, 1994. 1. Transportation Goals and Policies The City Council amended Goal #1 to read: Maintain accessibility and protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, with the goal Qf achieving State and Federal Health Standards for air qua ity. Goal #1: Relating air quality goals to traffic growth was not considered by the Planning Commission. However, Goal #1 includes the phrase "protect the environment throughout San Luis Obispo. " Meeting federal and state air quality standards is consistent with this wording and simply makes a specific reference to one part of the environment that must be protected. The proposed changes will not increase adverse impacts. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is not required. No further environmental documentation required. The City Council amended Objective #7 as follows: 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 population within the City. Limiting traffic growth (ADT and VMT) to the increase in population is a substantial modification not specifically considered by the Planning Commission. However, the Commission did review limiting VMT-ADT to 1988 levels which is a more stringent standard. Therefore, a less stringent standard may be considered within the range of options considered by the Commission. Recommended changes will not increase adverse environmental impacts. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is not required. No further environmental documentation required. 2. Traffic Reduction The City Council added Policy 1.5 and amended Program 1.10 as follows: 1.5 If meaningful progress has not been made toward achieving trip reduction average vehicle ridership (AVR) targets, then the City will consider adopting a mandatory trip reduction ordinance. 1.10 The City will work with area employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Air Pollution Control District, Transportation Management Association, and other agencies to support a voluntary trip reduction program. For employers with 50 or more employees, the program will be structured as follows: A. Candidate employers will be surveyed to determine base year average vehicle ridership (A VR) levels. B. Candidate employers will be offered assistance in preparing plans to reduce automobile dependency of their work forces. C. 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. The "monitored" two year voluntary program is a significant modification that was specifically reviewed by the Planning Commission. The environmental assessment was based on the City achieving its trip reduction goals of AVR = 1.6. However, since the Council-supported goal includes a review in two years and the consideration of mandatory trip reduction programs (new policy 1.5), achieving the goal may be a matter of program phasing. Conclusion: Planning Commission. referral is not required. No further environmental evaluation is needed at this time but should be done at the end of the two-year monitoring period as part of a "mitigation monitoring"program. 3. Traffic Management Policy 5.4 (Street Standards and Classification): The Planning Commission considered various changes to the Figure#2 which classifies streets. However, the Council's action to eliminate the "Neighborhood Arterial" category and to identify segments of Chorro and Pismo Streets as "Residential Collector" routes is a substantial modification that was not considered by the Planning Commission. Various ADT standards for "Neighborhood Arterials" were reviewed by the Planning Commission including a standard of 5,000 ADT. The Council's action to asterisk (*) Chorro Street and identify a ADT goal of 5,000 is within the range of options considered by the Commission. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is required for classing Chorro and Pismo Streets as Residential Collector streets. A report is required because of a basic change in "function" of these streets and because the ADT goal for Pismo Street would now be set at 3,000 ADT. Additional environmental review is not required because the draft Circulation Element includes policies that establish an ongoing traffic monitoring program (Program 7.7)and a policy that support aggressive traffic demand management strategies when LOS C is reached and the consideration of street widening projects when LOS E is reached (Policy 71). 