HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2003, PH 3 - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO RECLASSIFY SEVEN RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET council °'
jAucust 28 2003 agenda Repoin 3
0 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Jake Daniel Hudson,Transportation Assistant
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO
RECLASSIFY SEVEN RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREET
SEGMENTS AS RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREET SEGMENTS AND
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (GPA/ER 102-03).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving the negative
declaration, and amendment to Figure#2 of the Circulation Element to reclassify seven Residential
Collector street segments as Local Residential street segments.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City is required to update speed surveys every 5 years for arterial and collector streets. As part
of this effort, staff identified seven (7) street segments classified in the Circulation Element as
Residential Collector streets (Attachment#1) which would be better classified as Local Residential
streets. These streets directly serve residential driveway access, and exhibit circulation patterns
which are more representative of Local Residential Streets as defined in both the City's Circulation
Element Policy 5.2 and the California Vehicle Code Section §516. This inconsistency between
street classification and actual typology precludes staff from establishing more appropriate
performance standards and residential prima facie speed limits of 25 MPH based upon the actual
conditions on each of these segments. The August 13th Planning Commission staff report
(Attachment#2)contains a complete discussion on street classifications,including the methodology
for designating speed limits on each type of classification.
When the Circulation Element was written in 1994 these segments were possibly established as
Residential Collectors because of their locations between Arterial streets and other Local streets
or the thought that their eligibility for State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
funding might improve funding availability. However, the limited STIP funding granted by the
State is now used on more significant streets such as arterials and will not likely ever be used on
these segments because of other higher priorities.
Name and Location of Street Segments
1. Patricia Drive from Highland Drive to Twin Ridge Drive
2. La Entrada Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Luneta Drive
3. San Luis Drive from California Boulevard to Andrews Street
3 '�
Council Agenda Report—Circulation Element Amendment GPA/ER 102-03
Page 2
4. Flora Street from Bishop Street to Southwood Street
5. Sydney Street from Johnson Avenue to Flora Street
6. Southwood Street from Johnson Avenue to Eastern City Limits
7. Laurel Lane from Johnson Avenue to Flora Street
The purpose of this amendment is to establish street segment classifications which are consistent
with each of the segment's actual typologies and to allow staff to designate a residential prima
facie speed limit of 25 MPH. If these street segments remain designated as Residential
Collectors, higher speed limits (30-45 mph) will be required based on the predominant speed of
vehicles in each segment.
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (N FMP)
The NTMP recommends that the "desired" speed of traffic on Local Streets and Residential
Collectors be 25 MPH. However, because the segments in question fall under the "Collector"
classification their speed limits must be set by an engineering survey pursuant to California Vehicle
Code requirements. For many of these segments that would mean establishing a speed limit higher
than 25 MPH.
This leads to a dichotomy between the NTMP and the classifications established in the Circulation
Element. Staff has reviewed these issues and believes that the NTMP objectives more clearly
identify the proper characteristics of these residential streets. Although an argument can be made
that they "connect" other streets, they none-the-less primarily function as local residential streets
and should be classified as such.
Assuming these seven segments are reclassified, there will still be other residential collector
segments that remain in the Circulation Element. These streets continue to serve as collector streets
as defined in the Circulation Element. Although conflicts with the desires of the NTMP may or may
not exist for these Residential Collectors, their speed limits have been set in accordance with State
law.
Planning Commission Review& General Plan Consistency
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment at an early session on
August 13, 2003. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Aiken being absent) to
recommend approval of the Negative Declaration (see Attachment 3), proposed amendment to
Figure#2 of the Circulation Element(Exhibit A). Additionally,the commission requested that more
streets in the circulation element be evaluated for possible reclassification in a timely manner,
before the next circulation element update. Five members of the public voiced their support of the
General Plan Amendment, noting their concerns about excessive speeding in their neighborhoods.
Other members of the public have contacted staff to offer their opinion; only one of which was not
in support. Attachment 5 includes an email supporting the General Plan Amendment.
