HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2014 MTC Agenda packet
Service Complaints: Complaints regarding bus service or routes are to be directed to the
Transportation Assistant at 781-7531. Reports of complaints/commendations are available to the
public upon request.
MISSION: The purpose of the Mass Transportation Committee is to assist with the ongoing public
transit program in the City and Cal Poly. As requested, the Committee provides advisory
recommendations and input to the Council regarding routes, schedules, capital projects, fares,
marketing and additional services.
ROLL CALL: Elizabeth Thyne (Chair- Senior), Todd Katz (Vice Chair- Member at Large), Dominique
Bonino (Cal Poly), Jody Frey (Disabled), Louise Justice (Alternate), Anthony Pinkerton (Alternate),
Sara Sanders (Student), James Thompson (Technical), Randol White (Business)
OATHS OF OFFICE 5 min.
PUBLIC COMMENT: 10 min.
At this time, the public is invited to address the Committee concerning items not on the agenda but
are of interest to the public and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Mass Transportation
Committee. Public comment is limited to three minutes per person. The Committee may not discuss
or take action on issues that are not on the agenda other than to briefly respond to statements or
questions, or to ask staff to follow up on such issues.
MINUTES: March 12, 2014 (Attachment)
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Officer Elections 4 min.
2. Setting of Meeting Schedule 4 min.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
3. Committee Items 20 min.
a) Smoking at Bus Shelters & Transit Center
4. Staff Items
a) LUCE Update (Peggy Mandeville) 20 min.
b) Transit Manager’s Report 8 min.
c) New SLO Transit & RTA Route ID Nomenclature System 8 min.
ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting will be held September 10th, 2014
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
Agenda
Mass Transportation Committee
Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 – 2:30 pm
ACTION ITEMS:
Agenda Item 1: Officer Elections (Anthony Mejia)
In accordance with MTC Bi-Laws:
ARTICLE 3. TERMS OF OFFICE
Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four
years. Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council. Any
committee member may be reappointed, providing no appointee serves more than two
consecutive terms (8 years). A member who has served 8 years can be reappointed after
a one year absence from the Committee.
ARTICLE 6. OFFICERS
A. The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be elected at
the Committee meeting in April or May for one year terms that commences the first
meeting of the next fiscal year.
(See Attachment 1: Advisory Body Bi-Law)
Agenda Item 2: Setting of Meeting Schedule
In accordance with MTC Bi-Laws:
ARTICLE 4. MEETINGS
A. The Committee will hold a regular meeting at least quarterly.
B. The Committee will approve an annual regular meeting schedule by June of each
year.
(See Attachment 1: Advisory Body Bi-Law)
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Agenda Item 3: Smoking at Bus Shelters & Transit Center
(See Attachment 2 - Letter from on PD Smoking Ordinance)
Agenda Item 4.a: LUCE Update (Peggy Mandeville)
Background
Progress continues in the City’s focused update of its General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements.
In July 2013 the MTC reviewed the proposed Circulation Element policy changes related to transit and
provided feedback. Now the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Land Use and Circulation
Elements Update (LUCE) has been released for public review and comment. The 45 day public review
and comment period will extend to July 28, 2014. Staff is forwarding transit related excerpts
(Attachment 1) from the Draft EIR to the Mass Transportation Committee for review and comment
during the public review period for the EIR. Committee member comments on the Draft EIR will be
included in and responded to as part of the Final EIR.
Project Description
The LUCE update addresses policies and programs in the Land Use and Circulation Elements as well as
identifies physical changes to be evaluated through the update process. The attached Executive
Summary (Attachment 2) provides a more complete description of the proposed changes and the
impacts identified through the EIR process. For more information on the project go to
www.slo2035.com
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
The LUCE update is being evaluated through a type of EIR called a Program (or Programmatic) EIR. This
type of evaluation is typically used when there are broad policy alternatives and programs being
evaluated and is often used when General Plans are being updated. A Program EIR does not evaluate
the potential impacts of specific development projects that may be allowed under the LUCE Update. The
EIR is intended to generally address the potential development impacts envisioned through the LUCE
Update, and to provide an underlying context for future environmental reviews for specific projects.
Classes of Impacts
The results of the environmental evaluation across the topics considered in an EIR are typically grouped
into “Classes” of impacts. The categorization of impacts into classes allows the decision-makers and the
community to understand the magnitude of impact.
Class I impact = significant and unavoidable. This means that despite identifying ways to address
the impact (termed “mitigation”), the impact remains and cannot be avoided. This category
may include mitigations to lessen the impact but will discuss why the impact remains significant.
Class II impact = significant impact but one that can be addressed or mitigated to the point
where it is no longer significant. This category will list the mitigations necessary to reduce the
impacts identified to a level that does not exceed a threshold.
Class III impact = less than significant impact. Typically, this last category does not require
mitigation because the change or impact does not rise to the level of needing to be addressed.
However, these impacts are often listed for informational purposes to be transparent in the
process of how the potential impact was evaluated.
Potential impacts to transportation system are evaluated in Draft EIR section 4.15. The section begins
with a transportation system overview followed by the methodology and significance thresholds,
analysis approach, potential impacts and mitigation. Because the LUCE update include policies
(Attachment 3) that will actually improve transit, the Draft EIR finds that the proposed LUCE would have
less than significant transit related environmental impacts and no mitigation measures are required.
Recommendation
Discuss the Draft EIR impact evaluation for transit and provide comments for inclusion and response as
part of the LUCE EIR. Additionally, the MTC may offer any final comments related to the proposed LUCE
policies and programs for Planning Commission and Council consideration.
(See Attachments: 3 Excerpts from Draft LUCE EIR Section 4.15, 4 Draft EIR Executive Summary and 5
Proposed LUCE Transit Policies)
Agenda Item 4.b: Transit Manager’s Report
(To be presented at meeting)
Agenda Item 4.c: SLO Transit & RTA New Nomenclature System
Background
SLO Transit staff has been working with RTA staff to address a potential and upcoming issue with regard
the nomenclature system for identifying routes. In short the issue is; SLO Transit operates Routes 1-6
and RTA now runs routes 7-15; as RTA will soon roll out two new routes in Paso identified as Routes 7 &
8. This leaves SLO Transit in an awkward situation of having to use route ID numbers 11, 13, 16 or a
number after 16, for future routes, in order to avoid duplication with RTA route ID numbers and which
could otherwise cause confusion for passengers.
Proposal
From now on, as both systems start planning for future routes, both agencies will adhere to a new and
agreed upon system whereby; RTA will switch and only use Route ID numbers that are divisible by 10
and SLO Transit will use all other numbers in between these and in chronological order and as needed.
In other words RTA will switch and use route id numbers: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, etc. for regional
routes. Meanwhile, SLO Transit will use route ID numbers: 1-6, 11-19, 21-29, etc. for local routes. This
way there is a consist and yet complimenting route ID structure between the two systems. This new
approach won’t be reflected in its entirety until the summer of next year when annual service changes
tend to take place and create an opportunity for such changes to occur. In the meant time, both
systems will start our planning processes of new routes with this new nomenclature system in mind. A
Press Release for the public/media regarding this change when the time is right next year.
For now we can anticipate RTA’s numbers to
change as following:
9 = 90 (or 30?)
10 = same
12 = 20
14 = 40
15 = 50
SLO Transit’s next routes will start to use the
following numbers:
1-6
11-19
21-29
Etc.
It is both systems hope to present a consistent and complimenting route ID system that is both
beneficial to the riders and each systems potential growth. Please let me know if you have any questions
about this new arrangement.