4. Traffic Flow Policy #7.1 (LOS Standards and Phased Response). The consideration of LOS "C" is a major modification to the draft Circulation Element that was not within the range of alternatives considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's review focused on accepting a LOS of "D" or "E" or considering a tiered policy with LOS "D" as being the trigger point for considering more stringent demand management measures. These options were embodied in recommendations made by the Economic Stability Task Force, staff, and the Sierra Club. Adopting LOS "C" as a standard for arterial streets and using this standard to trigger traffic demand reduction programs while setting a threshold of LOS "E" for street widening projects will not result in additional adverse environmental impacts. It will mean that alternative transportation programs (which typically have fewer environmental impacts that auto-accommodating programs) will need to be more stringent -- an important policy consideration. Additional environmental review would be required only if the City considers LOS C as an "environmental threshold." An environmental threshold establishes the point at which traffic congestions represents an adverse environmental condition. Typically, Caltrans considers LOS "D" as an environmental threshold for purposes of determining the significance of traffic impacts. LOS "D" was considered the environmental threshold by the Final EIR for the Land Use & Circulation Element. It is possible for the City to establish a desired traffic flow standard which is different than an environmental threshold. This often occurs when establishing planning, development and engineering standards. A City standard may achieve conditions.in excess of environmental thresholds. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is required to consider LOS "C" as a new standard for all arterial streets (even those in the downtown area). No additional environmental documentation is required. 5. Redesignation of All Incoming Streets as Highways-Regional Routes. This change is a substantial modification that was not reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Commission considered Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Boulevard and Santa Rosa/Route 1 as Highway/Regional Routes. Orcutt Road and South Higuera Street south of the City were recommended by the Commission as Local streets. The EIR did not consider any widening of Orcutt or South Higuera Street as a regional route under any of the three alternative packages. However, since these streets are not identified on Figure #4, no widening is necessarily implied by the Council establishing a lane standard of 2 to 6 travel lanes for Highway/Regional Routes. Conclusion:Planning Commission referral is required to consider the redesignation of Orcutt Road and South Higuera Street as Highway/Regional Routes. No additional environmental review is required. 6. Changing the definition of Highway/Regional Routes to include landscaped medians and parkways outside the urban reserve. While the Planning Commission did not discuss this issue affecting streets outside the City's urban reserve, staff does not consider it a significant modification. The change to the definition of Highway/Regional Route to include landscaped medians and parkways will not cause any significant adverse environmental effects and may help mitigate visual issues and visual mitigation is addressed in the EIR. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is not required. No additional environmental review is required. 7. Including the Santa Barbara-Santa Rosa Connection as a Study Item The Planning Commission did not discuss this potential street connection. However, since it is identified only as a "feasibility study item," staff does not consider it as a substantial modification to the draft Circulation Element. At the time that the City Council initiates an amendment to the Circulation Element to include the project on Figure 114, Planning Commission recommendation and environmental review will be required. The City should expect to prepare an EIR for this project that evaluates transportation, land use, noise, and aesthetic and plan consistency impacts of the project. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is not required. As a study item, no additional environmental review is needed at this time. 8. South Street-Bishop Street Connection This project is a substantial modification to the Circulation Element that was considered by the Planning Commission and evaluated by the EIR. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral or supplemental environmental review is not required at this point. Project-level environmental review will be required. 9. Buckley Road as an Arterial This project is a substantial modification to the Circulation Element that was considered by the Planning Commission and evaluated by the EIR. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral or supplemental environmental review is not required at this point. Project-level environmental review is required. 