Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11/21/2000, 1 - STATUS OF THE MONTEREY STREET SETBACK LINE, BETWEEN SANTA ROSA ST. AND BUENA VISTA AVENUE.
council j acEnba Report '�N° CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael D:McCluskey,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Jerry Kenny, Supervising civil Engineer SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE MONTEREY STREET SETBACK LINE, BETWEEN SANTA ROSA ST.AND BUENA VISTA AVENUE. CAO RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to continue to acquire new building setbacks and rights of way for future street widening,as depicted on current"preliminary"setback line(SBL)for Monterey Street. DISCUSSION Background Recently, a Council member requested information concerning the status of efforts to establish a setback line for Monterey Street. Staff has currently been applying a preliminary setback line that was established by Council in 1986. At that time, Council direction was to implement the preliminary plan line until the Circulation Element was reviewed and adopted, which took place in 1994. In the intervening six years, the Council has adopted a number of goals which staff has taken as a higher priority than the 1986 directive. Thus, due to the workload of increased development and trying,to achieve other Council goals, staff has not had time to pursue a formal plan line for Monterey Street. Based on the success the City has achieved in acquiring rights of way using the preliminary setback line, and the cost that would be incurred in order to establish a permanent setback line, staff is recommending that we continue using the preliminary line until such time as circumstances may change. Following Council direction in 1986, staff has been successful to date in establishing the applicable building setbacks and has acquired 42% of the necessary rights of way to accommodate the proposed widening per the preliminary setback line map. The following dedications have been acquired (or conditioned) and building setbacks have been provided, as described below and noted on Attachment 1). 1. 1100 Monterey St. - dedication and widening was completed with a former gas station project (current medical imaging offices) This currently accommodates a bus stop and dedicated right turn lane to NB Santa Rosa. 2. 1200 Monterey St. - new Montoro building has been set back. Dedication has been included on approved plans,but has not yet been received. 3. 1308 Monterey St. -Unocal gas station—dedication acquired. 4. 1480 Monterey St.—vacant—previous service station demolished; proposed development is being conditioned to meet Monterey St. setback line and dedicate R/W—also includes 1-1 Council Agenda Report—Monterey St. Setback Line status report Page 2 California St dedication per adopted setback line. This dedication could accommodate a RT lane from Calif. to SW'ly-bound Monterey. 5. 1491 Monterey St. - Bishop Burgers — Dedication for Monterey St. curb return and frontage of California Blvd. 6. 1631 Monterey St. - Quality Suites Motel. Dedication acquired. 7. 1701 Monterey St. - Cuesta Cadillac-Oldsmobile (formerly Standard Motors) and DaVinci's Pasta Restaurant. Dedication acquired. 8. 1930 Monterey - The Sands Motel (existing agreement re: dedication at time of widening) Preliminary Setback Line A preliminary building setback line was prepared in 1986 for Monterey St., between Santa Rosa and Buena Vista, to provide for street widening to accommodate future traffic volumes. (The full-size version of the setback line map is in the Council Office, due to its large size.) The City Council held a public hearing on September 2, 1986 to consider a) the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed plan line widening and b) adoption of the setback line. The Planning Commission recommended against establishment of a setback line at that time. (See Sept. 2, 1986 Council Agenda Report-Attachment 2). The preliminary setback line provided for a 76 ft. right of way and 60 ft. curb-to-curb, with 8 ft sidewalks, except at the Union Pacific RR bridge crossing near Pepper Street. The railroad bridge will only allow for 70 ft. between the abutments at this location, but would still accommodate the 60 ft. curb-to-curb dimension,with 5 ft. wide sidewalks. The staff report (of 1986) incorporated discussion and exhibits for various lane widths for the four proposed travel lanes. The staff recommended option provided for 11 ft. wide inner lanes and 14 ft. outer lanes in each direction, with a 10 ft. wide continuous two-way center left-turn lane. Another option provided for four 10 ft travel lanes, a 10 ft two-way left turn and 5 ft. bike lanes. Although there was considerable discussion about whether or not to include bike lanes and parking, the Council did not come to a consensus regarding these matters. The proposed street cross-section allows for flexibility when a final decision is made regarding these matters. The Bicycle Transportation Plan, adopted in 1993, did designate Monterey St. as a class III bike route. The staff report included four alternative actions for Council consideration. (See "Alternatives" in the September 2, 1986 agenda report) Alternative 4 was approved by motion, which provided for deferral of action on the final setback line until completion of the planned Circulation Element update. Staff was directed to continue to obtain dedications, using the proposed setback line as a guide. (See CC Minutes - Attachment 3) Adoption of Circulation Element The Circulation Element was subsequently adopted in 1994. It identifies a Transportation Capital Project that would "preserve right of way for up to 4 lanes", between Santa Rosa and Grand to accommodate future traffic volumes. (Attachment 4). The associated Environmental 1-2 Council Agenda Report—Monterey St. Setback Line status report Page 3 Impact Report noted a change to the previous Circulation Element that would eliminate widening northeasterly from Grand Avenue. (Attachment 5). This project, if and when pursued, would constitute formal adoption of a plan line for Monterey Street. However, as indicated earlier, work load issues have prevented the completion of this project to date. Stag'Recommendation The Environmental Impact Report (EIR), prepared in 1986 when the preliminary setback line was approved, is outdated and would need to be re-evaluated if the Council would like staff to proceed on a formal basis to adopt a plan line for Monterey Street. This would be a significant work effort, would require funding and retaining an environmental consultant and could not be accomplished any time soon. As a result staff is proposing to continue implementing the preliminary plan line established in 1986. The success that we have achieved so far indicates that this strategy can be successful without expenditure of funds and significant staff effort. Should staff become unsuccessful in acquiring rights of way in the future, we propose returning to Council at that time to request funding to proceed with a formal line adoption. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department and City Attorney concur with the recommended action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact, based on the recommended action. However, if the Council directs staff to re-evaluate the project as stated in the alternative below, staff would recommend appropriation of$35,000 to hire a consultant to do an EIR update. ALTERNATIVE Direct staff to re-evaluate the current preliminary Monterey Street Setback Line Map, pursuant to the 1994 Circulation Element, and the 1993 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and bring back a revised setback line map for consideration and adoption by ordinance. To do so would require that Council direct staff to pursue an update of the 1986 uncertified Environmental Impact Report, ($35,000), to reflect the previously approved preliminary setback line map, deletion of the portion northerly of Grand Ave. and any other suggested revisions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Reduced version of the 1986 preliminary setback line map. (4 pages) 2. Council Agenda report—September 2, 1986 3. Council Minutes- September 2, 1986(Public Hearing Item 4) 4. Excerpt from 1994 Circulation Element(Transportation Capital Project—D.2) 5. Excerpt from 1994 Circulation Element EIR(Circulation Features Item B. and map) 1ACouncd Agenda RepoM\Mon=y SL Setback Line 1-3 Y U Q p0 H W O Y U PC W H O i n 1.4 -- l i LJ _ LJ � Q i H I I LJ El LJ Y u< Pel F W rp ED Y _ U Q 00 F 1-5 i r Y - r i N I i i i I I i I U 1773 Q W N I 0 a w w N i Y N 1-7 • rnr�: 5Q.Qt.. 2 � 198 Sty'. �} city of san Luis ogispo COUN AGENDA REPORT FROM Michael Multar ommunity Development Director; BY: Candace Havens SUBJECT: Review and consideration of adopting a setback line on Monterey Street between Santa Rosa Street and Buena Vista Avenue, including review of Environmental Impact Report. CAO RECOMMENDATION After considering the staff report, Planning Commission recommendation, EIR and public input, approve or deny a proposed setback line. If the Council approves of a setback line, it also must take action to certify tlte--attached EIR, with or without amendments: The Planning Commission recommends the setbadk line not be adopted. BACKGROUND Situation Over the last few years, several new motels have been