�-a
Council Agenda Report—Circulation Element Amendment GPA/ER 102-03
Page 3
Environmental Review
The initial environmental study identified no potentially significant impacts since the project did not
involve any physical changes. The project is a policy change improving consistency with the
California Vehicle code and within the City's Circulation Element. The project will increase
performance standards on each of the segments, however all segments to be reclassified fall within
these performance standards.
CONCURRENCES
The Police Department has reviewed this report and concurs with its findings and
recommendations.
FISCAL IMPACT
Reclassifying these segments from Residential Collector to Residential Local will revoke their
eligibility for State and Federal Funding. However, the limited funding granted by the State and
Federal Government is now used on more significant streets such as arterials and will not likely
ever be used on these segments; therefore no fiscal impacts will occur.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not adopt the resolution approving the General Plan Amendment. Staff does not
recommend this alternative because if the classification of these streets remains, a speed
limit designation must be based upon a traffic & engineering survey using the 85th
percentile speed and streets such as Patricia Street would need to be posted at 3040 mph.
2. Adopt the resolution approving the General Plan Amendment reclassifying some of the
streets identified by staff. Staff does not recommend this alternative because all of the
streets identified by staff meet the definition and performance standards of a Local Street
as established in the Circulation Element.
Attachments
1. Map of Streets to be reclassified
2. August 13t ,2003 Planning Commission Staff Report for GPA/ER 102-03
3. Planning Commission Resolution of Approval
4. Environmental Initial Study
5. Comments From Public
6. Draft Council Resolution for Approval of General Plan Amendment
Exhibit A provided to Council Members is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk
L\—Council Agenda Reports\2003 agenda reports\Transportation and.Development Review(Bochum)\StreetReclassi6cationCAR.doc
3 -3
Attachment #1
W
z o
LZ o
� 3 =
somme
O
O
V � J
z w
w �
z
0
}
� Q
U
V/ Q w
v
0!
O
.3-
Attachment#2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 2
BY: Jake Daniel Hudson, Transportation Assistant MEETING DATE: August 13, 2003
FROM: Timothy Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
FILE NUMBER: GPA/ER 102-03
PROJECT ADDRESS: City Wide
SUBJECT: Review of a General Plan Amendment of the Circulation Element reclassifying
seven Residential Collector street segments as Local Street segments.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of a Negative Declaration of
environmental impact and the General Plan Amendment reclassifying seven Residential
Collector street segments as Local Street segments based on findings.
BACKGROUND
Situation
Street classifications as established in the Circulation Element Figure #2 (enclosed in
Commissioner packets), prescribe the methodologies for establishing speed limits, performance
standards, and pavement management practices for each of those segments. The classification of
a street is also a factor in evaluating capital improvement projects, eligibility for State & Federal
funding, and the application of Neighborhood Traffic Management projects.
Staff has identified seven (7) currently classified Residential Collector street segments (see
Attachment 1) that should more appropriately be classified as local streets. This declassification
is recommended because these street segments serve as primary residential driveway access and
exhibit circulation patterns which are more representative of a local street as identified in
Circulation Element Policy Cl 5.2. State regulations require that all streets not classified as
"Local" must have a speed limit established upon the basis of a Traffic & Engineering Survey
using the predominant speed as the main determinant. Due to the current classification of these
seven segments, staff is precluded from establishing their speed limit at 25 mph upon the basis
that they are Local streets.
When the Circulation Element was written in 1994 these segments were possibly established as
Residential Collectors because of their locations between arterial streets and other local streets or
these segments were possibly established as Residential Collectors to be eligible for State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding. However, the limited STIP funding
granted by the State is now used on more significant streets such as arterials and parkways and
will never be used on these segments.
Street Classifications are one tool in neighborhood traffic management. The purpose of this
Attachment#2
Planning Commission Staff Report- GPA/ER 102-03 Page 2
amendment is to establish street segment classifications which are consistent with each of the
segment's actual typologies and to allow staff to designate a residential prima facie speed limit of
25mph based on these segments being classified as local street segments. If these street segments
remain designated as Residential Collectors, higher speed limits (30-45 mph) will be required
based on the predominant speed of vehicles in each segment.