10. Deletion of the Santa Rosa Widening Project, Route 101 Widening Project, South Broad Street Widening Project, and modification to the Narrowing of Prefumo Canyon Road (reference Figure lt4). Each street project on Figure #4 was individually considered by the Planning Commission. Options available to the Commission included approving the recommendation as drafted, deleting the recommended project, or modifying the project description. The EIR evaluated a "minor road" option to the recommended Circulation Element. This option assumed that few road projects would be build while the City would develop consistent with the draft Land Use Element. Therefore, the elimination of the projects shown above is within the range of alternatives evaluated by the EIR. Conclusion: Planning Commission referral is not required. No addition environmental review is necessary. Other Council-initiated amendments to policies and programs are generally within the scope of the Planning Commission's review and the final EIR and do not constitute substantial modifications to the draft Circulation Element. 0 CD :)E,;R �q D1,1 L' F,RE MEETING AGENDA A7-a6-'FY DATE 4 rrEm #./ D r R zt; y18 Felicia Way 0-V r, 04 0 0 GN San Luis Obispo CA 934,01 060 L JJ%•C� October 16, 1994 OPEN LETTER TO THE SAN LUIS CITY COUNCIL REGARDING TRAFFIC FLOW: In the past, the City Council has made some unfortunate decisions regarding traffic flow: Speed bumps on part of Broad Street, allowing construction of the "historical" mammoth grey elephant at the intersection of Madonna Road and Higuera and installation of a shopping center right at the congested intersection of Broad and Orcutt streets. In finance, people realize that a 3% interest rate doubles their money in about 24 years. Some people and many politicians don't want to face that the same real rate of growth doubles population in the same time. Traffic in SLO has been increasinq exponentially, even in the midst of the Great California Depression, and this traffic will find a way through the city-- whizzing clown side streets, running stop signs and beating lights-- despite any attempts at "calming" and obstruction. Slowing traffic on one street will cause more on others. In turn,, the residents on those streets will object and it will become a matter of who is politically more powerful. The City Council is opening a Pandora's Box of circulation problems. Before voting for expensive projects, the Council should look at .the lack of rational traffic: control in the city right now. We should not be seeking ways to close Rt. 101 ramps, to stifle traffic flow in vocal well-to-do areas, nor to install obstructions necessary to living in SLO. We should carry out well-known ways to make traffic -flow more efficiently along the natural arteries running through the city, to distribute flow more equally in residential areas, and to arrange the bus system so it doesn't take an hour or an hour and a half to get from one edge of town to the other. Let's improve traffic flow in SLO by simple, inexpensive and rational means be-fore obstructions and ramp closings are considered. Take coming into the city on Broad Street from the south: Traffic speeds north along Broad until it is collected for a long wait at Tank Farm. The clump then waits at the Orcutt intersection. the South Street intersection, and so on. Try driving from upper Monterey or Hiauera street to the Laguna L shopping center and count the number of lights that stop you and the total time you wait at them. - Back *in the Twenties, big U3 LO cities realized that lights have to be timed for continuous flow 0 im C%J 0along arteries. Red arrows, found in much higher proportion in rX SLO than any large city, are -fine during commuting hours, but are idiot lights the rest of the time. It is no wonder that people speed and tailgate_ The -Frustration level is going up! During World War H mathematical queuing theory developed. This theory shows that a small obstruction like a stop sign can retard flow not linearly but exponentially. The consultants and traffic engineers that service SLO may be ignorant of decades of studies on traffic flow. Perhaps the better ones work in the cities and the others work in places like SLO. I could cite dozens of misapplications of traffic devices in SLO, but you probably know them as well as I do. In the jargon of Gilbert and Sullivan, traffic flow in SLO appears to be planned by "terrified amateurs." Before causing political strife by closing streets and ramps, installing bulb-outs, speed bumps, stop signs, low speed limits and cutting new streets through residential areas, let's bite the bullet and see how the traffic flow can become faster smoother. spread more evenly over the natural arteries and side streets. We also must try to get people to feel that public transportation is efficient and convenient and not just for the disabled, the retired, the impoverished and students, but that is a subject all by itself. :n short, I would recommend: 1. All current "natural arteries" through the city have a reasonable moderate speed limit, independent of the political power or lack of power of the residents. 