constructed and a few others remodeled on Monterey Street. As a result of more intense development there, as well as .of population increases in the county, traffic volumes on Monterey Street are expected to increase significantly. Over the next 10 to 20 years, existing traffic lanes may not be able to handle this flow and it will be necessary to increase capacity. One option to increasecapacity is to widen the street. While widening may not be needed for several years, adoption of a set back lint serves as a guide for future development and assures new structures will not, be built in the area which would be needed if the street is widened. At the present time, no such plan line has been adopted for Monterey Street. Nonetheless, to protect the future interests of the city, owners of property which has recently been developed along this street have been asked to dedicate land for future widening as a condition of land use reviews. Without a plan line it has sometimes been difficult to obtain dedications and to determine precisely how much land should be dedicated in different places. Problem Statement/Overview The following summarizes the principal questions before the City Council in regard to this item: Monterey Street in its present configuration can accommodate expected traffic volumes until 1995 - 2005. Sometime in that period, capacity will need to be increased. One approach is to simply remove parking and use the existing right-of-way. Even though the-right-of-way is very narrow, this approach could accommodate expected traffic volumes until sometime between 2010 - 2060. However, because the existing right-of-way is below standard, the traffic lanes in this scenario will be narrow, increasing a feeling of congestion and hazard. Thus. drivers will increasingly use alternative routes, dispersing traffic onto parallel routes which in this area arc in residential neighborhoods. Furthermore. the sidewalks would generally rsized and bike lanes could not be provided. Nonetheless, traffic could be steal_$ .ted for 25 - 75 years. city of san Luis oBispo R COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT for 110 years. If we use population growth in the county to make projections, then the existing configuration would reach capacity in 55 years after which a fully widened street would be needed. rrent grow full.capacity; may bei projecte4 to occur in 90 vears. - The principal objective of establishing a setback line now is to plan for future design and to not make it more difficult or costly at a later date when more buildings will be in the way. There may never be a need to widen Monterey Street; however, by adopting a plan line, the City maintains the ability to do so at a later date if needed. City Policy Regarding Dedications: The .,.cy has required dedication of land fol development of various businesses al g Monterey Street including the Discovery Motor Inn.,Quality Inn (under eonstructio :Jniop. Oil Station at Johnson Avenue; Monty California's Restaurant at California—Boulevard and, most recently, the Sands Motel. The proposed setback line has been used as a guide for requesting these dedications. Review of the Sands Motel posed an interesting situation involving dedication of , right-of-way. The land proposed for development was on eight legal non-conforming lots of record and were required to be combined prior to development. As a condition of the lot combination approval, the applicant was asked to dedicate land for future widening. Since the owner of the business did not own the underlying land, he did not have the authority to dedicate the land and appealed this condition to the City Council. The Council upheld the requirement for dedication; the applicant was given the option of dedicating land or paying the city for the value of dedicated land, should the city wish to purchase it from the property owner for future widening. Thus, the city maintained its interest is acquiring land for widening should it be needed. The ability for the city to require dedication for lot combinations or lot line adjustments is no longer permitted by State laws. Dedication can be obtained through some permit reviews; however, it is possible for certain development not requiring a discretionary entitlement to occur within the proposed setback area unless a setback. line is adopted. Alternatives fDt Addressing Future Circulation Demands: A number of alternative configurations were analyzed for Monterey Street to meet future demands. The most modest alternative would leave the street as it is today. Current striping and configuration is probably sufficient for 10-20 years. Making changes in the existing right-of-way could accommodate traffic beyond that time. For example, removal of parking can increase the current capacity of the street by 82% which could accommodate traffic increases for 25 to 75 years. The lanes provided would be narrow, generally averaging 9 to 10 feet in width; sidewalks would be only 6 - 7 feet; bike lanes could not be provided. Narrow lanes tend to slow traffic, until the feeling of congestion and perceived hazards eventually cause motorists to use alternative routes. In this case, parallel streets run through primarily residential areas. This dispersion of traffic to residential areas would conflict with the city's Circulation Element. The most extreme widening alternative requires 110 feet of right-of-way with four lanes of traffic, a center turn land, on-street parking, bike lanes, and ten-foot wide sidewalks. In assessing setback lines, however, staff aimed to minimize disturbance tc existing buildings and businesses while still providing sufficient street width to allow for free flow of traffic. Thus. plan line configurations requiring more than On 1rAot of right-of-way were disregarded because they would impact so many structure. •Y would be unacceptably disruptive and costly. 1-9 city of San Luis OBlspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The Planning Commission reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and setback line configurations on June Il and July 23, 1986. Staff recommended that the plan line be adopted for reasons outlined in this report.However, after reviewing the staff report and hearing public testimony, the Commission recommended that the setback line not be adopted (the vote was 5-1). While the Commission expressed concerns about the future of circulation in the city, they favored the elimination of on-street parking as a way to increase capacity without need of a plan line. If on-street parking is to be removed, they recommended that parking options for existing businesses be studied. Finally, the Commission recommended that the Circulation Element of the General Plan for this area be reviewed. The precise wording of their recommendation is included in the attached minutes. Generally, the commissioners felt that more information about how widening Monterey Street may affect other streets in the area is needed. They also noted that the Circulation Element had a planning horizon over only about 30 years whereas it was estimated that street widening may not be needed for 50 years. Thus, updating of the Circulation Element seemed in order before this specific widening option could be recommended. Another commission concern was that adoption of the setback could unnecessarily limit the development of property along the street, in the event that widening doesn't occur for several years. Commissioner Crotser was the only member who favored adoption of the setback line; he stated that he felt guidance for development is needed now. If a plan line is adopted, some felt it may be beneficial to include bike lanes because the street would probably be used by cyclists. Since no project was recommended, no action on the EIR was required or taken. Site Descrintion/Proiect Description Monterey Street is a major route from U.S. 101 and into the city and is one of three streets which crosses the Southern Pacific Company railroad line in the corridor north of the central business area and is part of an established truck route. It is a connector to other arterial streets which serve surrounding residential areas and other heavily travelled sites, such as Cal Poly, the high school, and local motels. Of course, it also provides access to the existing land uses along its length. The study area is an .8 mile section of Monterey Street which extends between Santa Rosa Street and Buena Vista . Avenue. The area between Santa Rosa and Pepper Streets is zoned C-R. The predominant land uses are auto dealerships and auto-related businesses. These uses are no longer permitted in this zone but may remain until replaced with conforming retail-commercial uses. There are also a few retail and convenience stores, service-establishments, and several residences. Zoning for the block between Pepper and California Boulevard is C-R and C-T. There is a mixture of uses in this block, including a motel, restaurant, gas station, plant nursery, medical office, and retail-service business. 