Data Summary
Location of Street Segments (see Attachment 1, Streets to be reclassified):
1. Patricia Drive from Highland Drive to Twin Ridge Drive
2. La Entrada Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Luneta Drive
3. San Luis Drive from California Boulevard to Andrews Street
4. Flora Street from Bishop Street to Southwood Street
5. Sydney Street from Johnson Avenue to Flora Street
6. Southwood Street from Johnson to Eastern City Limits
7. Laurel Lane from Johnson Avenue to Flora Street
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
Environmental status: On July 22, 2003, the Deputy Director of Community Development
determined that the reclassification of these seven street segments from Residential Collector to
Local Street will not have a significant effect on the environment, and a negative declaration of
environmental impact is recommended.
Proiect Description
Public Works staff is recommending a General Plan Amendment amending Figure #2 of the
Circulation Element reclassifying seven Residential Collector street segments as Local Street
segments. The intention of this general plan amendment is to improve consistency within the
Circulation Element and with State Policy, and to allow the posting of a speed limit designation
on these segments upon the basis that they are classified as Local Streets rather than upon the
basis of a traffic and engineering survey.
EVALUATION
A. General Plan Consistency
General Plan policies that refer to the classification of streets establish the physical and
circulation characteristics as well as performance standards for each of the street typologies.
Section 5.2 of the Circulation Element establishes a residential collector as a segment that
"collects traffic from residential areas channeling it to arterials" and local residential as a
segment that "directly serves residential traffic that fronts them channeling it to collectors".
Figure #2 of the Circulation Element establishes the classification of each segment within the
city, including the seven segments in question as Residential Collectors.
3-Lo
Attachment#2
Planning Commission Staff Report- GPA/ER 102-03 Page 3
Each of the seven segments identified by staff directly serves residential areas with direct
residential driveway access. These seven segments also share similar characteristics with all
other streets classified as Local such as right of way widths, predominant surrounding land uses,
and type of vehicular traffic. Although these segments are more representative of the Local
classification through their physical and circulation characteristics, they have been classified as
Residential Collectors in the City's Circulation Element.. The recommended General Plan
amendment would reclassify these segments as Local Residential Streets so that their typology
matches the correct classification and more realistic performance standards may be applied.
Applicable Circulation Element goals, objectives,&policies are listed below.
Obiective 12: Traffic Management
H) San Luis Obispo should protect the quality of residential areas by achieving quiet and by
reducing or controlling traffic routing, volumes, and speeds on neighborhood streets.
C-1 5. Purpose of Street Corridors
The primary purpose of street corridors is to enable the movement of vehicles (automobiles,
transit, delivery vehicles, & bicycles) and pedestrians. The design and use of streets should relate
to- and respect the character and type of surrounding land uses. If residential areas are to
maintain their character, they cannot be treated in the same manner as commercial or industrial
areas.
Cl 5.2: Types of Streets
Street Type Desired Max Desired Max MPH Travel Lanes
ADT/LOS
Local Residential Streets directly
serve residential development that
fronts them and channels traffic to 1,500 25 mph 2
commercial collector streets.
Residential Collector Streets
Collect traffic from residential
areas and channel it to arterials 3,000 25mph 2
Cl 7.3: Street Network Manaeement
The City should manage the street network so that the standards presented in Policy 5.2 are not
exceeded.
Attachment#2.
Planning Commission Staff Report- GPA/ER 102-03 Page 4
B. California Vehicle Code Consistency
The California Vehicle Code establishes conditions by which a street segment may be considered
a "Residence District", thereby establishing the appropriate 25 MPH prima facie speed limit.
Section §516 of the CVC states that a "residence district" is a portion of street that has 13 or
more separate dwelling houses that are contiguous to that street for a distance of a quarter mile or
similar proportion. Section §22352.2a of the CVC states that the prima facie speed limit of 25
MPH is applicable in a"residence district".