2. Lights timed for continuous flow along these arteries. 3. Red and green arrows turned off during hours when not needed. 4. Computer controlled lights along strips of high traffic density and complexity. (Example: Madonna Road) 5. Lichts that anticipate the flow of a clump of cars bearino down on them. 'Examples: Broad at Orcutt, Foothill and California, Foothill and Santa Rosa) 6. Elimination of arteries that narrow and widen in number of lanes. (Examples- Higuera at Marsh, Los Osos around Rt. 101, Hip_uera at Los Osos, From Johnson around to California and Monterey.) Let's remedy the inaction and mis-action of the last decade'- Very sincerely, Doueias Warschauer FAA mcETING AGENDA IVpp DATE # OCT 2 5 1994 ARCHITECTURAL P R O D U C T I O N CITY CLERK SERVICES .."OBISPO.C.•. 25 October 1994 T _ COUNCIL )? CDD DIR pp CAO ❑ FIN DIR The Mayor and City Council ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo ATTORNEY P`'f D 990 Palm Street i !X CLEM(IOR!c ❑ POLICE CHF ' ❑ NEG;V TEAtM LI REC Di-) San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 11C READ F::-!-: ❑ Ur:L GIN i ILE ❑ ::E,%SCI; Re: Circulation Element Dear Madam Mayor and Council, We request that the reserve setback requirement for the Monterey Street Widening be deleted from the Circulation Element. It is ambiguous and conflicts with the Planning Department and Environmental Quality Task Force opinions as to the necessity for widening of this street. Our client has a previously approved project for the corner of Monterey Street and Toro. It is currently 4 stories tall. The first 2 levels are for parking and the upper 2 levels are for offices. The current plan before the ARC does not have the 6' foot setback along Monterey Street. This allowed full use of lot depth. The result is a 2 story building; one level of office space over ground level parking. In our professional opinion, our current 2 story building is far more acceptable to our client, adjacent businesses and the surrounding residential neighborhood. A reserve setback requirement of indeterminate width, and one which may never be required severely limits the property owners ability to fairly develop their land in a way that benefits all. Sin y, cha eachey, hitect APS Architects, Inc. APS 91 ' HFTECTS , INC . 444 Higuera Sheet,,Ste.201 $an Lu 06Ispo,CA 93401 Tel:(805)541.624A Fax:(805)541-2734 .r-, ,...: Architects:RandoI L,:Rea,AIA•Mark D. Rawson,AIA•Michael•PeaFhey A E C E I V E D ' '-CTING AGENDA t,,, ITEM # OCT 2 5 1994 CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM JCUNCILp�cDD DIR WfAo ❑ FIN DIRTO: Mayor Pinard FN"" A0 ❑ FIRE CHIS Council members Rappa, Roalman, Romero, and Settl 'o" t `rrD!aER-.Va;!c ❑ POLICE c ' FROM: Pam Copeland, BIA President ❑ e4GN-1 TFAH 0 PEC DIF ❑ c READ F_�i ❑ urL Din i DATE: October 25, 1994 ,,e ❑ ``Ss cis, � RE: Circulation Element 7, '�4* In reviewing pages 32-40 of the draft Circulation Element, the BIA Board of Directors would like to ask the City Council reconsider two points in the Parking Management section. First, 12.1 states 'To reduce parking demand", we would like this wording changed to a more positive term. The City Council changed section 1.4 earlier which also included the phrase "reduce parking demand". We would like to see this same new terminology inserted into 12.1. Second, section 12.8 details that surplus parking surface lots be turned into parks. In accordance with the Downtown Physical Concept Plan, the BIA would ask that surface lots, which are primary commercial area, be considered for in-fill rather than parks. These lots, such as Court Street, represent crucial commercial space for maintaining the continuity downtown. Additionally, 12.9 asks that a study be conducted before additional parking structures are added. We would ask that if such a study is funded that it be scheduled immediately. We already feel that a parking structure expansion or new facilitate will be needed with in the next few years. Finally, sections 15.5-and 15.7 raise concern. While we agree that the cost of constructing new facilitates to accommodate automobile is important, we would also ask that rates remain competitive. and reasonable. Cars provide a safe feeling to pedestrians downtown, and: parking structure rates that are unreasonable high make the downtown less competitive. We full support the current City programs which offer free parking for ride share vehicles and car pools. Asking development to bear all costs of new transportation facilities may be unreasonable and may prohibit good projects from occurring downtown. We appreciate your consideration of these points in your review of these sections of the Circulation Element. Thank you for listening. :,., ... P.O.Bar.4Q? San lemic 