1-10 city of San Luis OBISpo a COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT consists of tourist-related businesses such as restaurants and motels. However, there also are residences, meeting halls, and a few auto-related businesses. With the exception of the block between Toro and Johnson Streets and the vicinity of the Veteran's Hall on Grand Avenue, the streets on either side of Monterey are residential. Monterey Street provides one lane of traffic in each direction, a two-way left turn lane and on-street parking. The curb-to-curb width varies from 46-64 feet and lanes are of minimal width averaging 9-10 feet wide. Right-of-way varies from 60 to 70 feet. Separate right-turn lanes are provided at Santa Rosa Street, Johnson Avenue, California Boulevard, and Grand Avenue. These intersections also are controlled by traffic signals. Stop signs are used to control other side street traffic. Sidewalks vary in width from 5 feet to 10 feet. The proposed plan line will—include 76 feet of right-of-way and, if improved to its ultimate width, will include 8-foot wide sidewalks on either side of the street and five lanes of traffic--two on each side with a turn lane in the middle. No on-street parking or bike lanes are proposed. Adoption of the plan line in itself, will not cause any apparent changes in the streetscape; no buildings will be removed or streetside parking removed. However, if the street is widened, physical changes will occur. The first step in increasing capacity would be to remove streetside parking near critical intersections; next, parking would be prohibited on the sides of the street. In the meantime, the street could be restriped and timing of stop lights adjusted to regulate traffic flow more efficiently. It is not likely that these changes will occur at once, but that interim changes will be made to the street to accommodate increased traffic as time passes. EVALUATION Streets Master Plan and Setback Line . Monterey Street is listed in the city's Circulation Element as a major arterial street from Chorro Street/U.S. 101. According to the streets master plan portion of the element, an arterial street, such as Monterey Street, provides circulation between major activity centers and residential areas in the city. Typically it has two to four travel lanes and ranges from 64 to 84 feet in right-of-way width. The Element states that Monterey is a candidate for overloading and the master plan includes widening as a possible way of remedying this problem. The first step in implementing this solution is to establish official building setback lines to accommodate future widening. The Master Plan recommends establishing setback lines for all arterial streets including Monterey Street. Traffic Projections: It is impossible to project with certainty what the traffic demands on upper Monterey Street will be and when widening would ever be needed. The amount of traffic there depends on growth of population in the city and county, development activity in the area, and trends in automobile usage. There are two principal ways traffic projections can be made: extending trendlines from historical changes in traffic or tying traffic to population in the region then projecting population growth. 1-11 i city of San Luis OBlspo COI..NCIL AGENDA REPORT ii�travel lanes and sidewalks, and possibly bike lanes. This would mean a width of 76 feet (current width is 60 - 70 feet). Adoption of a setback line would insure that buildings are not.placed in the proposed right-of-way and would allow the city to require dedication when new buildings are proposed or when existing ones recycle. In plotting a widened right-of-way, care was taken to avoid structures as much as possible. By narrowing the sidewalk in some places, only eight existing structures would be physically effected by the proposal if it were to occur today. Of course, actual widening is unlikely for a few decades, so it seems likely that many of these will recycle in the mean time. Thus, if and when widening occurred, very few buildings would need to be altered to accommodate the new street. In the latter alternative, where a plan line is used to accommodate a possible widening project, the option for a more efficient street with adequate sidewalks and possibly bike lanes is preserved. The.-dispersion of traffic into the residential : areas is less likely. This opMi n would be able to accommodate traTfic to 2075 or later.�Oatreet parking options 'nrrrr AremrA i� gib}ta{t (pp matey exic_ttAg buildings would be effected. The questions before the Council are as follows: 1. Should the City adopt a plan line at this time? The Planning Commission recommends against this (see discussion below). .2. If not, should the City continue to require setbacks on new projects on Monterey Street when possible (as in the cvsy of the Sands Motel)? The Planning Commission recommends that the Circulation ement for this area should be updated and its planning horizon lengthened. If that study is undertaken, a recommendation regarding a plan line could be included and the decision to adopt a plan line could be postponed until then. The City could continue to require setbacks in the interim to continue to preserve this option. -It is unlikely many properties would be affected, depending on how much development along Monterey Street between now and when the updated element would be budgeted and completed. 3. If'the Council finds that a pian line should be adopted, the council should also indicate whether or not bike lanes should be planned for. Although Monterey Street is not presently a designated route in the city's bike plan, Cal Trans, the Police Department and some of the Planning Commissioners, all recommend inclusion of bike lanes if a plan line is adopted. 4. If the Council finds that a plan line should be adopted, the EIR should be considered in the decision and it should be certified as adequate. The rest of the report simply elaborates on this overview, beginning with the Planning Commission's recommendation that a plan line not be adopted. 1-12 = City of San LUIS OBISpo TFOD COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT feet with two eight-foot sidewalks, a 10-foot two-way center turn lane, and four lanes of through traffic. Parking spaces could not be accommodated on the street without excessive land acquisition. Bike lanes were not included because Mill Street, parallel to Monterey Street, is a designated bike route. In addition, the 1984 traffic study showed that when bicycle accidents occurred on this street, nearly half resulted in injuries (compared to 20% of vehicle accidents). For the originally recommended proposal, the innermost lanes are 11 feet wide and the outer lanes are 14 feet wide. The outside lanes are wider because of the existence of the curb; psychologically, drivers tend to shy away from a curb and an additional few feet of lane width is needed. Widened outside lanes also allow for better turning maneuvers at corners, especially for larger vehicles. Since Monterey Street is an established truck route, this is an important feature. The 11 foot interior lane width was considered a compromise between-flie ideal lane width (12 feet) and the minimally acceptable standard (10 feet), as part of the approach of trying to keep the total right-of-way size to a minimum while still providing good traffic flow. Pedestrian traffic in the area is very low; at peak times, 100 people per hour were observed. Eight-foot sidewalks were recommended because this is a minimum for comfortable sidewalk widths in a commercial area. Functionally, only about five feet of the sidewalk is really clear for pedestrian use; about 2 to 3 feet is taken up by the .location of fire hydrants, street trees, parking meters and other street furniture. The remaining five feet allow for three people to pass at.a time. One alternative discussed by the Planning Commission was the possibility of using Palm or Mill Streets paired as a one-way system with Monterey Street. However, since the railroad tracks intersect Palm Street and there is no overcrossing, it is not a viable alternative. Building a ramp over the tracks would be very costly and even if funds are available, the change in grade necessary to clear the train tracks on Palm Street would make access to many properties alongside the street very difficult, if not impossible. It also would be inconsistent with the city's Circulation Element to allow heavy traffic in those residential areas. Finally, the fact that Monterey Street is separated from Palm and Mill Streets by a relatively steep hill poses problems for traffic operations and safety. Although the city's bike plan includes bike lanes on Mill Street, but not Monterey, Cal Trans, the Police Department, and the Downtown Parking Study (Skiles, 1984) all have suggested that the addition of bike lanes-along Monterey is desirable. Although no bicycle counts were taken during preparation of this EIR, the Skiles report indicates that bicycle counts are high during October of 1984, averaging 60 cyclists.from 4 to 5:30 p.m at California Boulevard and Johnson Avenue. An alternative street configuration within the 76-foot right-of-way could accommodate bike lanes on Monterey Street and is attached for Council review. (If the Council prefers this alternative or another one which includes bike lanes, the official bike plan should be amended.) Physical Changes IQ Existing Sites The extent to which existing structures and businesses are impacted depends on how the area has redeveloped prior to widening. As properties are developed, new structures will respect the setback line and will provide required parking on-site. However, for some businesses which are not recycled, site modifications will be required. For the purpose of environmentav review, the worst case was analyzed and, therefore. it is assumed that the buildings and uses exist - - today. 