Items for next meeting
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
The next meeting will be held: September 10, 2014
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes of the March 12, 2014 MTC meeting
ATT 1 Advisory Body Bi-Laws
ATT 2 Letter from PD on Smoking Ordinance
ATT 3 Excerpts from Draft LUCE EIR
ATT 4 Draft EIR Exec Summary
ATT 5 Proposed LUCE Transit Policies
1
2
MISSION: The purpose of the Mass Transportation Committee is to assist with the ongoing public transit 3
program in the City and Cal Poly. As requested, the Committee provides advisory recommendations and 4
input to the Council regarding routes, schedules, capital projects, fares, marketing and additional 5
services. 6
7
CALL TO ORDER: 8
Chairperson Elizabeth Thyne called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m. 9
10
ROLL CALL: 11
Present: Elizabeth Thyne, James Thompson, Todd Katz, Sara Sanders, Dominique Bonino, Louise Justice, 12
and Anthony Pinkerton 13
Staff: Gamaliel Anguiano and Dee Lawson 14
15
PUBLIC COMMENT: 16
James Park, resident, felt there needed to be crosswalks designated in the Tank Farm/Brookpine 17
area. 18
Kathy Smith, Council representative, agreed to discuss Mr. Parks’ comments with the Public 19
Works/Street Division. 20
21
MINUTES: 22
CM Justice moved to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2014 regular meeting as submitted. CM 23
Pinkerton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 24
25
ACTION ITEMS: 26
27
Agenda Item #2: 28
There were no action items. 29
30
DISCUSSION ITEMS: 31
32
Agenda Item #2: Committee Items 33
34
2 a/b. Marketing Plan/Short Range Transit Plan – 35
36
CM Thompson discussed the need to review the marketing plan included in the existing SRTP, 37
noting that the information included in the SRTP was not current. He felt the information should 38
be updated and a marketing plan should be drafted to reflect current information and 39
community needs. He felt there were other target demographics that should be incorporated. 40
He also emphasized what a huge benefit the transit system is and how well it was operating and 41
that he felt it is crucial that word gets out to increase ridership and transit awareness. 42
43
Mr. Anguiano noted that he felt the current marketing was hitting the major demographics, 44
noting the display ads in newspapers worked well for reaching the elderly and disabled. He 45
wanted to leverage the free informational platforms available, such as social media, and agreed 46
Draft Minutes
Mass Transportation Committee
Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Wednesday, March 12, 2014 – 2:30 pm
March 12, 2014 Minutes, Pg. 1 of 3
that an increased budget would allow for more targeted approaches for growing ridership 1
numbers. He stated he would gather the information/data captured from the social media 2
campaign, as well as the existing media campaign, and create a foundation from which to work. 3
4
CM Justice suggested reviewing the recent Cal Poly class created Trolley marketing campaign. 5
6
2c. SLO Marathon Conflicts – 7
8
CM Thyne distributed a draft letter she had written to read at the next City Council meeting 9
regarding the street closures due to the marathon. She asked the Committee to consider the 10
letter and comment. 11
12
There was general Committee discussion. 13
14
CM Katz felt the letter should focus on the main problem, which is that many residents are 15
stranded due to the street closures – especially the elderly and disabled. 16
17
CM Sanders felt that a more formal tone was needed if the letter were to be submitted on 18
behalf of the Committee. 19
20
Staff noted that re-routing could be an option to better mitigate inconvenience to the most 21
transit-dependent residents. 22
23
CM Katz moved to authorize the Committee Chair to recommend to Council that they direct city 24
staff to work with the marathon planners to significantly mitigate the impact of the marathon 25
event on the city’s transit-dependent population. 26
27
CM Thompson seconded the motion. 28
29
The motion passed unanimously. 30
31
CM Thyne agreed to present the Committee’s motion/action to Council and stated she would be 32
making additional comments as a private citizen at the April 15, 2014 Council meeting. 33
34
2d. Formation of an Inter-Model Committee – 35
36
CM Katz discussed the concept of forming a citizen group to explore other ways that people get 37
around. He felt that the city would benefit from the input and energy from a wide reach of 38
people who use and/or were interested in public transit, as well as taxis, RTA, trains, planes, etc. 39
He noted some possible interest group factions might include pedestrians, bicyclists, people 40
who were concerned with parking, street cleaning, directional/access street signage, etc. He felt 41
some people had a lot of interest in how to get around town and felt a wide range of such 42
people should be approached for participation and discussion; he noted that approximately 100 43
people attended a recent public forum on round-a-bouts. 44
45
Fred Munroe, transit planner, noted that regional agencies, such as SLOCOG, are involved with 46
groups and events pertaining to inter-modal transportation. He suggested that alternate 47
resources also exist therein. 48
49
Kathy Smith noted that multi-modal issues were included in the update of the Land Use and 50
Circulation Elements of the City’s General Plan, which was now being reviewed at the EIR phase. 51
52
Geoff Straw, RTA representative, suggested making this topic a discussion item when the 53
Committee reviewed their Advisory Body goals to submit to Council. 54
55
March 12, 2014 Minutes, Pg. 2 of 3
Agenda Item 3: Staff Items 1
2
a. Transit Manage3r’s Report – 3
4
Mr. Anguiano presented the report and discussed the increase in ridership compared to the 5
previous year. He also discussed fuel costs. 6
7
3b. Transit 40th Anniversary, May 8 – 8
9
Ms. Lawson discussed the celebration details, which include a luncheon event that present an 10
overview on transit history, current status of the transit department, and plans for the future. 11
She noted that transit prices will drop to the 1974 rates for one week during the anniversary 12
week. 13
14
3c. Intoxicated Passengers – 15
16
Mr. Anguiano discussed revised language to cover “impairment” of many sorts, not just 17
“intoxication.” He outlined amendments to the policy, some of which involved police action. 18
19
3d. Updated Policy on E-Cigarettes/Smoking – 20
21
Mr. Anguiano stated he was modifying the policy language to read “no smoking of any kind.” 22
23
Member Comments: 24
25
CM Pinkerton read comments submitted from the homeless community, expressing appreciation for the 26
bus system and their request that more buses be retrofitted with luggage racks. He also stated the 27
Brickyard bus stop needs repairing. 28
29
CM Justice made the following comments: 30
Regarding the extra framing at select bus stops, could similar framing be incorporated for all stops? 31
Mr. Anguiano said they were looking into reasonably-priced systems that would cover all of the 32
stops. 33
There seemed to be lack of notice on Rt. 1/Rt. 3 regarding President’s Day schedule. 34
Some of the lights at bus stops were not bright enough; Mr. Anguiano stated he was working on a 35
grant, but no solar options currently seemed bright enough. 36
The Board of Directors at Judson Terrace was looking for low-income city residents to serve on the 37
Board (did not have to live at Judson Terrace) 38
39
There was general discussion about the current intersection issues at the Downtown Transit Center and 40
the possible use of a “scramble” stoplight. 41
42
43
CM Katz moved to adjourn the meeting at 4:30 p.m. to the next regular meeting of May 14, 2014. CM 44
Bonino seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 45
46
Respectfully submitted, 47
Lisa Woske, Recording Secretary 48
49
50 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to including the disabled in all of its services, programs, and
activities. Please contact the Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
March 12, 2014 Minutes, Pg. 3 of 3
This page intentionally left blank.
RESOLUTION NO . 10096 (2009 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
AMENDING THE BYLAWS OF CERTAIN OF ITS ADVISORY BODIE S
WHEREAS,in accordance with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, the San Lui s
Obispo Municipal Code, and its own resolutions, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obisp o
appoints individuals to serve on its advisory bodies ; and
WHEREAS,those advisory bodies have adopted bylaws to aid them in conducting thei r
meetings fairly, smoothly, efficiently and in accordance with law ; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Charter section 1204 and the Advisory Body Handbook, las t
adopted by the City Council in November 2008, the City Council biennially, followin g
recommendations from its advisory bodies, is to review any proposed recommended changes to
the bylaws of the advisory bodies and then adopt them ; and
WHEREAS,the City's advisory bodies have reviewed their bylaws and some of thos e
bodies have recommended revision of their bylaws ; and
WHEREAS,City staff have also reviewed said bylaws and have made suggestions fo r
their revision ; and
WHEREAS,at its regular meeting of June 19, 2009, the City Council reviewed propose d
changes to advisory body bylaws as recommended by its advisory bodies and staff .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo that the bylaws of the following advisory bodies are hereby amended to read as set fort h
in the attached revised bylaws, attached and incorporated herein as an Exhibit . The bylaws o f
these advisory bodies are amended by this action :
Architectural Review Commission
Bicycle Advisory Committee
Building Construction Board of Appeal s
Cultural Heritage Committe e
Human Relations Commissio n
Jack House Committe e
Joint Use of Recreational Facilities Committe e
Mass Transportation Committe e
Parks and Recreation Commission
Personnel Boar d
Planning Commission
Tree Committee
R 10096
Attachment 1, Pg. 1 of 4
Resolution No . 10096 (2009 Series )
Page 2
Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Council Member Ashbaugh, an d
on the following vote :
AYES :
Council Members Ashbaugh, Carter and Marx, Vice Mayor Settle and
Mayor Romer o
NOES :
Non e
ABSENT : Non e
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 16 th day of June 2009 .