0h*•CA 91406•8051541-0284 NA_ Io- 5-qy AGENDA DATE L�ITEM #_.. San Luis Obispo Chamber ofCommerceD� 2 ; �qg� 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255 CITY CLEHK October 24, 1994 David E. Garth, Executive Director OBISPO.r- COUNCIL CDD DIR Honorable Mayor and City Council Members CAO ❑ FIN DIR 900 Palm Street ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF City of San Luis Obispo Ai o'f'„ X^"'D!H San Luis Obispo,CA 93403-8100 o'- ',r"o;: ❑ FOUZC CFF- O r9G;;T7'ur; E. R" DiFt ❑ C R=A:1 r i -IT! Girl RE: Circulation Element Hearing -- October 25, 1994 VI LIE (D Dear Mayor and Council Members: TSQYIV111-p. The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce offers its recommendations for the October 25 Circulation Element hearing. The Chamber's recommendations refer specifically to the sections titled Truck, Air, and Rail Transport; Parking Management and Scenic-Roadways covering pages 32-40. Pae Policy Section TRUCK TRANSPORTATION p. 32 9.3 This EQTF proposed policy requiring trucks to turn off motors when parked needs to be studied in greater detail before becoming policy. Such a policy may actually be counter-productive to clean air objectives. 9.4 The Chamber of Commerce urges definition of "large commercial trucks" such as the size of the axle. ' AIR TRANSPORTATION p. 33 10.3 The Chamber believes that the proposed language is too limiting. Concerns should be based on air pollution and noise, not on size of aircraft and number of people (bearing capacity). The Chamber believes that a noise standard should be defined and strictly adhered to. Further, the City of San Luis Obispo should recommend and support the establishment of a reasonable airport noise ordinance. ACCREDITED .....sER OF WO ME Ci'Amh'AOr CG.'m[ACE. 10.6 The Chamber recommends rewording the policy to read: The City should encourage the County to continue to appropriately address noise and safety problems related to airport operations. RAIL TRANSPORTATION p. 34 INTRODUCTION Comment: The Chamber recommends making the document consistent with current and proposed Amtrak scheduling by revising the second sentence and striking the reference to once-a-day connections to San Francisco and Los Angeles. MARINE TRANSPORTATION Comment. In keeping with the proposed linkage of the City of San Luis Obispo to the Port of San Luis Obispo, the expansion of alternate forms of transportation, and an overall appreciation of our historical heritage and its travel routes, the Chamber of Commerce urges the Council to explore the possibilities of marine transportation, and consider adding such a section to the Circulation Element addressing this form of transportation. This alternative mode of transportation could not only help meet transportation goals, but also stimulate commerce in our region. This concept would dovetail nicely with the City to the Sea concept. PARKING MANAGEMENT p. 35 -12.8 This EQTF proposed program regarding downtown parking lots is not consistent with the Council approved and adopted Downtown Concept Plan. Furthermore, this document has projected increased vehicular use, and existing parking will not be in surplus. The Chamber recommends the deletion of this proposed policy. 12.9 The Chamber recommends the following program language: Additional parking structures would only be built after completion of a comprehensive parking study and consideration of its results. SCENIC ROADWAYS p. 37 14.3C Comment: Recognition should be given to architectural designs which may, in some circumstances, enhance scenic views. 14.3E Comment: The Chamber recommends deleting any references to.specific lights such as "cobra type" lights. 14.10 Recommended language: The City will adopt a street corridor landscaping plan for scenic roadways. Indigenous species will be encouraged where appropriate. . p. 39 15.5 The Chamber prefers the original language proposed in the draft which reads: The City should allocate more of the cost of constructing and maintaining facilities that accommodate automobile use to the users of these facilities: 15.13 Since the term developer is narrow in scope and any project could be subject to such impact fees, the Chamber recommends the following program language: The City will adopt a transportation impact fee ordinance that requires funding of projects and programs that mitigate city-wide transportation impacts. 