1-13 i city of san tuis owpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT within the proposed right-of-way. For seven of these, minor adjustments to the right-of-way width and/or narrowingthe sidewalk slightly can be done to accommodate them. For eight structures; significant physical alterations would be needed in order to widen the street; their facades would be moved away from the street by as much as 14 feet in some instances. In those few situations where a building or business must be relocated or modified, the EIR recommends that the city provide assistance as a mitigation measure. General Plan Land LZLe Issues Limiting development along and around Monterey Street would help to control traffic there.. However, .this would conflict with the Growth Management.objectives.of_ the Land Use Element, which calls for infill, and intensification and expansion within the present city limits. The Land Use Element also recommends that existing service commercial uses (for example, automobile sales and service facilities), both north and south of the Central Business District, be replaced with more intensive "shopping goods" facilities to centrally provide for the expanding retail needs of the community, while avoiding intrusions into stable residential areas. The Element promotes the use of the centralized retail commercial facilities by calling for the improvement of all forms of surface circulation within the Central Business District. The city's Goals for Downtown, adopted in 1979, identify that portion of Monterey Street, east of Santa Rosa Street as within the downtown Commercial Core and expansion area. Increasing the capacity of Monterey Street is consistent with the policies stated in the "Goals" which encourage development of retail stores in this area, relocation of auto-related businesses, and recommends businesses provide parking on-site or nearby. It also recommends parking or payment to the city to build public parking lots in the area. Reducing the use of automobiles could reduce the amount of traffic on city streets, lessening the need for increasing the capacity. The city can take an active role in encouraging the use of other means of transportation. However, the Circulation Element recognizes that people will continue to rely on the private automobile into the foreseable future and that the City should plan accordingly. The Land Use Element encourages "the development and improvement of coordinated systems (such as streets, air traffic, rail transit, pedestrian and other modes of transport) to correct existing deficiencies, provide for planned growth and avoid land use conflicts, noise and congestion" The Circulation Element identifies ways of implementing this goal and identifies the widening of Monterey Street as a way to reduce potential overload there. The Circulation Element aims to: (1) provide a system of streets that are well-maintained and safe for all forms of transportation, (2) manage traffic so that it is concentrated on arterial streets and thoroughfares and is not disbursed throughout residential areas, (3) undergo street projects only when they improve safety and traffic flow for all types of transportation and do not cause significant environmental problems, (4) reduce noise and pedestrian safety problems caused by heavy automobile and truck traffic in residential areas, (5) ensure that existing streets are fully used.before the city considers widening them or building new ones, and (6) promote the safe operation of all modes of transportation. Adoption of the plan line would appear consistent with these goals. 1-14 city o� san Luis owspo CO NCIL AGENDA REPORT In August 1985, an initial study on the proposed project was prepared. The Community Development Director determined that an EIR should be prepared which focuses on parking and circulation, noise and land use impacts within the corridor. During 1985, an EIR was prepared and is enclosed for Council review. A technical appendix also is available in the Community Development Department. Several significant impacts on the environment listed in this report are anticipated if the street is widened as proposed. For the most part, these can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by the means identified in the EIR. However; there are some potential adverse impacts which may be unavoidable and which cannot be mitigated. Still, the city may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant affect on the environment if the council makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: (a) there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant affects; and (b) specifically identified benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. The city may also disapprove a project in order to avoid significant adverse impacts on the environment. Several issues are discussed in the EIR and should be considered by the City Council in determining the appropriate course of action on the proposed plan. Those issues include the following: A. Noise There will be increases in noise as a result of construction activities. The city's Noise Ordinance addresses this type of disturbance and limits the hours of construction to the normal weekday hours. These standards shall be followed in or to minimize disturbance to residences and others in the area. Noise levels due to traffic currently exceed noise standards for some residences and motels along the strip. When the street is widened, noise will increase because there will be more traffic closer to existing buildings. For those sites which are already noise sensitive, noise levels will increase slightly. Exterior noise impacts can be mitigated by constructing walls to protect against exterior noise and controlling vehicle speed to keep noise levels lowered. For residences which are exposed to interior noise levels exceeding 45 LDN, the EIR recommends the city supply mechanical ventilation which allows windows to be closed. All windows facing the noise source should be replaced with dual-glazed panes and walls and ceilings should be insulated to assure interior sound attenuation. According to the EIR's proposed mitigation measures, before any widening occurs between Pepper Street and Garfield Street/Buena Vista Avenue, an acoustical analysis shall be conducted for all motels within the 65 LDN contour. This means that. widening may occur at one end of the street, yet trigger studies a half-mile away. Staff feels a provision which requires acoustical analysis.for adjacent motels which could be exposed to increases in noise levels is sufficient to address this concern and recommends amended wording as shown on attached list of mitigation measures if line is adopted. B. Impacts lZ Removal QC Curbside Parking pg Businesses. When the street widening is complete, a total of 169 parking spaces will be removed. This is a significant loss of parking available to businesses along the strip; although most of the motels in the area have adequate on-site parking, most of the retail and service businesses d not. The obvious disadvantage of removing parking spaces is-to reduce availabilit. of parking close to retail store which depend on them for employees a. ' ner use. 1-15 city of San Luis OBlspo IN i11;e COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 1. Eliminating parking only as needed would provide some relief. The mitigation measure which addresses this (No. 6) recommends removing parking on one side of the street at a time, preferably altering removal on each side of the street, block-by-block. However, it may be necessary to remove parking from both sides of the street at the same time at some intersections. Revised wording to allow flexibility is recommended. Before removing any on-street parking, the EIR states that the city shall form a short-term task force-to work with impacted businesses to help them redesign existing on-site parking facilities where possible. This measure may be excessive for the removal of one or two spaces to improve an intersection, for example. Staff recommends mitigation measure No. I I be amended to require task force involvement - when--Five or more spaces are pr to be'kemoyed_ 2. Parking is presently restrictba between Santa xosa Street and California Boulevard. It is recommended that on-street parking be limited to one to two hour-parking on the north of California Boulevard to discourage employee parking there and to free spaces for customer use. 3. Adding parking bays could be included in remodel of properties to provide some parking next to the street but outside the right-of-way. 4. Although,buses can be flagged at any street corner, increasing the number of bus stops along the street may encourage people to make use of public transportation. 5. Adding signs, directing cars to available parking, such as on side streets or in the rear of buildings will help direct people to underutilized spaces. 6. More spaces may be gained on Pepper Street by angling parking. 