Mayor David F . Romero
ATTEST :
-/ARi.'L _/
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
City Attorney
Attachment 1, Pg. 2 of 4
BYLAWS
MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTE E
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
Amended by Resolution No . 10096 (2009 Series)
ARTICLE 1 .
PURPOS E
The purpose of the Mass Transportation Committee is to advise City staff and the City Counci l
on all matters related to public transportation in San Luis Obispo (buses, trolley, and taxi).
ARTICLE 2 .
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHI P
The Committee has seven voting members, consisting of one Cal Poly employee designated by
Cal Poly and one Cal Poly student representative designated by Associated Students, Inc . (ASI);
one senior citizen (62 years of age or older); one person from the business community; one
person with technical transportation planning experience ; one disabled person; one member-at-
large, and one student. In addition, when possible, two alternate members selected from th e
general public will be appointed . The Cal Poly and technical planning representatives ar e
exempt from the residency requirements . All other members must be residents and registere d
voters of the City .
ARTICLE 3 .
TERMS OF OFFICE
Committee members will be appointed by the City Council to staggered terms of four years .
Committee members will serve at the pleasure of the City Council . Any Committee member may
be reappointed, providing no appointee serves more than two consecutive terms (8 years).A
member who has served 8 years can be reappointed after a one year absence from th e
Committee .
ARTICLE 4 .
MEETINGS
A.The Committee will hold a regular meeting at least quarterly .
B.The Committee will approve an annual regular meeting schedule by June of eac h
year .
C.The Committee meetings will be open to the public and held at the Council Hearin g
Room City Hall, or other previously announced locations .
D.A quorum will consist of a majority of the established Committee members .
E.All actions of the Committee will be decided by a majority vote or consensus and wil l
be directed through the committee chair .
1
Updated 6/16/2009
Attachment 1, Pg. 3 of 4
F.Minutes of each meeting will be available as a public record in the Public Work s
Department .
G.The Chairperson or any four members of the Committee may call a special meeting ,
provided that a week's prior notice is given in writing to each member .
H.All Committee meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices ,
customs, and policies . Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be used as a
guideline .
I.All members present must vote, except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of
interest . A failure or refusal to vote when present (except for a declared conflict o f
interest) will be construed as an affirmative vote .
J.Any member with a declared conflict of interest will not vote or participate in an y
discussion of any item or in any manner attempt to influence the decision on tha t
item .
K.If, or when a voting member of the MTC is absent from an MTC meeting, one of the
Alternate members shall take the place of the voting member in order to maintain a s
many voting members as possible . If only one voting member of the MTC is absent ,
choice between the two alternates will be decided by a fair game of chance such as a
coin flip or role of the die performed by the Chairperson of the MTC .
ARTICLE 5 .
SUBCOMMITTEE S
Subcommittees consisting of less than a quorum of the Committee can be appointed a s
needed by the Chairperson .
ARTICLE 6 .
OFFICER S
A.The officers will consist of a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson who will be electe d
at the Committee meeting in April or May for one year terms that commence the firs t
meeting of the next fiscal year ..
B.The Chairperson will preside over all meetings of the Committee, prepare (with th e
assistance of staff) all meeting agendas and perform such duties as directed by th e
Committee .
C.The Vice-Chairperson will serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson .
ARTICLE 7 .
POLICIE S
The Committee adopts policies as stated in the City of San Luis Obispo Advisory Bod y
Handbook, incorporated herein by reference .
2
Updated 6/16/2009
Attachment 1, Pg. 4 of 4
Attachment 2, Pg. 1 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 2 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 3 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 4 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 5 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 6 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 7 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 8 of 9
Attachment 2, Pg. 9 of 9
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 3, Pg. 1 of 7
Attachment 3, Pg. 2 of 7
Attachment 3, Pg. 3 of 7
Attachment 3, Pg. 4 of 7
Attachment 3, Pg. 5 of 7
Attachment 3, Pg. 6 of 7
Attachment 3, Pg. 7 of 7
This page intentionally left blank.
DRAFT
PROGRAM EIR
JUNE 2014
SCH # 2013121019
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Attachment 4, Pg. 1 of 28
All paper used in this document is made from 100% post‐consumer recycled content.
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic
Growth Council. The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the City of San Luis Obispo and not necessarily
those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation, or its employees. The Strategic Growth
Council and the Department make no warranties, expressed or implied, and assume no liability for the information
contained in this report.
Attachment 4, Pg. 2 of 28
ES
Executive Summary
This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed LUCE Update, alternatives considered in this EIR,
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of
significance of project impacts after mitigation.
ES-1.1. Project Description
The LUCE Update Project (the “Project” or “proposed Update Project”) provides proposed changes to the City’s existing
Land Use Element and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (last updated in 1994). It is the intent of the proposed
Project to establish and implement a refined set of goals, policies, and programs for regulating development in the city,
guiding the land use decision‐making process, balance population growth with infrastructure availability, and provide a
true multimodal transportation system that will guide the community over the next 20 years.
The LUCE Update reflects extensive efforts and input from community surveys, workshops and open houses, advisory
bodies, the Task Force for the Land Use and Circulation Element Update (TF‐LUCE), City staff, consultants, the Planning
Commission, and City Council. Based on direction from the City Council that the Update Project primarily address infill
opportunities, changes in legislation, and the need to update existing policy direction to reflect current values and
requirements, the LUCE Update focuses on updated policy language and several areas of the City where “physical” land
use changes are proposed. The proposed physical land use changes would apply only to specified areas that over the next
20 years may have the potential to accommodate changes in the land use type or intensity or are in need of circulation
and infrastructure improvements. From a policy aspect, the LUCE Update proposes changes to existing policy and
program language, and new policies and programs where needed to enhance the two Elements or cover items not
previously addressed. The policies and programs included in the LUCE Update are intended to:
Address notable policy gaps that have been identified over time in the existing LUCE;
Provide new policy direction to address issues raised during the proposed Project’s public participation process;
Respond to changes in state law;
Address topics or items that the City committed to addressing as part of the Sustainable Communities grant that
provided funding for the Update Project; and
Address inconsistencies between the proposed project and the Airport Land Use Plan for San Luis Obispo County
Regional Airport.
The Land Use Element Update proposes to “preserve and enhance” existing conditions in most areas of the city. The
physical changes proposed by the Land Use Element Update are for the most part limited to changes in land use type or
intensity in specific areas. These changes include proposed mixed use redevelopment of some sites, the infill of
underutilized locations, and four sites that will require modified or new specific plans to addresses development
parameters such as the location and types of land uses, infrastructure needs, and designs to address environmental
constraints. These four sites include: Potential modification of the Margarita Area Specific Plan to allow increased
residential densities; and new specific plans for the San Luis Ranch (formerly known as the Dalidio site), the Madonna
property at Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR), and the Avila Ranch. Policy direction was also refined relative to a set of
“Special Planning Areas” (Section 8.3.3 in the proposed Land Use Element Update) throughout the City. This policy
June 2014 Page ES-1
Attachment 4, Pg. 3 of 28
guidance provides statements regarding the City’s expectations for these sites of new development, redevelopment, and
infill opportunities.
The following table lists each of the original 19 proposed “physical alternative” locations, identifies the sites dropped from
further consideration, the sites where no physical changes are proposed, and describes the type of development that
could occur at the proposed development sites. Throughout the Land Use Element Update process the 19 proposed
“physical alternative” sites were identified by the letters A through S.
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
A Nativity Church Site
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
B Foothill @ Santa Rosa Area
Consider mixed use for the area on both sides
of Foothill between Chorro and Santa Rosa.
Consider both horizontal and vertical mixed
use. Emphasis on retail and housing. Policies
to support consideration of parking and height
changes to facilitate mixed use.
80 183 ‐1,184 ‐3
C Pacheco Elementary Site
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
D Diocese Site near Bressi Pl. & Broad St.