15.14 The Chamber recommends including in this program only a portion of the EQTF proposed language. The Chamber recommends revising the policy to read as follows: All projects will be evaluated against a wide range of alternatives that accomplish the desired result. In closing, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce supports a wide array of alternative transportation modes including truck, air, rail and marine transportation. In reference to circulation planning, the Chamber stresses that you keep the Council approved Downtown Design Concept in mind when amending this document. Please review these specific policy and program recommendations as you move forward toward the adoption of the City' Draft Circulation Element. Sincerely, jot Ewan, Chair Clean Air/Circulation Task Force San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce • MEETING RECEIVEDE�VE©DATE/ - - VGENDA EM # / OCT 2 1 1994 ADhR;N,�,.w :uN cn0 rA Memorandum October 18, 1994 TO: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer VIA: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director O FROM: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manag r SUBJECT: Request for SLOCOG Census Data Summary Sheet As requested, please find attached the census summary sheet, prepared and distributed by SLOCOG, describing the origin and destination of workers in San Luis Obispo County. c:\Nvinword\ census.doc /jm �JIGU'•'GL t�'DD DAa, F Ch�V ❑ FIN UR /I:.CAo rJ 1=,E CHEF 4 I ell CL6 cn jl i� IrI-IY h I I P n 1 = 11 I 1 F I I I 1 J _ L. ul _ 1 m. U — U � �In ^ _ _1 _ _I v_.I nI_ � �Ir„ I_ �I .. � � C ti ' ; ■ rn - - p [� •l. _ � `- r^, .`Gv - c ris'v n .^CI Y n o o � y _. r: n V s L I I'� G b < �I_ -I- - - I-'y yl Yl� C C S �::m _ _ F• I 1 �{ .. '1 cc Ch U NCD O N ao 6-•1 _ .r V � cc rn ri .rn Mai - _I_,J`IG `G.Ic Ir IGI c c o c o - 'v.:� .r-', .98 - _ J - � 7-7 - 1 �I=��lrls,�;1-1=1^�YI..I�I_�=i_I=1_: � _ `I:: � Y z I I � I I I � s ■ Z t :i"_i I i I_I_-1 .I?I-1r•;I_I Icl= .9 `> -! � _ I I I J>? �l Y. � I�_I Y. � `I�� IiIIIIII � � � I—I� �I. Imo. I -� t 1 .J G C >' VD RECEIVE® lao COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OCT 2 1994 ' = bepamment of GEneQal c,���,,��q COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408• (805)781.5200 DUANE P. LEIB• DIRECTOR MEETING AGENDA DATE ITEM # TO: MICHAEL McCLUSKEY, SLO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: PAUL GIMER, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AJ90 • a�—�� DATE: OCTOBER 25, 1994 SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT Seven policies regarding local "Air Transportation" are presented on page 33 of your draft document. Specific comments regarding this mass transportation service are offered. 10.3 "To discourage use by noisier and larger planes than at present, the County Airport's runways should not be extended, nor their bearing capacity increased." The County Airport intends to accommodate commuter aircraft seating as many as fifty (50) passengers. We endeavor to serve these aircraft and travelers with the safest facilities and operating environment as can be afforded. Such facilities will fully serve our General Aviation users as well. County considers subjective restrains on aircraft development and service to be inappropriate. In 1981, air service was provided by an aircraft which carried 48-passengers. It was extremely noisy by today's standards. Currently, our excellent air service is provided using aircraft with 19, 30 and 34-seat capacities. All are exceedingly more quiet than their predecessor. Advances in technology will continue to reduce noise and improve passenger comfort. 10.6 "The County should regulate airport operations (flight paths and number of flights) so that they do not cause noise or safety problems in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the City's Land Use Element." The County's ability to "regulate airport operations" is significantly restricted by federal law. The City should be very conscious of the Airport, its predicable flight paths, its predictable noise levels, etc., whenever it considers new development or changes to the Land Use Element. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. All other policies seem appropriate. c - Mr. John Dunn, City Administrative Officer out L CDD DiR County Board of Supervisors AO ❑ F1DIR C.44 FJ RE ' Mr. Robert Hendrix, County Administrative Officer ❑ CHIEF y��art .-v ;FJ Dlta '. CLEC��i�iC•I ❑ FOLCc CHF • jt%A;UACC7*Cy.P(3 ❑ Pd.•^vi::f i1•.f:7 0 PEC MR, ❑ C REA' "' ❑ C'!L U;R T�ai� AIR TRANSPORTATION INTRODUCTION 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. Policies 10.1 The City should respect the recommendations of the Airport Land Use Plan as it relates to noise and safety concerns. 10.2 The County airport should provide for general aviation and commuter air-service to San Luis Obispo. 10.3 To discourage use by noisier larger planes than at present, the County Airport's runways should not be extended, nor their bearing capacity increased. 10.4 The City and the County should regulate land use surrounding the airport so that it is compatible.with airport operations and does not threaten the continued use of the airport. 