7. The city may wish to consider installing one or more off-street parking facilities along the street, such as between Santa Rosa and Pepper Streets, between Pepper and Grove Streets, and between Grand Avenue and Garfield Street/Buena Vista Street. However, before installing a facility, it is also recommended that the city conduct an origin and destination study for parked cars and encourage business owners to modify on-site parking design to accommodate demand for parking where it is greatest. SUMMARY Population growth in the city and county, increased development downtown and continued dependence on the automobile will cause increases in traffic on city streets, including Monterey Street. As traffic increases, the adverse effects of the existing narrow lanes and interference from cars parked alongside the street will worsen. Queing at intersections will take longer and it will be more difficult for cars to enter onto Monterey Street from existing driveways. The accident rate is likely to go up. Cars will be diverted to adjacent residential streets. Interim changes within the existing right-of-way can be made to help alleviate this problem such as adjusting the timing of traffic signals and removing curbside parking. However, according to the findings of the EIR, even with curbside parking removed, additional lanes could not be provided in all places and still meet usually are'.eoted standards due to the narrow right-of-way. As the capacity of the street is 'hed traffic will overflow onto adjacent residential areas. Sidewalks narrower t A6 preferred standard would remain and no bike lanes wooJd be provided. City Of san Luis OBISPO �' COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT serve to guide new development along the strip and ensure no new buildings are constructed in an area to be widened. It will also guide the widening when needed; a particular street configuration will be adopted which provides comfortable travel lanes, consistent sidewalk widths (except for possible minor deviations under the railroad overpass and when building encroachments occur) and, possibly, bike lanes. The Planning Commission recommends that the plan line is not necessary and that it not be adopted. ALTERNATIVES Proiect Action 1. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the originally recommended plan line with or without modifications. New development will be required to occur behind this line. Dedication of land will be required at the time of new construction or redevelopment of property. Minor encroachments into the right-of-way will be permitted for some existing buildings. The City Council should indicate if tW5 wishes to include bike lanes in the approved street configuration. 2. Continue review to a later date to allow staff and/or the EIR consultants to provide additional information. 3. Take no action and not adopt proposed setback line. Provisional changes to street will be made to ease traffic, such as eliminating streetside parking. This, may eventually result in narrow traffic lanes, irregular sidewalk widths and cause traffic to be diverted to adjacent residential areas. If widening is desired in the future more buildings may obstruct the area and costs of widening probably would be increased. Dedications could continue to be acquired as conditions of use permits, but may not be consistent from one development to the next; some projects may be constructed in the future widening area if discretionary entitlements are not required. 4. Defer action on requested plan line until the Circulation Element has been updated to reflect city circulation goals further into the future than it presently does (past the year 2015). Staff will continue to obtain dedications when possible, using the proposed setback line as a guide. Environmental Determination 1. If a plan line is deemed appropriate, review and consider the environmental information prior to approving the project and certify the EIR as accurate and complete, with or without changes. 1-17 city of san lues o8ispo iCOUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 3. If no project is approved, no action on the EIR is required. PREVIOUS REVIEW . When the Sands Motel was remodelled in 1985, the owner of the business wished to construct a portion of the building within the proposed plan line area, but revised his plans to comply with the proposed setback line. However, since the business owner does not own the land, he appealed to the City Council a condition of approval for a lot combination which required dedication of land for future widening.. That appeal was denied and dedication required. Land for future widening has been obtained prior to development of other projects along this street including the Discovery Motor Inn, La Cuesta Motor Inn, Quality Inns and Arctic Circle (Monty California's). The Community Development Director reviewd3 an environmental initial study on August 11, 1985 and recommended preparation of a focused EIR of impacts prior to widening. On October 22, 1985, the City Council authorized staff to negotiate a contract with Sanchez Talarico Associates to prepare an EIR. The council approved a service contract for these consultants on November 19, 1985. In compliance with State and local environmental guidelines, the draft EIR was reviewed by other governmental agencies which may have an interest in this project including the Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sonic Cable Television, the Southern Pacific Railroad, California Public Utilities Commission, and California Department of Transportation. Agency comments received are included in Appendix E of EIR (Technical Appendix). Comments received after printing of EIR are attached to this report. The Planning Commission reviewed the Monterey Street Plan Line EIR on June 11, 1986 and continued review to allow staff to provide additional information about existing and projected plan lines, general traffic patterns and alternatives to widening. Public testimony was heard from several owners of businesses and property in the area. Most preferred alternatives to widening and suggested several options including routing traffic onto adjacent streets, better signage, one-way pairing of Palm Street with Monterey Street, establishing a time limit for widening, adding bike lanes, or studying local circulation further before taking action. On July 23, 1986 the Planning Commission took action not to recommend approval of the proposed plan line as discussed above. OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The .Public Works Department does not recommend bike lanes be included because an official bike path parallels Monterey Street on Mill Street, which is residential and carries less traffic. If the Council prefers bike lanes be included in the proposed plan line, staff recommends the alternative attached to this report. Public Works also supports adoption of the plan line to guide current development and provide the option for widening, if needed. Other Public Works' concerns are addressed in the body of this report. 1-18 city of san Luis oBispo ffi�i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The Police Department concurred with recommendations for left turn lanes, sidewalks, upgrading of traffic signals but,recommended bike lanes be included to assure safe travel for cyclists. FISCAL IMPACT No immediate fiscal impacts are anticipated as a result of adoption of the plan line. When incremental changes to the roadway are made, the city and/or utility company will pay for costs of undergrounding of overhead wires, replacement of street trees, improvements to roadway, upgrading of traffic signals, modifications to existing residences to assure noise mitigation, and possibly relocation costs for some businesses. These changes are expected to-occur over a 10 to 30 year period and funds must be set aside as the need for changes becomes apparent. The costs are unknown at this time. The City has spent approximately $21,000 on the EIR and Technical Report. Furthermore, substantial staff time -has beenexpended in this study including-fieldwork, drafting, analysis and presentations. RECOMMENDATION After the City Council reviews the staff report, environmental impact report, Planning Commission recommendations and public input, approve or deny the proposed setback line as deemed appropriate. If the Council approves the project, it also must certify the EIR as accurate and complete, with or without changes. Attachments: Minutes of Planning Comission meetings on 6/11/86 and 7/23/86 .Proposed project - Plan View Proposed project - Plan View and Street Sections Alternative Project (with bike lanes) - Plan Views and Street Sections Setback Line Program Map Existing Zoning General Plan Land Use Designations Circulation Element Streets Master Plan Current Circulation on Monterey Street - Inbound and Outbound p.m. Peak Hour Traffic Counts (1982 - 1983) Structure Impact Survey Bike Route Plan Letter from City Police Department dated 2/28/86 Letter from State Department of Transportation dated 3/17/86 Summary of Mitigation Measures Revision to data on Page 44 of EIR Enclosures: Blueprint of Monterey Street Plan Line Monterey Street EIR (Technical Appendix to the Monterey Street Plan is available at the Community Development Department) CH:gfm 1-19 4%fRF% MINUTES - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION City of San Luis Obispo , California Regular Meeting , July 23 , 1986 PRESENT : Commrs . Charles Crotser , Patrick Gerety , Janet Kourakis , Jerry Reiss , Richard Schmidt and Chairperson Randy Dettmer . ABSENT: Commr. Donna Duerk. OTHERS PRESENT: Candace Havens ,. Associate Planner; Mike Multari , Community Development Department; Dave Romero , Public Works ; Terry Sanville , S.r.. Planner.;. Anne Russell , Assistant City Attorney , and Lisa Woske , Recording Secretary . The minutes of the regular meetings of May 28 and June 11 , 1986 were approved as amended . ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- Item 1 . Public Hearing: Monterey Street Official Plan Line . Review and consideration of adopting a plan line on Monterey Street between Santa Rosa Street and Buena Vista Avenue , including environmental considerations ; City of San Luis Obispo , appli- cant. (Continued from June 11 , 1986 meeting) -------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Candace Havens presented the staff report, noting 1984 bike counts , and recommended that the commission recommend .to the City Council approval of the plan line line and accept the EIR with mitigation measures as proposed by staff . Chairperson Dettmer opened the public hearing. Rick May , representative for Bishop ' s Burgers at 1491 Monterey Street , spoke about fast food businesses on Monterey Street and was concerned about losing any parking areas for the restaurants at the corner of Monterey Street and California Blvd. Bill Howell , owner of Bishop ' s Burgers , requested clarification about how setback changes would affect his property. Staff responded that no changes would occur in front of his property . Melanie Billig , 1416 Mill , was concerned with impacts on residential sections . Staff responded that improving capacity on Monterey Street would help lessen traffic impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods . Chairperson Dettmer closed the public hearing . , 1-20 P .C . Minutes July 23 , 1986 Page 2 . Commr. Schmidt requested clarification of mitigation measures for residential and transient housing . Commr. Kourakis discussed traffic flow and destination and was concerned with limited available traffic origin/destination information. She also questioned the relevance of bike accident statistics and the conclusions reached by staff in the recommended project design. Chairperson Dettmer discussed the bike lane option recommendations . Dave Romero explained the city ' s bike plan. He stated that an additional 4 feet of right-of-way would be desirable if bike lanes are add-e-d.. If this is done , modifications to the street configuration woul-d--be needed to accommodate them. Commr . Crotser was in favor of having bike lanes . Commr. Kourakis was concerned about the plan line addressing concerns for the distant future beyond the timeline of the General Plan Circulation Element , and felt the Council should look at revising the general plan first and develop plan lines accordingly . Commr . Gerety did not feel that the staff recommendations were justified or that the plan line was effective for circulation management. He requested further study of the Land Use and Circulation Elements . Commr . Crotser thought a plan line was necessary for guiding current development and supported adopting a plan line in the near future . Commr. Kourakis moved to recommend to the City Council 1) not approve the plan line for Monterey Street; 2) future planning for additional capacity on Monterey Street should include retention of the existing right-of-way and the removal of parking , if necessary; 3) that if the removal of parking is proposed , a study be prepared at that time to identify impacts on businesses on Monterey Street resulting from the loss of parking and possible mitigations , and 4) that the Circulation Element of the General Plan be re-evaluated with respect to this area . Commr. Gerety seconded the motion, Resolution No. 3044-86 . VOTING : AYES - Commrs . Kourakis , Gerety , Reiss , and Dettmer . NOES - Commr. Crotser. ABSENT - Commrs . Duerk and Schmidt. The motion passes . t-21 P .C. Minutes June 11 , 1986 Page 3 . Item 4 . Public Hearing : Monterey It.reet Official Plan Line . Review and consideration of adopting a plan line on Monterey Street between Santa Rosa Street and Buena Vista Avenue, including environmental considerations ; City of San Luis Obispo , applicant. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Lautner presented the staff report, including mitigation measure changes , and recommended the commission review environmental information and recommend the City Council approve the plan line and accept the EIR with mitigation measures as proposed by staff. Dave Romero and the commission discussed street and sidewalk . -alternatives . Terry Sanville spoke on bike legislation in local communities . Chairperson Dettmer opened the public hearing . Rob Rossi , 414 Higuera , felt that future focus should be on corridors arou the downtown area , which is not directly related to this plan line. Dave Romero responded that neighborhoods were not in favor of focusing arterial traffic around the periphery. Bob Alberti , 1941 Monterey , was concerned with traffic flow. The turn Lane s didn' t seem to work and he suggested better signage. He felt that parking and traffic flow issues were carelessly dealt with and needed a lot of analysis . Mr. Holcombe, 1598 Monterey, wanted Monterey and Palm streets to be one-way streets to relieve congestion. He would like to see alternatives to widening Monterey Street. Dave Romero responded that Council discussed that idea 25 years ago and determined then that those one-way streets were not practical . Jerry Holland , 3188 Flora , owns property on Monterey Street and felt that an updated study should be done. He stated there was heavy bicycle usage on Monterey Street. He felt the traffic speed would increase with the street widening and increase the bicycle accidents . He wanted a time line for the widening action and also wanted Monterey Street left as is until the actual widening was to occur . He felt having bicycle lanes would be better than not having them. Dave Romero discussed the traffic signal timing and its effect on speed . Jeff Cole,, 1330 Monterey , was concerned with the traffic speed increase and unreported bicycle accidents . He was also concerned that the widening of the street and the deletion of on-street parking 1-22 P .C . Minutes June 11 , 1986 Page 4 . would negatively affect his car dealership. He did not feel that any street widening was needed at this time . Charles Ruth, Mill Street, was concerned with the potential 10-foot land loss and wondered if the plan line would affect property sales . He also felt the 10-foot loss should be divided between both sides of the street. He did not favor the widening and wanted to hear some alternatives . He suggested that on-street parking be restricted for a period of time and then the traffic flow studied.. Stan Cole, 1330 Monterey , discussed the ramifications of the railroad overpasses, He did not feel that eliminating parking was a good solution as it would hurt businesses . Faye Holcombe , 1598 Monterey , asked that if the Palm Street overpass occurred or it became a one-way street, how many residents would be disturbed . Charles Ruth suggested making Monterey and Mill Streets one-way. Chairperson Dettmer closed the public hearing. Commr. Schmidt felt there were too many loose ends not addressed regarding the accurate traffic , pedestrian , and bicycle counts . Commr. Kourakis wanted a more comprehensive map view of all proposed plan lines . Chairperson Dettmer felt the plan. line proposal was nebulous and that recommending its approval was premature . Commr. Crotser agreed with. the concerns of the commission, but felt action did need to be taken very soon. He felt the proposal was adequate yet in need of fine-tuning. Chairperson Dettmer moved to continue the item to the July 23 , 1986 meeting with direction to staff for additional information regarding traffic counts , bicycle usage , alternate ideas , and an overview of potential plan lines for review. Commr . Crotser seconded the motion. VOTING: AYES .- Commrs . Dettmer , Crotser , Duerk, Kourakis , Reiss , Schmidt, and Gerety . NOES - None. ABSENT - None. The motion passes . Commr. Reiss left the meeting . , r-23 W AMW i 'w p ` w z a a ° y wo N ►- i W rn jj I a: CJ) \ I Q 1W- o a � t It-24 �,d/��aKr�rp � d � � � i � � ! � I � � j j � � � I i i � I � I � � _-.----- j 1_ i _ _ __.__ � !- - . . _ . . _ . . snRc � i � S � � I � � i b � fi � �1°�O �Ci��� ��:�� �ohr7�'� S P 2. R BRIO G E 35' 35' Cr TL. Tc. �8 ' 38• . T L T L 2. u -� ?L 7L L .�,ic.��vu,�-�, �►-��c�o �a Syne-L�'` � � 1-26 Af�o,cN!q i II i i I II i j � I i I� i 1 jjOIT�!`i ohms";? Will+ L9 S P R. R BRIDGE 35' _ 35' o SW SL TL •rc 2• 1o' S B' Sw I `� 1-28 Z ..�.«. A ^ —�-- . 1 �: t�Aw; ,��. w. 'a '. CAIIfORNIA P()l Tlf(NNI< STATE UNIV(aHTT • t t l :s MAP Of71 `I� •; �r. ••� • • wt w S _— � / `� �'• SAN LUIS OBISPO i--i_ a N a } (.-bmabw OI CommarcO 1 E ICE Vbo ce G,- W. y <<.L•S3 �•) rpt?+�'°� ���� '?'??: '�.'�� ' . ` _ County '•i??:: :� t SAN LUIS 0131SP0"'UNIT +a LEGEND ---��— Existing Plan Lines (1111111111(( SETBACK LINE Proposed Study Areas PROGRAM 100000cooe Monterey Street Study Possible Future Plan Lines JULY 19E1_29 lu o' •` lJco C o - w = 00 t w a o' o eti a •, U 1334 W CTWO • V O V O J N c us 1 1` O LLm IL 7 PILI O d 1 1 1 Doll O d J LU ir 0 J U � Z 1 i J O W W W cc 1 1 1 1 J S 1 o U U o Z d Lt LjLiF 30. w V 1.