Removed from consideration. ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐
E Upper Monterey Area
No physical land use changes proposed. No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
F Downtown Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
G Mid‐Higuera Area
No physical land use changes proposed.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
H Caltrans Site
Mixed use to include tourist commercial,
office and some residential. Site may be
appropriate to review height limit changes to
accommodate desired development.
Consider more public open space uses to
serve as gateway and uses compatible with
conference facilities.
53 121 101,943 185
I General Hospital Site
Residential development on the site behind
existing structure within the existing Urban
Reserve Line. Outside the Urban Reserve Line,
retain the current designation of Open Space.
Policies should support flexibility so that a
range of residential uses can be considered
(i.e. residential care, adjunct to transitional
care use, other residential uses consistent
with area) within the residential land use
designations.
41 94 48,788 89
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-2 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 4 of 28
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
J Broad Street Area
Incorporate physical alternative described in
South Broad Street Area Plan endorsed on
September 17, 2013 by City Council (Council
Resolution 10460).
589 1,349 229,068 416
K Sunset Drive‐In/Prado Road Site
Consideration of mixed use. Develop policies
to address appropriate mix of uses. Policy
discussion should address historic nature of
Sunset Drive in and ensure the site is able to
accommodate Homeless Services center.
Provide bike connections as called for in
bicycle transportation plan.
0 0 483,668 879
L San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area
Consideration of a mix of uses with a
substantial open space/agriculture
component. Residential uses to be consistent
with applicable airport policies.
500 1,145 470,000 855
M Pacific Beach Site
Policy development to support consideration
of Commercial Retail/mixed use fronting LOVR
and Froom Ranch and park to serve
neighborhood.
38 87 ‐37,352 ‐68
N Calle Joaquin Auto Sales Area
Consideration of mixed use in the context
with the Dalidio property and the City's
agricultural parcel and focus on connectivity
to the neighborhoods to the north. Develop
policies to address appropriate mix of uses.
0 0 200,066 364
O Madonna Specific Plan Area
Future development to consider viewsheds,
hillside and open space protection, height
limits, wetland protection, access to other
connections, historic farm buildings, mixed
use to accommodate workforce housing, and
neighborhood commercial type uses.
115 263 336,170 611
P LOVR Creekside Area
Consideration of medium high density
residential infill housing with open space.
159 364 0 0
Q Margarita Specific Plan
Policy to support consideration of changes to
the previously approved Specific Plan to allow
increased density on eastern portion of
specific plan site.
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
No land use
changes
proposed
R Broad St. @ Tank Farm Rd. Site
Consideration of a mix of commercial uses
with limited residential on upper floors.
Commercial uses should serve the
surrounding businesses and bicycle and
pedestrian connectivity must be addressed.
41 94 135,906 247
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-3
Attachment 4, Pg. 5 of 28
Site
Letter Site Description
Capacity
Units Population
Non-
Residential
Sq. Ft.
Employment
S Avila Ranch Specific Plan Area
Consider a mix of residential densities,
connections to shops to the north, connection
to S. Higuera and a mix of uses. Respect
creek/wildlife corridor.
700 1,603 25,000 45
The policy and program updates proposed in the Airport Chapter of the Land Use Element reflect airport safety, noise,
height and overflight considerations consistent with the purposes of the State Aeronautics Act. Policies, programs, and
Zoning Code implementation have been drafted to create an Airport Overlay Zone to codify airport compatibility criteria
for areas subject to airport influence consistent with the requirements of Cal. Pub. Utilities Code Section 21670, et. seq,
the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, and other related federal and state requirements relating to airport
land use compatibility planning. These include allowable uses and development standards such as density and intensity
limitations, identification of prohibited uses, infill development, height limitations, and other hazards to flight, noise
insulation, buyer awareness measures, airspace protection, nonconforming uses and reconstruction, and the process for
airport compatibility criteria reviews by the City.
The Circulation Element Update describes how the City plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials
within San Luis Obispo with connections to other areas in San Luis Obispo County and beyond. The Circulation Element
Update recognizes the implications of land use policy on all modes of movement, and establishes policies, standards, and
implementation measures that work with the Land Use Element to address both existing and potential circulation
opportunities and deficiencies. But beyond addressing changes in land use, the Circulation Element Update also looks at
the circulation system of the community as a whole. Introducing the concept of “complete streets”, the update looks to
integrate and enhance all types of circulation in order to create a more comprehensive and functional circulation system.
The proposed Circulation Element provides policy language to address a variety of circulation‐related issues, including:
traffic reduction; transit; encouraging the use of bicycles and walking; traffic management; future street network changes;
truck, air and rail transportation; parking management in commercial areas and residential neighborhoods; and scenic
roadways. A new section added to the Circulation Element addresses multi‐modal transportation, or the development
and maintenance of a circulation system that balances the needs of all modes of travel.
The table below lists the 17 proposed “physical alternative” street network modifications identified by the Circulation
Element Update public participation and Element preparation process.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-4 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 6 of 28
Site Number Site Description
1 Boysen Ave. and Santa Rosa St.
Consideration of separated crossing for bikes/pedestrians of Santa Rosa at Boysen. Consider all vehicular
alternatives for Boysen intersection at SR 1 including full closure, access restrictions, and retaining its current
configuration.
2 Realign Chorro St., Boysen Ave., and Board St.
Consideration of realignment of Chorro and Broad and Boysen.
3 Potential Ramp Closures at Highway 101 and State Route 1
Consideration of ramp closures and consolidated SR1/Highway 101 interchange including the need for a
signage/way‐finding program.
4 Broad St. and Highway 101 Ramp Closures
Consideration of ramp closures at Broad with the addition of bike and pedestrian overpass.
5 Convert Marsh St. and Higuera St. to Two‐way
(Santa Rosa St. to California Blvd.)
Consideration of two way vehicular circulation of Marsh and Higuera between Santa Rosa and California.
6 Transit Center Location on Santa Rosa St. and Higuera St.
Consideration of site/block of Higuera/Santa Rosa/Monterey for the transit center location and consider use
of both public and private property. Consider ideas from student projects and the Downtown Concept Plan.
7 Mission Plaza “Dog Leg”
Consideration of several design alternatives with varying degrees of streets affected. Analyze full closure of
roadways. Develop policy direction regarding desired outcomes and nature and phasing of treatment for the
area.
8 Realign Bianchi Ln. and Pismo St.
Consideration of realignment of street intersection (Pismo to Bianchi).
9 Realign Madonna Rd. to Bridge St Instead of Higuera St.
Consider appropriate connection from Madonna to S. Higuera associated with redevelopment of Caltrans site.
Potential to realign Madonna to connect with Bridge Street may better address some pedestrian and bike
connections.
10 Bishop St. Extension
Evaluate elimination of Bishop Street bridge over railroad tracks and consider reducing the width of Johnson
Ave.
11 Victoria Ave. Connection to Emily St.
Consideration of Victoria connection to Emily.
12 Broad St. – Consolidate Access
Consideration of Broad Street consolidation of access points.
13 Orcutt Rd. Overpass
Keep facility as part of Circulation Element. Do not consider removing facility due to concerns about
increasing rail traffic.
14 Froom Rd. Connection to Oceanaire Neighborhood
Provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity only.
15 Prado Rd. Interchange vs. Overpass
Evaluate both interchange and overpass
16 North‐South Connection between Tank Farm Rd. and Buckley Rd.
Consideration creating a north‐south connection between Tank Farm and Buckley for future connectivity.
17 Buckley Rd. to LOVR Connections
Consider (Buckley to Higuera connection and Higuera to LOVR behind Los Verdes ‐ 101 bypass.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-5
Attachment 4, Pg. 7 of 28
ES-1.2. Project Objectives
Land Use Element Update
For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the objectives of the Land Use Element Update are to:
1. Respond to changed conditions in San Luis Obispo.
2. Incorporate sustainable practices and policies into the Land Use Element.
3. Respond to new State planning requirements.
4. Engage the community in a reaffirmation of the community’s vision and goals for the City’s future.
5. Provide residential infill opportunities.
6. Maintain a healthy and attractive natural environment within a compact urban form.
Circulation Element Update
For the purposes of CEQA analysis, the objectives of the Circulation Element Update are to:
1. Encourage better transportation habits.
2. Promote alternative forms of transportation.
3. Manage traffic by limiting population growth and economic development to the rates and levels stipulated by the
Land Use Element.