Although a 25 MPH speed limit can be established in a "residence district", if the segment is not
appropriately classified as a Local Street the speed limit then must be established upon the basis
of a Traffic & Engineering Survey using the predominant speed as the primary determinant. In
one case, the predominant speed on Patricia Street was in excess of 40 MPH. The recommended
general plan amendment would reclassify these segments as Local Streets allowing a 25 MPH
speed limit designation upon the basis that the segment is a local street and is considered a
"residence district". Strict enforcement of these limits would then be encouraged to help meet the
Circulation Element (and Neighborhood Trak Management Program) goal of a 25 MPH
desired speed.
C. Environmental Review
It has been determined that this project will have no significant environmental impact upon the
basis that the project does not involve any physical changes and it is an alteration of public policy
improving consistency within itself and with other plans and policies (see Attachment 2,
Environmental Initial Study). The amendment will raise performance standards for these
segments,however all segments in question are performing well within those standards.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not adopt the resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment.
Staff does not recommend this alternative because if the classification of these streets
remains, a speed limit designation must be based upon a traffic & engineering survey
using the 85th percentile speed and streets such as Patricia Street would need to be posted
at 40 mph.
2. Adopt the resolution recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment
reclassifying some of the streets identified by staff. Staff does not recommend this
alternative because all of the streets identified by staff meet the definition and
performance standards of a Local Street as established in the Circulation Element.
3. Continue the item with direction to staff. Staff does not recommend this alternative
because this item is on the agenda for a special session of the City Council on August
26', 2003.
3-7
r
Attachment#2
Planning Commission Staff Report- GPA/ER 102-03 Page 5
OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
San Luis Police Department has reviewed this report and concurs with its findings and
recommendations.
Attachments:
1. Map of Streets to be Reclassified
2. Environmental Initial Study
3. Draft Resolution (with Exhibit A which is included in Commissioner packets)
Enclosed in Commissioner Packets:
1. Existing Classifications- Circulation Element Figure #2
2. Proposed Classifications- Exhibit A
K:\TransportationProjects\TrafficOperations\Current Projects\StreetsReclassification\StreetReclassificationPCR.doc
3 -9
Attachment 43
RESOLUTION NO. 5368-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISION
RECOMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT FIGURE#2 TO RECLASSIFY
SEVEN RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR STREETS AS LOCAL STREETS
(GPA/ER 102-03)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
August 13, 2003 for the purpose of considering application GAPER 102-03, an General Plan
Amendment amending Figure #2 of the Circulation Element, reclassifying seven residential
collector streets as local streets.
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding
recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the General Plan
amendment of the Circulation Element; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for the General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered, all evidence, including
interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findinas. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the
following findings in support of the General Plan Amendment of the Circulation Element:
1. The seven segments to be reclassified as local streets are built out as local streets, directly
serve residential driveway access, and exhibit circulation patterns which are more
representative of a local street as identified in Circulation Element.
2. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan's Circulation Element that
calls for the design and use of streets to relate to and respect the character and type of
surrounding land uses.
3. An environmental initial study was prepared by the Public Works Department on July 22,
2003, which describes potential significant environmental impacts associated with the
General Plan Amendment. A recommended Negative Declaration concludes that the project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission does hereby
recommend adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration.
3 -10
Attachment#3
Planning Commission Resolution # 5368-03
GPA/ER 102-03
Page 2
SECTION 3. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council approval of the amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan
reclassifying seven Residential Collector street segments as Local Street segments as shown in
Exhibit A.
Upon motion of Commr. Loh, seconded by Commr. Caruso,and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Caruso, Osborne, Loh, Boswell and Christianson
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 13th day of August, 2003.
Mike Draze, S ary
Planning Commission
i
Attachment#4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER# 102-03
1. Project Title:
General Plan Amendment of the Circulation Element Reclassifying seven Residential Collector Streets
as Local Segments.