- O WC az N QI Li IL. i� W c) D U } °' _ W p Z } 1 ] EI © z O Made W C ElW Q a © ❑ Cl ❑ > > u)I X300 1 FIDE] 0N � .X ( IFml 00 Q 1 at-30 .! e•���l £=��i�. eC' 41f;'rr:' Y2`�G�itS��Cf; 6 ac •. rn C! f'•r� .fr�:f�,r�.f�'`�.• r'� C`�(vT' ii�•�!�'^.tF'•`.(1.: r: d < J O • _ • .�^ C �^h 1•..`�'R;,,:Curr 'ria t tE .'r`r:e,• Crr% .e'•� p > < � O .:-t•., d+t� sir(`, -•„TCt'C-rSr.'.. F'rt`•r•. Ca fF: ' ".^' �ISw/—����r:t r a-.�, (; 10��• p t UJ Ct.t`r•C�C•ia�'pY4•!' }.�y�••. Y• =;r(�•�.�' r 'f > O< 2 IL .:: c. •1'r•l�('r•.• I �'K•�4 t-r"f' �t.;f{,'t 1c f ¢ a — O •::::::::. C..-(TC� �, S+rQ'n{ C;e•�rlr^ I''Y 1_* `rt W ¢W J } "��••'::::.:::. ! tr' :f^.•tw.•� ;/'• �R`r�='}•(��`:1J=.i; r Q 2 WW. ¢< F ti.. 1 ``•'. •►.�' .�:j < 0 ~d m 0 1334 } :} CCw IP~ r cc a ICA 2 4c cc N � a .. ••�_L:'::.:�11T•.�•'•FY;i:��:�fir,. . •'•'iy f'.w`:;S-'.r.'Yayr:.' `4'••w1:2:•1: m • P� ,•�iSS1•i'Y �l 15 40 Ul LU z • J V q ♦\\ f. LL ' > 00 ♦\\ 3a,r. .ii 0 d V M•NNN ♦ N s.'• ♦ bN.O. d ..N.. . a. ♦ _.. ..Nti. . ' 7 Z• Im < <� N \♦♦ S V V Q J ♦♦♦ lu ¢ W< ♦ �� SC. O W 0: 2 \\♦♦\ e O !2 2,F oca N F O O W2 : _ fA m J_ p u . . _ • Q < >_ i `�i• O W W WO — •a,� _ H 2 0: 00J it 4c aa. iii?+t-s: •_ a W u :I — W t4 — Z O = 2 a u W W M O 49 LEE O �� ��r1 u 1-31 y�yY _ 3 - O _ = � a DNT_EHE - - -- - HIGUERA . = c lilrA R H - - PIsm i _ HIGHWAY THOROUGHFARE (4-6 LANES) ARTERIALS (2-4 LANES) COLLECTOR (2 LANES) LOCAL STREET SOURCE: CITY OF SAN LUIS CIRCULATION ELEMENT: '000 STREETS MASTER PLAN W LL MONTEREY STREET PLAN UNE tc - City of San Luis Obispo 1 32 EXHIBIT 5 • y :{ti J Cbb88586JGf X •� �:� ~ µ ' ?7000000006 1W14r.{4'`;:}1Y• �\ �{�� ��'''.`Y, _ y.� 41 y:} .:'.}� :tip: • J..ha. Oft ;'''h.Y{ �:J,F're}::•jtiti.r�j$'•$ti{}r}rr::}:: : `:•:: `s. .{...1. ♦L iJ'�.'JJ J..x`..{�}.l�} �};S ':Sw:;r:.:r.•.Y.v: r' •)};{v'�' :: :}j_:. L / S yam. a O , 4�� N 0 d P 371 ���5 i N-1 Ln _PARK AVE. 4 y� cn J I Lr N W N cc J W ST g` �.. / 370 80 T. I P� / ,PEPPER S L I T I i V ' 378 304 a � \� ! ObbMC N� Q P �\ �► - - L \ 1•. b SQ JOHNSON _ vr1{:.••}r — � a N N 1M EMO � Qy l Toot - - - - L ' STREET nl I 78► 447 w 1 329 r L... r,ra 670 V L.US05 le p M MRo li PINI. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC — - ST: 1982 — I983 1_ n F//Ar la .:. , INBOUND uj a.v1 cc L a cYi i s Z � p — � a Y ❑ W C Y U Y a j o 1 m ' / AV L•_• r• .� ••r • . ` • w i It i' 1 - 1 1 -� (�•� '� i , •,•� 1 --gss W�w an 1 ilk 16 On >;�1a � �._._.• � '_� - : r rya %-+- � /� •� ,tom!� a j ZI 1• � I •�j/� ` Bike Routes --- On Existing Streets •..... On Possible New Streets SOURCE: CITY OF SAN LUIS OSISPO . ...... On Other Right-of-Way • . NO SCALE BIKE ROUTE PLAN •a�� MONTEREY STREET PLAN LINE _ �:.•. „� cam., i oq nbisoo S[lMRM OF MITIG Ctg M hSZI11ES 1. Monterey Street shall be improved to 74 feet within the 76 foot right-of-way where such action would avoid physically impacting structures. However, 76 feet of right-of_way shall be preserved for the case that the property redevelops in the future. At such time, the property shall be required to setback from the 76 foot right-of-way and install all required improvements. 2. Right=turn radii shall be modified at corners where structures will be acted b installation of ultimate improvements. If in the future the properti the property owner shall be required to provide for desired right-turn radii and provide physical improvements. 3. A good- businesses as faith effort will be made to relocate as many of the displaced possible. Relocation assistance will be Provided consistent established city policies meters signs signs. etc.) shall be 4. All street features (e.g. street lights, hydrants, m replaced Xdd >iX�X�IX�XXAqI� in conjunction with construction of improvements. All street trees shall be replaced with specimen trees ranging in size from re to 48" box specimens' consistent with .adopted city Policies related to street trees. Replacement street trees shall be planted U9WUU IX 1A" in conjunction with construction improvmmts. 5. Should the proposed plan be implemented; all utilities shall be placed underground with construction. 6. Interim improvements should be restricted to removal of Parking on one side of the street only for the length of the project, except nearest intersections. To the extent feasible; parking should be alternated by street segment. 7. In the interim condition, on-street parking along Monterey Street shall be restricted to one or two hours (or similar restrictions) as needed to discourage employee use of on-street spaces and to preserve it for use by�customers of adjacent businesses. B. The SLA Transit System shall address the feasibility of increasing the number of bus stops along Monterey Street and the number of bus routes utilizing Monterey Street. to the extent feasible; bus usage of Monterey Street shall be increased so as to reduce the use of vehicles by employees and patrons: thereby, reducing the demand for parking. 9. The city shall install signs directing vehicles to park in suitable, available parking. At a m nimim, a sign should be installed directing vehicles to parking on Pepper Street and to the parking lot behind the commercial busine N between Pepper Street and,California Boulevard. 10. The city shall investigate and implement, if feasible, angled parking along the north side of Pepper Street to increase the supply of on-street parking within an acceptable distance to Monterey Street. 1-37 Mitigation Measures Page 2 11. Prior to removing five or more parking spaces in any block, the city shall form a abort-tern task force which will work with impacted businesses to help then redesign existing.on-site parking facilities where available to provide additional off-street parking. 12. The city shall investigate the feasibility and desirability of parking bays along Monterey Street adjacent to existing auto dealerships to provide short-term parking for customers. If feasible and necessary; .parking bays shall be designed as '� "turn-outs" allowing for on-street parking. This would require a wider street? �� section for areas with parking bays. 3721 13. Prior to the constriction of ultimate improvements, the city of San Luis Obispo shall -imrestigate and adopt; if feasible; a parking authority or similar mechanism to provide small; convenient off-street parking lots along Monterey Street. Preliminary recommendations are that one lot would be needed between Santa Rosa Street and Pepper Street; one lot would be needed between Pepper Street and Grove ptxeetf and pos lljl one lot between Grand Avenue and Garfield Street/Buena Vista. �l u�-c 14. Prior to the implementation of the above mitigation measure,"an orifi" in Cnd� destination study for parked vehicles shall be conducted for those strut segments most affected by the parking restrictions. To the extent that existing businesses responsible for the demand can modify ,n-site design to provide for employee and customer parking, they shall be strongly encouraged to do so. If such improvements can be made, the necessity for public parking shall be reduced accordingly. 15. A minimae of five feet of sidewalk shall be kept free Of all street fixtures and similar .encroac3ments. All street fixtures (e.g. lights; meters; benches, trees, etc.) shall be confined to the first two feet from edge of pavement. 16. The City of San Luis Obispo's Noise Ordinance that limits the hours of construction to the normal weekday working hours shall be strictly enforced during any construction activity. 17. The control of motor vehicle noise emission levels comes under the jurisdiction of the State of California. The only means a local agency has in controlling the noise levels from motor vehicles is by controlling the vehicle speeds and truck traffic. The city shall investigate methods of controlling vehicle speeds along Monterey Q Street to keep noise at a minimum level given the traffic volumes. X-i-- 18. For all residents which are subject to exterior noise levels exceeding 60 LEN, and/or residences and transient lodgings subject to interior noise levels exceeding 45 LDN the following shall apply: a. The city shall supply mechanical ventilation which will allow windows to be closed while supplying fresh air and circulation to Loamts. b. The city shall replace all windows facing the noise source with windows of an STC rating of greater than 30 (see Appendix D). C. The city shall provide insulation of walls and ceilings 1-38• . l Mitigation Measures Page 3 19. Prior to any widening improvements along Monterey Street between Pepper Street and Garfield Street/Buena Vista; a site specific acoustical analysis shall be conducted for all motels/hotels within the 65 UN oontour which may be subjected to increased noise levels as a result of proposed street widening. This study shall determine if any of the structures are subject to interior noise levels greater than 45 LIT. The study shall take into aoc xmt future design of Monterey Street; topography; intervening barriers; location of doors and windows; and type of construction. 20. Where necessary and feasible; the city shall construct noise walls around exterior residential yards and living areas exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 LEN. 21. Where necessary relocation plans for facilities along Monterey Street will be fully coordinated with the serving agencies prior to and concurrent with widening of the project route; providing-for uninterrupted service. 