10.5 The City will require development projects and subdivisions within Airport Planning Zones #1 through X14 to include measures that protect the health, safety and comfort of residents and employees. 10.6 The County should regulate airport operations (flight paths and number of flights) so that they do not cause noise.or safety problems in developed areas or areas targeted for future development by the city's Land Use Element. 10.7 Public transit service should be encouraged to serve the county airporto ae-seen 33 W NG AGENDA DATE 1°�ITEM # / San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce 1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278 (805) 781-2777 9 FAX (805) 543-1255 David E. Garth, Executive Director October 27, 1994 OUNICIL Ly�;DD DIR i CRO 0R DIR CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF L' Q/�lT?OR�iEY I2-fi:d Dlft Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FALER„Jr,F1:G D FGL;''c c:iF 900 Palm Street ❑ t.,G,;:1 T r F:± Ll RUC Gini City of San Luis Obispo ❑ C READ t 1:3 uTIL[aa San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 T• ,�aviu.E RE: Circulation Element Update Meeting -- carried over to October 28, 1994 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At the recent Circulation Element hearing on October 25, the Council discussed the concept of a Highway 1 bypass. The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like.to make the following comments regarding this issue. Such a circulation project could have long range impacts on our community. While the Chamber does not have a position on this project at this time, we are aware that such a project would affect the dynamics of land uses and circulation. Because of this, the Chamber urges thorough investigation of impacts on businesses and the community at large before taking any official Council action. Finally, the Chamber urges Council to give the community the opportunity to openly debate this circulation proposal due to its potential impacts on both residents and businesses. Please keep these ideas in mind as you discuss the Highway 1 bypass concept on October 28. Sincerely, William A. Thoma, Vice President of Legislative Division San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce -' CE1VF OCT 2 7 1994 ACCREDITED C V CNW OF COY FCE Ecr CITY CLERK CO.•IUFCU.rI ro 5com1,.1r, OBISPO.! ” DATE, ITEM #�— (805) 543-4701 cla 965 West Street .� ,� �o ❑ FINDIR iI San Luis Obispo cao ❑ FIFEGHIEFi California 93405 D!la L c,-.F:;; October 26, 1994 �ccrn [? p�CGiF� Mayor Peg Pinard C] -:�c.1 ❑ C READ c City of San Luis Obispo ❑ -�.,a? T �.�----T RECEIVED P.o• Box x100 :---�._ - - San Luis Obispo ocT 2 g 1994 Calif orni a 93403-8100 cln COUNCIL SAN LUIS OBISpo,CA Dear Mayor Pinard; Recently I returned from a trip and found that the City Council had several meetings regarding the traffic concerns on north Chorro Street. Included in the reports I read and heard was talk about considering closure of several off and on ramps from traffl gonway northO1. Also, there was Chorro Street beforeathe lk f gating a solution to reduce seating of the next City Council in December. This brings up two concerns which I hope you will consider. First, it has been a history in San Luis Obispo, as the government and traffic department attempt to direct traffic, for drivers to find alternative routes which make it easier for them to get from point A to point B. Murray Street and Meinecke Street are two examples of increased traffic when an attempt was made to direct traffic to Santa Rosa and Foothill. With this history it seems very likely that restrictions on north Chorro Street will direct drivers onto Lincoln, north several blocks to West Street, then west back to Chorro. Lincoln and West Streets are truly residential service streets. I hope your desire to keep residential service streets as such will survive what changes you make to restrict traffic on north Chorro. Second, historically Chorro Street has been rea under or jor routes or traffic between downtown San Luis Obispo and the Foothill across Highway 101. 1 hope the talk of making decisions before the next City Council is seated is just ent and attempt lk. it concerns t change the patternme very much if you Wn a ere to take years of traffic manage couple of months. Do you know where all those drivers are going that use north Chorro Street and the on and off ramps which have been•considered for closing? Please, give it adequate time and do it right this time. Those are my two concerns, increased traffic on the residential service streets, Lincoln and West and inadequate planning will cause more problems than are solved. In addition, let me make a suggestion to be considered. Make Chorro Street from Lincoln to Foothill one way outbound (I would prefer one way inbound but that probably would create a problem at Lincoln and Chorro), and Broad Street from Foothill to Lincoln one way