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Public Works
955 Morro St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
3. Contact Persons and Phone Numbers:
Jake D. Hudson Peggy Mandeville
Transportation Assistant Interim Principal Transportation Planner
805-781-7255, ihudson@a.slocity.org 805-781-7170, nmandeville(&,slocitv.oriz
4. Street Segment Locations:
1. Patricia Drive (Highland Drive to Twin Ridge) 6. Sydney Street (Johnson Avenue to Flora Street)
2. La Entrada (Foothill Boulevard to Luneta Street) 7. Laurel Lane (Johnson Avenue to Flora Street)
3. San Luis Drive (California Boulevard to
Andrews Street)
4. Southwood Drive (Johnson Avenue to E. City
Limits)
5. Flora Street (Bishop Street to Southwood Drive)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Public Works
955 Morro St.
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
N/A, within public Right of Way
7. Zoning:
N/A
8. Description of the Project:
This project is a General Plan Amendment to Figure #2 of Circulation Element reclassifying
seven Residential Collector streets to Local streets. The streets are fully developed & have been
constructed pursuant to the City's Local Street standards.
3 - Ia
Attachment#4
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding land uses on all segments to be reclassified are built out low & medium density
Residential neighborhoods.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
General Plan Amendment to the City's Circulation Element
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
1. City of San Luis Obispo Planning Commission
2. City of San Luis Obispo City Council
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBispO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
-f3
Attachment#4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact thavis a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si ificance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such,the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
150733(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20031
3
Attachment 4
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached .sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or"potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
July 22,2003
Signature Date
Hie_aA,5-c_ L?XPul-%Y PIXZAcTaQL John Mandeville
Printed Name
CrtY OF SAN Luis Owspo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3- tS
Attachment#4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)of the California Code of
Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3 � fLp
r
i
Attachment#4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited X
to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings
within a local or state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversely effect day or ni tdmeyiews_in the_area?_ _
Evaluation
Since this project will not alter physical conditions,no aesthetic impacts will occur
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X
their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve any agriculture resources,no such impacts will occur.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
qty plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Evaluation
Since this project will not incur additional traffic on any of the segments to be reclassified,no air quality impacts will occur.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
_plans,policies,or regulations,or byte California Department
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 .INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3 - 11
Attachment#4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife.Service?
X
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e.g.Heritage:Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.)
through direct removal,filling;hydrological interruption,or
other means.
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve any biological resources,no such impacts will occur.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change is the significance of an X
archaeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 150643)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve any cultural resources,no such impacts will occur.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL.RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
State?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve any energy and mineral resources,no such impacts will occur.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?___M_ X
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3�1�`
Attachment#4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
IV. Landslides or mudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable;or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidence,
liquefaction,or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-13 of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life
orproperty?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve geology and soils,no such impacts will occur.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the publicor the environment X
through the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous.
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land'use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?
g) impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
Plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury; X
or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed
with wildlands?_ -----
Evaluation
__Evaluation
Since this project does not involve any hazards or hazardous materials,no such impacts will occur.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste-discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3-0
1
Attachment#4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
groundwater table level(e.g.The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide additional sources of runoff into surface waters
(including,but not limited toi wetlands,riparian areas,ponds,
springs,creeks,streams,rivers, lakes,estuaries,tidal areas;bays,
ocean,etc.)?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood.Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Will the project introduce typical storm water pollutants into X
ground or surface waters?
i) Will the project alter ground water or surface water quality,
temperature,dissolved oxygen,or turbidity?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve hydrology and water quality,no such impacts will occur.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ornatural X
community conservationplans?
Evaluation
a) The project amends the City's Circulation Element to reclassify seven existing Residential Collector segments from
Residential Collector to Local Streets. The project conforms to the City's Circulation element which calls for "Residential
Local streets to directly serve residential development that fronts them and channels traffic to Residential Collectors"(CI 5.2).
b)This project does not involve any physical changes,no physical divisions in any community will occur.
c) This project does not involve any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan no such conflict will
occur.