22. The City of San Luis Obispo shall coordinate all improvement plans with the Public Utilities Commission staff and Southern Pacific Railroad. A letter request shall be submitted to the Public Utilities pouaission in conformance with Public Utilities Commission rule 39. 1-39 �1 o san lugs oas . city of p -.- POLICE DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 1328— San Luis Obispo,CA 934061328—805!549 7310 February 28, -1986 Annette M. Sanchez Baesel , Sanchez Talarico Associates 359 San Miguel Dr. Newport Beach CA 92660 SUBJECT: MONTEREY STREET PLAN LINE FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Dear Ms. Baesel: This letter is in response to our conversation on January 22, '1986, where I discussed the San Luis Obispo Police Department's position and concerns for the upcoming environmental impact report for the Monterey Street area. With the current concerns for bicycle safety, it is important to provide a safe area for the bicyclist to travel on the streets of San Luis Obispo. The City has approved a bicycle facilities plan that may or may not impact the area of Monterey Street. The finalized plan for widening Monterey should include some type of bicycle facility, i.e., Bike Lane, or Bike Path, to accommodate the bicycle traffic in the area. A two way left turn lane should also be considered to accommodate for a safe avenue for motorists to make a left turn on Monterey. Sidewalks should also be installed on both sides of the street to provide an area for the pedestrian. The Monterey/California intersection traffic signal light system should be upgraded to the current state of the art equipment, including protected left turn indicators. Hopefully, this will reduce the number of traffic accidents caused by failing to yield the. right of way to through vehicles during a left turn'movement. I hope these aforementioned concerns addressed in this letter will be of help to you in evaluating the project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 549-7314. Very truly yours, DON E. ENGLERT, CHIEF OF POLICE/ A6-0d L. t, Traffic Safety Unit Administrative Officer. 1-40 STATE Of UUFORNIA—BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND MOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEILAK Go, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 8114. SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 95403-8114 TELEPHONE: 18051 549.7111 �Wea Mr. David Romero Date: March 17, 1966 Director of Public Works - Civt of San Luis Obispo File: SLG-101-29. 06 990 Palm Street Monterey St. Pian Line San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 DEIR Subject: Intergovernmental Review Dear Mr. Romero: Caltrans District 5 staff has reviewed the aboved-referenced docuinsnt. The following comments were generated as a result of the review: Mcnterev Street is a .major bicycle route from Cal Poly to the downtown area. Therefore, any alternative .considered should include 4 ' minimum striped Class II bike lanes. One alternative that should be considered is: Right-of-Way Width: 74 Feet Curb to Curb Width: 64 feet Northbound Through Lanes: 23 feet Sauthbound Through Lanes: 23 feet Class II Hike Lanes: © feet Center Two-way Turn Lane: 10 feet Border Area: 12 feet Sidewalks: 6 feet Please send us a copy of the completed Environmental Impact Report %ghen it is available. 'hank you +or the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (8C•5) 549-3139. J A. C. Carl ton ,District 5 ;ntergovernmentai Review Coordinator =c: Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse 1-41 Y �M� 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 2, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. PAGE 4 4. MONTEREY STREET SETBACK LINE (File *532) Council held a public hearing to consider the adoption of a setback line on Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Buena Vista Avenue, including review of the draft Environmental Impact Report; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Mike Multari, Community Development Director. gave a summary review. Candace Havens, Assistant Planner, stated that it was staff's recommendation to approve Alternate *1 which would direct staff to prepare an ordinance approving the Monterey Street Setback line, and requested that direction be given to staff for configuration of the roadway. The ordinance and certification of the EIR would come back to Council for final approval. Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing open. No one spoke for or against the proposed plan line. Mayor Dunin declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Griffin stated that he would prefer to see a concerted strategy to look towards the future insofar as what the demand, the town, and the neighborhoods should absorb. He felt that the scope of the environmental impact report could have been broader, however, he could certify that the results were adequate. It was his recommendation to support Alternative *4 which would defer action on the proposed plan line until the Circulation Element had been updated with staff to continue to obtain dedications when possible using the proposed setback line as a guideline. Councilwoman Rappa supported the comments- made by Councilman Griffin, Including Alternative *4. Councilman Settle felt that the plan line would preserve the City's options. He did not wish to encourage bike lanes on this street. He felt that parking removal would also be difficult. He would prefer to look at parking permits during different times of the day or remove parking on one side of the street in order to help alleviate the constraints of the street. He, too, would agree with Alternative *4. Mayor Dunin stated that he supported staff's recommendation. He felt that the street needed to be widened. He felt it was unfair to those that had already been required to dedicate street frontage. He also felt that the land use change in ownerships would be many along the street in the years to come and would like to see the City take advantage of a widening opportunity at that time. Upon question, staff reviewed that Monterey Street was currently designated as a truck route but that when the truck route discussion comes back to Council, this would probably not be recommended. After further discussion and upon consensus, the Council made the Circulation Element a high priority to be reviewed next year. Moved by Griffin/Settle (4-0-1, Dovey absent) , to defer action on the proposed plan line until the Circulation Element was updated with staff to continue to obtain dedications when possible using the proposed so line as a guideline. 1-42 y b y � a U � p cs q All- 4f/W&. ed to 5 14- 3the 12. � s s = moo W\�1V1 GoOC z J: N N V N z ... � w c o m 2 N A N N U N U U d CN w m e X � b < oto ° m H � a S 3 � TO 0syeo � 55 0 'tea p 5 m E'i U o awo m 9 S �p N CA 6. S OG tog .C. im } x v C O � � W n N R1 Q ^ N m 1-43 -Circulation Features gGf //'r•�ula /!0�'1 (����le Following are the principle differences between the adopted and proposed circulation elements, concerning major road extensions and widening. Items key to the following location map. A Highway 1 reliever/Santa Rosa Street widening The adopted element includes the widening of Santa Rosa Street between Highway 101 and Foothill Boulevard. In endorsing the hearing draft Circulation Element, the City Council deferred a decision on widening Santa Rosa Street or providing a Highway 1 reliever, pending evaluation of alternatives, which include traffic demand management programs and operational changes (turn-pockets) for Santa Rosa Street. The evaluation of those alternatives adequately addresses any changes between the adopted and proposed elements. B. Monterey Street The adopted element would widen Monterey Street north of Grand Avenue to Highway 101. The proposed update limits the area to be Considered for widening to the segment between Santa Rosa Street and Grand Avenue. Computer modeling of this project indicated that traffic north of Grand can be accommodated by a two lane road. C. Bishop Street/South Street extension The adopted element does not include extension of South Street to Bishop Street; the proposed element does not show this extension on its map, but does include it in a list of potential projects. This E1R concludes that the extension is not warranted, and that it would have significant adverse impacts. (Since the draft EIR was prepared, the City Fire Department has expressed interest in acquiring a site on the north side of South Street extended, just east of Santa Barbara Avenue,for a new main fire station. This location would replace the existing Garden Street station, and substitute for a proposed station on the former Emerson School site. The lack of a South Street/Bishop Street extension would impair the ability to serve a wide area from this new location, and to consolidate fire stations.) D. . Orcutt Road The proposed update shows Orcutt Road being widened to four lanes between Broad Street and Laurel Lane. This widening was not specifically identified by the adopted element, although plan lines to do so have been established. The widening is recommended to provide capacity to handle projected traffic volumes. The widening would occur on the south side of Orcutt Road which is vacant land, and would occur as land develops. 9 1-44 h� rmu WL • A S Lwqt I. a�1 ♦,orf ?.. ' �� r