inbound. Each street could have one lane for traffic, parking on both sides, and bicycle lane(s). This would basically cut the traffic by 507o on Chorro but increase traffic on Broad, provide space for bicycles, and provide easier access to Chorro Street for residents living on Chorro Street. Sincerely, Copies to: Councilwoman Penny Rappa Councilman Bill Roalman Councilman Dave Romero Councilman Allen Settle F. Michael Lacey pp TING AGENDA DAT �IIII�I II IIIIIIIII �IIIUIIII I M�IT IIIIII�IIII II I cityoS� WiS OBIS[V OMENS 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 October 28, 1994 COU"�GiLDD DIR i TO: City Council Membersy(CAO 11FIN DIR f 44ACAO ❑OFIRECHIEF tI FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Dire C:R?� r/ ^;'!D!R �? Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner ; FcL!::,E..;:F` 9.w cL� ��'ii:�i I D r,1Gi,,71 TU11.1 ❑ P.EC Dip SUBJECT: Route 1 Bypass Policy Options ❑ 0RE�DF'i:•:: ri UT!_L'?R 119*1� ❑ Staff offers the following range of policy options for the Council to consider: 1. The Circulation Element would not include a reference to the bypass. 2. The Circulation Element would not include a reference to the bypass. The City Council could ask Caltrans (Via a letter) to further study Route 1 circulation options and establish a long-term phased strategy for addressing transportation needs. 3. The Circulation Element could identify changes to Santa Rosa Street (intersection changes, medians, and widening) and the bypass route as options to be further studied by Caltrans. 4. The Circulation Element could identify priorities for addressing Route I traffic: To address traffic needs; Caltrans should plan for and construct changes to Route 1 in rhe following priority order on an "as needed" basis: A. Construct operational changes to Santa Rosa Street (turn pockets @ intersections, medians, etc.). B. Reconstruct the Santa Rosa Street interchange to improve Route 101/Route 1 connections. C. Widen Santa Rosa Street to six lanes between Olive Street and Foothill Boulevard. D. Construct a grade separation at Foothill Boulevard to reduce intersection congestion. E. Construct a reliever route for Route 1. 5. The Circulation Element could support a Route 1 bypass project as the preferred project: To meet current and future needs, Caltrans should pursue the planning and construction of a new alignment,for Route 1 north of San Luis Obispo and its connection with Route 101. 6. The Circulation Element could support a specific alignment for a bypass route as the preferred project: Caltrans should pursue the planning and construction of a new alignment for Route I which would extendfrom the current alignment north of Cuesta College to the Marsh Street interchange at Route 101 (see Exhibit J. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. 0) pp `TING AGENDA A DAi E ITEM # III� I II cityor sAn 1U1 s OBISIV 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 yyss. _ C1OUPJGiL L�'CDD DIR }1 E C � `0 I Y E � CAO C i"%'.DIR October 28, 1994 t'lgr GR_vtY !] FIRE-CHIEF OCT 2 p, 1944 I �wD!n. LCLERKKii"vG ] FCL!CE CHF TO: City Council Members CITY CLERK ❑ fw.Giv ttc.(,q ❑ pEC DiF; L;:'S OBISPO,C: t7 CR �F; f] Us!L GiR FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director . _ ❑ : ;s D.�_ Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner t,,5, "� = SUBJECT: Options for Program 15.14 At its October 25th hearing, the City Council reviewed Program 15.14 as recommended by the Environmental Quality Task Force. The Council asked staff to bring back alternatives for Council consideration. Staff has identified four alternatives: Option#1: 15.14 The evaluation of proposed major transportation projects (those exceeding $500,000)should address the following: A. Alternative projects or programs that can achieve the desired results. B. Signhcant environmental impacts of the project and mitigation to be included in the project's design or operation. C. Significant impacts on the Community's social environment. Option #2: 15.14 Prior to implementation,all projects identifled in this Element shall be reevaluated. The reevaluation shall include the analysis of alternatives that can achieve the desired results at lower costs. Alternatives.include: A. Other projects luted in the Circulation Element; or B. Projects made feasible by new or improved technology not existing when this Element was adopted. Option#3: 15.14 Prior to implementation of any project listed in Figure#4,the City shall evaluate alternative projects which could provide the same desired result at a lower cost and with less environmental impacts. Option#4 15.14 All projects listed in this Circulation Element shall be implemented only its accordance with the guidelines and priorities assigned by this Circulation Element. / The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.