Conclusion
No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200$
3��
' 1
Attachment#4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) For a project located within an,airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve physical alterations,there will be no noise impacts.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:.
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial-nu mbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve housing or population,no such impact will occur.
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportationinfrastructure? X
Otherpublic facilities? _ _. . .--_. _ X
Evaluation
Since this project does not change the physical characteristics of the roadways in question,there will be no such impacts.
14. RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional p"irks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve recreation,no such impacts will occur.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro'ect:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X.
`S CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3r�
- Attachment#4
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise,
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Evaluation
a,c-g)Since this project does not involve any physical alterations to the roadways in question,there will be no such impacts.
b) This project will increase the performance standards established in the Circulation Element for these segments. However,
existing conditions are still well within performance standards established for Local Streets.
Conclusion
No Impact
16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the roject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,waste water treatment,water quality control;or storm
drainage facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X
from existing entitlementsand resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Evaluation
Since this project does not involve utilities and service systems,no such impacts will occur.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
3 -aa
Attachment 44
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
incorporated
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
No.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
future ro'ects
No.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
No.
CITY OF SAN LUIS Oalspo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2003
Attachment#4
IS. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one.or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where the are-available for review.
N/A
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were'within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
N/A
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
19. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element 1994
2. California State Vehicle Code 2002
3. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
4.
5.
Attachments:
1.MAP OF STREET SEGMENTS TO BE RECLASSIFIED
J ��
Peggy Mandeville- Lowenng Speed Li on ResidentiaC Collector Streets
- - --
Attachment#5
From: Lynne Landwehr<lelandwehr@yahoo.com>
To: <PMandevi@slocity.org>
Date: 8/14/03 8:43AM
Subject: Lowering Speed Limits on Residential.Collector Streets
Hello Peggy Mandeville,
Thank you for working with the Flora Street folks on the issue of posted speed limits along Flora and other
residential collector streets. As a resident of Flora Street(#2644), I would definitely like to see lower
speed limits, although I'm not sure that the problem would be entirely solved by just posting signs. We live
near one of the"dips,"and people do come by here at really excessive speeds. My vote would be for
some speed bumps near the dip areas, but lowering the speed limit would be a good start.
Anything the city can do to preserve the"residential" character of residential neighborhoods, is highly
desirable, as far as I'm concerned. We are experiencing an increase of student housing near the Sydney
Street intersection, and this may well add to the speeding problems.
Thank you for your time.
Lynne Landwehr
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder-Free, easy-to-use web site design software
�' OJ
Attachment #5
From: <NHUSTEN@aol.com>
To: <PMandevi@slocity.org>
Date: 8/18/03 9:52AM
Subject: Flora Street speeds
Dear Mrs. Mandeville:
Thank you for your ongoing assistance and concern regarding the
excessive speeds traveled along Flora St. I was shocked to learn the enforceable
speed along Flora is 55mph. I believe changing the designation of Flora St. from
'Residential collector'to'Residential local" street is a step in the right
direction. I know I speak for most if not all of my immediate neighbors in
saying we are fed up with the speeding in our neighborhood. Anything I can do to
help in the process, let me know.
Sincerely,
Nancy Husten (2740
Flora St.)
i
Attachment #5
i
From: "Wendy Gomez" <fwgomez@thegrid.net>
To: <PMandevi@slocity.org>
Date: 8/16/03 2:29 PM
Subject: Flora Street Speed Limit
-- Wendy Gomez
--- fwgomez@thegrid.net
--- EarthLink: The#I provider of the Real Internet.
Dear Mrs. Mandeville,
We have lived on Flora Street a number of years and have seen the speed increase. We believe the
traffic speed needs
to be slowed down. We estimate traffic to go 40 to 50 miles per hour. We live in a residential area and
feel the speed is to
fast on this street. We would appreciate the speed study being done.
Thank you for your time in considering this matter.