4. Support environmentally sound technological advancement.
5. Support a shift in modes of transportation.
6. Establish and maintain livable street corridors.
7. Support the development and maintenance of a circulation system that supports and balances the needs of all
circulation modes.
ES-1.3. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table EX‐1, at the end of this section, contains a detailed listing of the environmental impacts of the proposed project,
proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. Impacts are categorized by classes: Class I impacts are defined as
significant, unavoidable adverse impacts, which require a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines if the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be
feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels and which require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Class III impacts are adverse, but less than the identified significance thresholds.
ES-1.4. Alternatives
Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
“an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the project, which would
feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
As stated above, the development on an EIR is to include consideration of a “reasonable range” of alternatives to foster
informed decision‐making and public participation.
CEQA requires the EIR to identify feasible alternatives to the proposed project that will avoid, or at least lessen, significant
impacts associated with the project. CEQA defines “feasible” as follows:
“‘Feasible’ means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.”
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-6 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 8 of 28
Three alternatives to the LUCE Update project have been evaluated in this EIR. Each alternative is described below.
No Project Alternative: This alternative evaluates environmental conditions that would result if the proposed LUCE
Update Project were not implemented and future development in the City was implemented consistent with the land use
and policy requirements of the existing 1994 Land Use Element and Circulation Elements.
Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative evaluates environmental conditions that would result if the
development capacity proposed by the Land Use Element Update were reduced by approximately 20 percent.
Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative: This alternative evaluates the environmental conditions that would
result if three additional modifications were added to the proposed LUCE Update. The three additional street network
changes were options identified during the preliminary public review of potential street system changes but were not
included in the proposed Circulation Element.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative: Buildout of the No Project Alternative would generally reduce the environmental
impacts that would have the potential to occur if buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo was conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the existing 1994 Land Use and Circulation Elements of the general plan. Implementation of the
No Project Alternative, however, would not implement the beneficial policy revisions proposed by the LUCE Update.
Based on the potential for the No Project Alternative to reduce environmental impacts when compared to the impacts of
the proposed Project, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. The No Project alternative, however, would
not implement any of the proposed projects’ objectives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) indicates that “if the
environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior
alternative among the other alternatives.”
The Reduced Development Alternative would generally have reduced or similar environmental impacts when compared
to the impacts of the proposed project. The Reduced Development Alternative, however, would not implement the
environmental objectives of the proposed LUCE Update. A reduction in development in the proposed specific plan areas
would be inconsistent with the objective to protect the environment within a compact urban form because developing
the specific plan areas at densities that are substantially less than their capacity could promote additional development in
other areas, such as unincorporated areas adjacent to the city. A reduction in development in the proposed special
planning areas would have the potential to reduce environmental impacts, however decreased development those areas
would not fully achieve the Land Use Element Update objective of promoting infill development. Reduced residential and
non‐residential density could be inconsistent with the implementation of State‐mandated planning requirements, such as
the requirements of Senate Bill (SB) 375. This bill provides a mechanism for more sustainable and efficiently‐planned
transportation infrastructure, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and improved compatibility with land uses. A
substantial reduction in future development density may impede the attainment of requirements to provide
transportation‐oriented development, would not respond to this State planning requirement, and would be inconsistent
with the Land Use Element objective of incorporating sustainable practices into the Land Use Element.
The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would provide three street system modifications not included in the
proposed Circulation Element Update. This alternative would generally result in environmental impacts that are similar to
the proposed Project, but would have fewer air quality, greenhouse gas emission, and traffic impacts due to more free –
flowing traffic circulation conditions. This alternative would also have the potential to result in increased cultural
resource and noise impacts along portions of one of the alternative roadway system projects; however, it is likely that
those impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of appropriate design and other
mitigation measures. The Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would result in substantial and area‐wide
environmental benefits and would not impede the implementation of proposed Land Use and Circulation Element Update
objectives. Therefore, the Maximum Circulation Improvements Alternative would be the environmentally superior
alternative to the proposed project that fulfills the basic objectives of the proposed LUCE Update.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-7
Attachment 4, Pg. 9 of 28
ES-1.5. Incorporation of Studies, Reports and Other Documents
This EIR contains references to studies, reports and other documents that were used as a basis for, or a source of,
information summarized in the body of the EIR. These documents are incorporated by reference in this EIR in accordance
with Section 15150 of the CEQA Guidelines. Where a study, report or document is briefly cited or referred to for
convenience in the body of this EIR, the reader should consult the “References and Preparers” section of this document
for the full citation. It is important to note that the bulk of the references used for this EIR are pulled forward from
Appendix D, Background Report (Volume III of this EIR).
ES-1.6. Areas of Public Controversy
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15123(b)(2), this EIR acknowledges the areas of controversy and issues to be
resolved which are known to the City of San Luis Obispo or were raised during the scoping process. No areas of
substantial controversy were raised in response to the Notice of Preparation that was circulated Thursday, December 5,
2013 with a required comment period originally set to end on Friday, January 10, 2014, but extended by the City until
Friday, January 24, 2014. However, the City received comments letters identifying a number of issues of concern in
response to the NOP and the public scoping meeting held in association with the regularly scheduled Planning
Commission on Wednesday, January 8, 2014.
As a result of the publishing of the NOP and the City’s outreach to the public and regulatory agencies, the City received
valuable input on the contents of the proposed EIR (please refer to Appendix E, Volume IV, of this EIR for a copy of all NOP
comments received and associated responses). This includes:
Regulatory Agency Comments
APCD: General comments concerning the responsibility for future development under the LUCE Update to ensure the
proper construction and operational permits are received prior to development, and the necessary environmental
information is provided that will be needed for the APCD to make determinations on impacts resulting from potential
future development.
CalTrans: General comments concerning the responsibility to work with the Airport Land Use Commission on the
development of the LUCE Update, and the requirements to provide adequate environmental analysis for future projects
within the Airport Land Use Plan area.
ALUC: Comments concerning project consistency with the ALUP, recommendations for environmental issue areas that
should be addressed through the EIR process, a needs assessment for residential growth, and analysis of a limited growth
EIR alternative.
Other Agencies/Offices
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce: Comments concerning a need to focus on the City’s jobs/housing balance and
recommendations for land use amendments to specific areas in the city related to increased residential development
opportunities. This includes general comments regarding the need for increased housing. No comments on the nature of
the environmental impact analysis.
Public Comments
General comments include area‐specific concerns regarding various environmental issues effecting current city residents
and a general concern over the existing state of the city’s environmental resources. General concern about circulation
changes to the South Broad Street Area and concern regarding including impacts related to diverting collector traffic onto
residential streets. Comments also include a request for a complete impact assessment of a future extension of Prado
Road and an assessment of impacts relating to the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Redevelopment project as well as
the potential Johnson Avenue development project on SLCUSD property. Comments also include general
recommendations on development within the identified Specific Plan Areas.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-8 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 10 of 28
Table ES‐1. Summary of Significant and Unavoidable Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After
Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Class I: Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Air Quality
Impact AQ‐2 (Long‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve operation
of development projects that
generate long‐term emissions of
criteria air pollutants and ozone
precursors. Implementation of
the LUCE Update would not
result in the exposure of
sensitive receptors to substantial
sources of local carbon
monoxide concentrations, odors,
or TACs. However, with regards
to criteria air pollutants and
precursors implementation of
the LUCE Update would not be
consistent with the assumptions
contained in the most recent
version of the APCD’s Clean Air
Plan even with the incorporation
of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies.
Thus, long‐term air quality
impacts are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
With regards to criteria air pollutants and
precursors implementation of the LUCE Update
would not be consistent with the assumptions
contained in the most recent version of the APCD’s
Clean Air Plan even with the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City
policies. Thus, long‐term air quality impacts are
considered Class I, significant and unavoidable.
APCD states that a Class 1 can be determined from
a qualitative analysis.
Significant and unavoidable.
Land Use
Impact LU‐1
The proposed LUCE Update
would have the potential to
conflict with an applicable land
use plan of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect. With the
implementation of proposed
LUCE Update policies, potential
land use conflict impacts are
considered to be a Class I,
significant and unavoidable
impact.
No mitigation measures have been identified to
reduce potential inconsistencies with the existing
ALUP to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project has the
potential to be found inconsistent
with the existing ALUP by the
Airport Land Use Commission.
While physical environmental
impacts of safety and noise have
not been identified for the LUCE
update from existing or future
airport operations as described in
the adopted Airport Master Plan,
development envisioned in the
proposed Project presents a
conflict with the ALUP.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-9
Attachment 4, Pg. 11 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Noise
Impact N‐1
Short‐Term Construction Noise
Levels. Implementation of
development projects under the
proposed LUCE Update would
involve construction that could
generate noise levels that exceed
applicable standards for mobile
construction equipment in the
City’s Noise Control Ordinance
and result in temporary
substantial increases in noise
levels primarily from the use of
heavy‐duty construction
equipment (see thresholds a and
c). Even with the incorporation
of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies,
short‐term construction noise
levels are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Enforcement of the Noise Element and noise
control ordinance with respect to the existing
practice that accommodates infill construction
activity during the currently allowed hours of 7 AM
to 7 PM would reduce impacts to the extent
feasible.
With the implementation of
feasible construction noise
reduction measures and
exemptions, construction activities
could still exceed applicable
standards especially if activities are
near existing receptors and/or
occur during the nighttime. Thus,
short‐term construction noise
levels are considered Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
Traffic And Circulation
Impact CIR‐1
Development and street network
changes under the LUCE Update
will cause roadways currently
operating at LOS D or better to
deteriorate to LOS E or F, in
downtown San Luis Obispo,
roadways operating at LOS E or
better will deteriorate to LOS F,
or will add additional traffic to
roadways operating at LOS E
(outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown). This is considered a
Class I, significant and
unavoidable impact.
As future development under the LUCE Update is
proposed, the City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and the
policies/programs listed above. As such, with the
incorporation of the proposed project and
adherence to proposed and existing City policies
and programs discussed above, existing and
proposed City policies that contribute to reducing
volumes along roadways would partially mitigate
this impact. However, the impact would remain
potentially significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies would not fully
mitigate the impact, so the impact
would remain potentially
significant and unavoidable.
Impact CIR‐2
Development and street network
changes under the LUCE Update
will cause intersections currently
operating at LOS D or better to
deteriorate to LOS E or F, in
downtown San Luis Obispo,
intersections operating at LOS E
or better will deteriorate to LOS
F, or will add additional traffic to
intersections operating at LOS E
(outside of downtown) or F (in
downtown). Impact is considered
to be Class I, significant and
unavoidable.
The following mitigation measures would be
options to mitigate impacts for these intersections
to meet the LOS standard. It should be noted that
installing a signal to mitigate an LOS impact would
be contingent on the intersection meeting signal
warrants per the MUTCD under future year
conditions. However, the decision to install a traffic
signal should not be based solely upon a single
warrant. Delay, congestion, driver confusion, future
land use or other evidence for right of way
assignment beyond that provided by stop controls
must be demonstrated. The City will adhere to
Caltrans’ process for intersection control
evaluation.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies and reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate would reduce
potential impacts to a less than
significant level. However, many of
the proposed mitigations are
infeasible due to right‐of‐way or
funding constraints. Therefore, the
impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-10 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 12 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
CIR‐1. Grand & Slack (#8)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐2. California & Taft (#12)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐3. Grand & US 101 SB on‐ramp (#13)
Install dedicated WB right‐turn lane.
CIR‐4. San Luis & California (#55)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
CIR‐5. Higuera & Tank Farm (#85)
Add NB right‐turn lane, WB dual right‐turn lanes,
two‐way left‐turn lane on Tank Farm between
Higuera and Long.
CIR‐6. Broad & High (#89)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐7 Broad & Rockview (#94)
Install downstream signal at Broad & Capitolio.
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐8. Broad & Capitolio (#95)
Install increased traffic control (traffic signal or
roundabout).
Augment bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐9. Johnson & Orcutt (#96)
Install roundabout.
CIR‐10. Broad & Tank Farm (#98)
Establish time‐of‐day timing plans.
Add SB dual left‐turn lane, NB dedicated right‐turn
lane and WB dedicated right‐turn lane.
Augment Bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
CIR‐11. Broad & Airport (#102)
Install TWLTL north of intersection.
Augment Bicycle facilities and improve transit
headways on Broad Street.
Impact CIR‐3
Development under the LUCE
Update will increase traffic on
freeway facilities. Impact is
considered to be Class I,
significant and unavoidable.
As future development under the LUCE Update is
proposed, the City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General Plan and the
policies/programs listed above. However, with the
incorporation of the Proposed Project, adherence
to proposed and existing City policies and programs
discussed above, and continued support of
Caltrans’ and SLOCOG’s efforts to address demand
on US 101 in the vicinity of San Luis Obispo, these
mitigation measures would not mitigate the
impacts and widening to 6‐lanes is not feasible.
Given that there are no feasible
mitigation measures under the
City’s purview apart from
implementation of the Proposed
Project policies and programs, or
no enforceable plan or program
that is sufficiently tied to the actual
mitigation of the traffic impacts at
issue, this impact is significant and
unavoidable.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-11
Attachment 4, Pg. 13 of 28
Table ES‐2. Summary of Significant but Mitigable Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Class II: Significant but Mitigable Impacts
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG‐2
Future development in
accordance with the LUCE Update
could occur on prime farmland,
unique farmland, and/or
farmland of statewide
importance. Buildout within the
City Limits would result in Class II,
significant but mitigable impacts
to agricultural conversion.
In order to ensure that prime farmland is
protected upon implementation of the
proposed LUCE Update, the following LUCE
Update policy edits shall be required:
AG‐1 1.7.1 Open Space Protection
Within the City's planning area and outside the
urban reserve line, undeveloped land should be
kept open. Prime agricultural land, productive
agricultural land, and potentially productive
agricultural land should/shall be protected for
farming. Scenic lands, sensitive wildlife habitat,
and undeveloped prime agricultural land
should/shall be permanently protected as open
space.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies and reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate would reduce potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
Air Quality
Impact AQ‐1 (Short‐Term)
Implementation of the LUCE
Update would involve
construction of development
projects that generate short‐term
emissions of criteria air pollutants
and ozone precursors. Emissions
from individual construction
projects could exceed APCD’s
project‐level significance
thresholds. Thus,
implementation of the LUCE
Update could result in
construction‐generated emissions
that violate or contribute
substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation,
contribute a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
criteria air pollutants for which
the region is designated as non‐
attainment, and/or expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
Adherence to relevant policies
and implementation of APCD‐
recommended project‐specific
mitigation measures would
reduce potential short‐term
impacts to a less‐than‐significant
level. Thus, construction‐
generated air quality impacts are
considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
APCD specifies construction mitigation
measures designed to reduce emissions of ROG,
NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 (both fugitive and
exhaust). These include standard mitigation
measures, best available control technology
(BACT), and construction activity management
plan (CAMP) and off‐site mitigation for
construction equipment emissions; along with
short and expanded lists for fugitive dust
emissions.
The City shall ensure the implementation of the
most current APCD‐recommended construction
mitigation measures to reduce construction‐
generated emissions to less‐significant levels as
defined by APCD.
Individual development would be
required to undergo separate
environmental review, which may
result in specific impacts that require
project specific mitigation consistent
with the most current APCD‐
recommended construction
mitigation measures. As stated in
APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, if
estimated construction emissions are
expected to exceed either of the
APCD Quarterly Tier 2 thresholds of
significance after the standard and
BACT measures are accounted for,
then an APCD approved CAMP and
off‐site mitigation would need to be
implemented to reduce air quality
impacts to a less‐than‐significant
level. In addition, all fugitive dust
sources shall be managed to ensure
adequate control below 20% opacity
as identified by Rule 401, for which
compliance is required by law.
Adherence to relevant policies and
implementation of APCD‐
recommended project‐specific
mitigation measures would reduce
potential impacts to a less‐than‐
significant level. Thus, construction‐
generated air quality impacts are
considered Class II, significant but
mitigable.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-12 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 14 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Impact CR‐1
Development allowed by the
LUCE update could cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or
eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the
California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of
historic resources. This impact is
considered to be Class II,
significant but mitigable.
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update
could adversely affect historical resources. In
order to better facilitate the protection of the
city’s historical resources and reduce potential
impacts to less than significant levels, the
following changes to the City’s General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element
policies/programs shall be required:
CR‐1 3.3.2 Demolitions
Historically or architecturally significant
buildings should shall not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance,
unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat
to health and safety and other means to
eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable
levels are infeasible.
CR‐2 3.3.5
Historic districts and neighborhoods. In
evaluating new public or private development,
the City should shall identify and protect
neighborhoods or districts having historical
character due to the collective effect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
CR‐3 3.5.10 Southern Pacific Water Tower
The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and
adjoining City‐owned land should shall be
maintained as open space or parkland.
Implementation of proposed and
existing policies, reliance on
establishment of project‐specific
mitigation measures where
appropriate, and incorporation of the
required policy/program language
changes will reduce potential impacts
to a less than significant level.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-13
Attachment 4, Pg. 15 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation
Public Services
Impact PS‐1
Buildout of the proposed Land
Use Element would increase the
demand for fire protection
services by increasing population
and the number of structures in
the city. This is a Class II,
potentially significant but
mitigable impact.
The following policy shall be added to the
proposed Land Use Element prior to adoption:
PS‐1 New Policy
Development should shall be approved only
when adequate fire suppression services and
facilities are available or will be made available
concurrent with development, considering the
setting, type, intensity, and form of the
proposed development.
Implementation of the proposed
mitigation measure and Land Use
Element policy would require the
development of a new fire station in
the southern portion of the city prior
to or in conjunction with the
development of the Avila Ranch
Specific Plan. The construction and
operation of a new fire station would
be required to comply with applicable
regulatory requirements, City
development review policies and
requirements, and may be subject to
the implementation of additional
mitigation measures identified by a
project‐specific environmental
review. With the implementation of
the proposed mitigation measure and
existing development review
requirements, the proposed Land Use
Element Update would result in less
than significant adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or altered facilities needed to
achieve consistency with the City’s
fire response standard.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-14 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 16 of 28
Table ES‐3. Less Than Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Significance After Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Class III: Less Than Significant Impacts
Aesthetics
Impact AES‐1
Development under the LUCE Update would introduce new
development along viewing corridors and scenic roadways,
including state scenic highways, in the San Luis Obispo area. This
could have a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources or an
identified visual resource or scenic vista from a public viewing
area. With the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies and existing City policies, potential impacts to such views
are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact AES‐2
The LUCE Update emphasizes both reuse of existing urbanized
lands, infill development on vacant parcels, and new
development on vacant parcels near urban areas. The
development of such areas could degrade the existing visual
character and its surroundings. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update and existing City policies and programs,
potential impacts related to existing visual character changes are
considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact AES‐3
Proposed development in accordance with the LUCE Update
would introduce new sources of light and glare. However,
adherence to policies included in the Zoning Ordinance and
Community Design Guidelines would reduce potential impacts to
a Class III, less than significant, level.
None required.Less than significant.
Agricultural Resources
Impact AG‐1
The LUCE Update could alter the existing land use and zoning on
sites throughout the city and may result in incompatibilities with
adjacent urban and agricultural uses. However, the General Plan
reduces land use conflicts through policies and plan review.
Therefore, impacts that would occur from development would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required Less than significant.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO‐1
Development under the LUCE Update has potential to impact
common habitat types including non‐native annual grasslands
and disturbed/ruderal areas that provide habitat for common
wildlife and plant species. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing governing policies,
potential impacts to these common habitats are considered Class
III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-15
Attachment 4, Pg. 17 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Impact BIO‐2
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact four Natural Communities of Special Concern present
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea including Serpentine
Bunchgrass, Northern Interior Cypress Stand, Central Maritime
Chaparral, and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh. With the
incorporation of the proposed and existing City policies, and the
requirements of regulatory and oversight agencies, potential
impacts to sensitive habitats are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.Less than significant
Impact BIO‐3
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has the potential
to impact special‐status plant species within the LUCE SOI
Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and
existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status plant
species are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact BIO‐4
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact special‐status wildlife species within the LUCE SOI
Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of the proposed and
existing City policies, and the requirements of regulatory and
oversight agencies, potential impacts to special‐status wildlife
species are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact BIO‐5
Development consistent with the LUCE Update has potential to
impact common wildlife species and species of local concern
within the LUCE SOI Planning Subarea. With the incorporation of
the proposed and existing City policies, and the requirements of
regulatory and oversight agencies, potential impacts to common
and species of local concern are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required. Less than significant.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-16 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 18 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Impact CR‐2
Development facilitated by Land Use and Circulation Element
Update could adversely affect identified and previously
unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources. This
includes potential disturbance of human remains. General Plan
policies would ensure that such impacts are addressed on a case‐
by‐case basis. Impacts would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO‐1
New development under the LUCE Update could be susceptible to
impacts from future seismic events, creating the potential for
structural damage or health and safety risks. However,
compliance with required building codes and implementation of
General Plan polices would result in a Class III, less than
significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐2
Future seismic events could result in liquefaction of soils near San
Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek and other low‐lying areas.
Development in these areas could be subject to liquefaction
hazards. The compliance of future development projects with the
California Building Code (CBC) and General Plan policies would
result in Class III, less than significant impacts.
None required.
Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐3
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur on soils
that have the potential to present natural hazards (expansive
soils, erosive soils, and differential settlement) to structures and
roadways. Development could also result in the loss of a unique
geologic feature. However, compliance of future development
projects with the California Building Code and adopted General
Plan policies would ensure that resulting impacts are Class III, less
than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact GEO‐4
Steep slopes outside of the existing city limits present potential
on‐ or off‐site landslide hazards. In addition to human safety
impacts, a landslide has the potential to damage or destroy
structures, roadways and other improvements as well as to
deflect and block drainage channels, causing further damage and
erosion, including loss of topsoil. The compliance of future
development projects with the California Building Code (CBC) and
General Plan policies would result in Class III, less than significant
impacts.
None required.Less than significant.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-17
Attachment 4, Pg. 19 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Global Climate Change
Impact GCC‐1
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could result in an
increase in GHG emissions due to short‐term construction and
long‐term operational activities associated with new housing and
commercial development, resulting in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to the impact of global climate change.
However, because the proposed LUCE Update would be
consistent with the City’s CAP and incorporates applicable CAP
policies and programs that would reduce GHG emissions, this
impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ‐1
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could occur near
known hazardous material users or result in construction in areas
with existing hazardous materials. Implementation of the LUCE
Update could expose individuals to health risks due to
soil/groundwater contamination or emission of hazardous
materials into the air and could impact an adopted emergency
response/evacuation plan. With the incorporation of the
proposed LUCE Update policies and existing City policies,
potential impacts are considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐2
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update could
introduce incompatible residential and commercial land uses into
safety zones established through the Airport Land Use Plan and
may result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
these areas. Impacts would be Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐3
Development consistent with the proposed LUCE Update would
introduce residential land uses into areas designated as having a
Moderate or High Wildland Fire Hazard, introducing the potential
to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss and/or
injury. However, compliance with existing policies and state and
local regulations would reduce impacts to a Class III, less than
significant level.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact HAZ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update could introduce
sensitive receptors to additional hazards related to exposure to
radiation, electromagnetic fields and hazardous trees. With the
incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update policies and existing
City policies, potential impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-18 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 20 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Impact HAZ‐5
Development under the proposed LUCE Update could potentially
introduce sensitive receptors to areas in direct proximity to
hazardous materials transportation corridors including the Union
Pacific Railroad and Highway 101 and could potentially create a
public safety hazard. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ‐1
New development under the LUCE Update within the 100‐year
flood plain could be subject to flooding and have the potential to
impede or redirect flood flows. However, with implementation of
General Plan policies and adherence to the City’s Floodplain
Management Regulation impacts related to flooding would be
Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐2
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to
increase the amount of impervious surfaces within the city. This
could result in a decrease in percolation to the Groundwater
Basin, the alteration of drainage patterns and increases in the
volume of surface runoff. Compliance with the City’s Stormwater
Management Plan (SWMP) would reduce impacts to a Class III,
less than significant level.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐3
Point and non‐point sources of contamination could affect water
quality in San Luis Obispo Creek, Prefumo Creek as well as other
surface waters and groundwater in the city. However,
compliance with existing regulations and implementation of
General Plan policies and the City’s Stormwater Management
Plan (SWMP) would result in Class III, less than significant
impacts.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact HWQ‐4
Development facilitated by the LUCE Update has the potential to
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems,
resulting in increased stormwater runoff and has the potential to
result in the need for additional stormwater infrastructure.
Compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Plan
(SWMP), and State regulatory requirements, would reduce
impacts to a Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Land Use
Impact LU‐2
The proposed LUCE Update would have the potential to result in
land use conflicts between existing and proposed land uses. With
the implementation of proposed LUCE Update policies, potential
land use conflict impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-19
Attachment 4, Pg. 21 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Land Use Element Update would result in conflicts
with applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community
conservation plans. With the implementation of proposed LUCE
Update policies, potential plan and policy conflict impacts are
considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Impact LU‐3
The proposed Circulation Element Update identifies future
roadway improvements that would have the potential to result in
a significant impact if the improvements would physically divide
an established community. This impact is considered Class III, less
than significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Noise
Impact N‐2
Long‐Term Roadway and Railroad Traffic Noise Levels
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update would increase
traffic volumes and associated noise levels along major
transportation routes. In some instances, traffic‐related noise
increases could be more than 3 dB, the level typically audible to
the human ear and; therefore, considered a substantial increase
in noise.
New development associated with the proposed LUCE Update
could also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in close
proximity to transportation noise sources such as the railroad,
with potential to exceed the land use compatibility and
transportation noise exposure standards in the existing Noise
Element. However, because the City’s Noise Element contains
policies and programs that would address and mitigate potential
site‐specific impacts for individual projects in the future, this
impact would be considered Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact N‐3
Exposure of Noise Sensitive Receptors to Stationary Sources.
Implementation of the proposed LUCE Update could increase
stationary source noise levels from new development. New
development associated with the proposed LUCE Update could
also result in the siting of new sensitive receptors in close
proximity to these source types, with potential to exceed the land
use compatibility and stationary noise exposure standards in the
existing Noise Element. However, because the City’s Noise
Element contains policies and programs that would address and
mitigate potential site‐specific impacts for individual projects in
the future, this impact would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-20 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 22 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Impact N‐4
Airport Noise Exposure. Implementation of the proposed LUCE
Update would result in the designation of noise‐sensitive land
uses located within or near the 55 dBA and 60 dBA noise contours
of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan.
This could result in exposure of people to excessive noise levels.
However, with the incorporation of the proposed LUCE Update
policies that address airport noise compatibility and consistency
with the adopted ALUP, this impact would be considered Class III,
less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact N‐5
Exposure to Excessive Vibration Levels. Implementation of the
proposed LUCE Update could increase exposure to vibration
levels. However, because the City’s ordinance contains and that
these sources (existing and proposed) would be anticipated to be
minor, this impact would be considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Population and Housing
Impact PH‐1
The LUCE Update would not result in residential unit
development or associated population growth that exceeds an
adopted average annual growth rate threshold. Potential
population and housing impacts are considered Class III, less than
significant.
None required.
Less than significant.
Impact PH‐2
The LUCE Update would not result in a substantial displacement
of residents or existing housing units. This impact is considered
Class III, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Public Services
Impact PS‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would
increase the demand for police protection services by increasing
population and development in the city. This is a Class III, less
than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact PS‐3
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element Update would
increase enrollment in public schools by increasing the population
of the city. This is a Class III, less than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-21
Attachment 4, Pg. 23 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Recreation
Impact REC‐1
Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update would increase the
population of the city and would facilitate the development of
additional parkland. Buildout of the proposed LUCE Update
would result in a small increase in total per capita parkland in the
city when compared to existing conditions. Although the LUCE
Update would not comply with the City’s per capita parkland
standard, this would not result in a physical effect. Therefore the
LUCE Update would result in a Class III, less than significant
environmental impact related to the increased use of existing
park and recreation facilities.
The proposed LUCE Update
would result in less than
significant recreation‐related
environmental impacts and
no mitigation measures are
required. Although the LUCE
Update would result in less
than significant
environmental impacts
related to the provision of
parkland in the city, the
existing condition where the
City’s per capita parkland
standard is not achieved
would continue to exist. The
City’s per capita parkland
ratio goal is intended to meet
the community’s desire for
increased recreational
opportunities, and is not
considered to be a policy
adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.
Therefore the identified
inconsistency is not
considered to be a significant
environmental impact and no
mitigation is required.
Recommendations to address
the City’s goals for meeting
the per capita parkland ratio
include, but are not limited
to, the following additions to
the Parks and Recreation
Element:
Development may be
required to fund or dedicate
parkland greater than what is
required through the Quimby
Act in order to meet the
community’s needs and goals
for parkland.
The City shall pursue a gift of
Cuesta Park from the County
to the City as part of the City’s
parkland system.
Less than significant.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-22 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 24 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Impact REC‐2
Buildout of the proposed Land Use Element would potentially
provide up to 52.4 acres of new park facilities in the city. The
construction and use of the proposed parks would have the
potential to result in significant environmental impacts. This is
considered a Class III impact, less than significant.
None required.Less than significant.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact CIR‐4
Development under the LUCE Update may increase traffic
volumes or traffic speed in designated neighborhood traffic
management areas. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than
significant.
As future development under
the LUCE Update is proposed,
the City will be required to
ensure consistency with the
General Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐5
Development under the LUCE Update may encourage increased
heavy vehicle traffic on non‐designated truck routes. Impact is
considered to be Class III, less than significant.
As development under the
LUCE Update is proposed, the
City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General
Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐6
Development under the LUCE Update will cause increased activity
at San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that may lead to
changes in traffic volumes or traffic patterns that result in
deteriorated safety conditions. Impact is considered to be Class
III, less than significant.
As development under the
LUCE Update is proposed, the
City will be required to ensure
consistency with the General
Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐7
Development and street network changes and adoption of the
policies and programs under the LUCE Update would not conflict
with adopted policies that are supportive of increased active
transportation. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than
significant.
The LUCE Update significantly
strengthens the City’s policies
on active transportation
which will lead to reduced
traffic congestion and a
healthier population.
Therefore, no mitigation
measures are required.
Less than significant.
Impact CIR‐8
Development and adoption of the policies and programs under
the LUCE Update would not conflict with adopted policies that
are supportive of increased transit ridership and provision of
services. Impact is considered to be Class III, less than significant.
As future development under
the LUCE Update is proposed,
the City will be required to
ensure consistency with the
General Plan and the
policies/programs listed
above. Therefore, mitigation
measures are not required.
Less than significant.
Executive Summary
June 2014 Page ES-23
Attachment 4, Pg. 25 of 28
Impact Mitigation Measure Significance After Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact USS‐1
New development that could occur as a result of the proposed
LUCE Update would increase existing water demand. This is a
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact USS‐2
New development that could occur as a result of the LUCE Update
would generate wastewater flows that exceed the existing
capacity of the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. This is a
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact USS‐3
New development that could be facilitated by the LUCE Update
would require the construction of new water and wastewater
infrastructure or the replacement of existing infrastructure. The
construction or replacement of infrastructure has the potential to
result in significant environmental effects. This is a Class III, less
than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Impact USS‐4
New development that could be facilitated by the LUCE Update
would increase the demand for solid waste disposal at county
landfills. Potential new development would also comply with
applicable regulations related to the management of solid waste.
As such, solid waste disposal impacts of the LUCE Update are
Class III, less than significant impact.
None required.Less than significant.
Draft LUCE Program EIR
Page ES-24 June 2014
Attachment 4, Pg. 26 of 28
To access the complete Public Draft document set, please go to www.slo2035.com
The website provides access to the following:
Volume I Draft Program EIR
Volume II Elements and Plans
Includes draft Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)
Volume III Background Report (existing conditions)
Volume IV EIR Technical Studies
NOP, Airport Land Use Compatibility Report, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases,
Water Supply Assessment, Noise Modeling
Volume V Circulation Assessment
Attachment 4, Pg. 27 of 28
City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan Update
www.SLO2035.com
Attachment 4, Pg. 28 of 28
Attachment 5, Pg. 1 of 2
Attachment 5, Pg. 2 of 2