Fred& Wendy Gomez
Attachment#6
RESOLUTION NO. (2003 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT TO RECLASSIFY SEVEN RESEIDENTIAL
COLLECTOR STREET SEGMENTS AS RESIDENTIAL LOCAL STREETS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 13`h, 2003
and recommended approval of the proposed amendment to Figure #2 map of the Circulation
Element; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 28,', 2003 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Circulation Element Figure #2 map
amendment is consistent with other policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative
Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts
said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. The Circulation Element Figure #2 is amended as shown on Exhibit A,
attached.
SECTION 3. The Public Works Department shall cause the Circulation Element
amendment to be reflected in documents which are on display in City Hall and which are
available for public use.
SECTION 4. This amendment shall take effect at the expiration of 30 days following
approval.
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3'iJ�
Attachment#6
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 28th day of August, 2003.
Mayor David Romero
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney
3-�q
1 z d N
N
W
o � 0 *zf
T � m
cd IX
AW1
qw
U w o
m o
.I
i
i l / ,
m
pu&A
i . 1
i
\ �♦ iii \ I \ I ( _
3 -IOU
RECEIVED
AU6 2
SLO CITY KJ
Forwarded Message:---------......._.._.._...__.
Subj: Flora Street Speed Limit -
Date: 13h 92003 82030 PM Pacific Daylight Time
?From: Slofed
?o: pmandevi �.I„4S.lY_oro _..__.. ..........__....... __._............- ...._._._..-- .._..---
Dear Mrs.Mandeville, I Ave at 2785 Flom Street. Nanny Husten alerted me to the City Council's consideration of
a proposal to redesignate Flora Street from residential collector to residential local. My husband and i SUPPORT
this proposal.
Speeding on Flora Street has been a concern since we moved here 2 years ago. I have even had driven;pass
me on the left as if they were on the freeway while driving down Flora. Speed Is a special concern to us because
ours is one of the many families with young children who walk and dde bikes in the area and we are constantly
having to remind them about the reckless ddvers on our street. Some of my neighbors wont even let their
children play In their front yard because they are concerned about reckless drivers.
In short, a 25 mph speed Amit on Flora Street Is long overdue,and is best suited for the residential character of
the neighborhood. If I can provide any further information,please let me know.
Rita Federman
2785 Flora Street
7131-5477
Claw OMO
dCOUNCI L J E CDD DIR
J21CAO .2-FIN DIR
CACAO e2'FIRE CHIEF
Z'ATTORNEY ;-..-Pw DIR
RED FILE ErCLERK ORIG Z POLJCE CHF
❑ QF_PT HEADS /REC DIR
M NG AGENDA HI D RIR
R
DATE4141 ITEM
Wednesday,August 20,2003 America Online: Slofed
Julie O'Connor- Residential Collector Strr-'s __. _._ _ , .__Page 1
From: "Barbara/Dick Schorer' <schorer4slo@hotmail.com>
To: <PMandevi@slocity.org> RECEIVED
Date: 8/25/03 9:10AM
Subject: Residential Collector Streets AU6 2 6 202'
To Petty Mandeville SLO CITY CLERK
Public Works Dept.
As a resident on Flora Street] encourage the the City Council to designate
Flora Street as a"residential local"street. The excessive speed on this
street increases each year and in my opinion is unsafe for the children who
live in the area.
Your immediate attention to this matter is appreciated.
Barbara Schorer
2701 Flora Street
SLO
Help protect your PC: Get a free online virus scan at McAfee.com.
hftp://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
K�Vd Co'P E VYICL L
dCOUNCIL CDD DIR
RED FILE Z'CAC 2-FIN DIR
INE NG AGENDA ZACAC 2-FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY 1%PW DIR
DATEA2s c 3 ITEM #—F±-3 2CLERK/0RIG 1-POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 0,REC DIR
�- 1'ri 17un� ]'UTIL DIR
P�.B 0"HR DIR
i
�I������Illillill�l�lll1° 91111U
council mcmomndum
10ty of San Luis Obispo
DATE: August 26, 2003 RECEIVED
TO: Mayor and Members of the Ci Council AUG 2 6 200
SLO CITY CLERK
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: Lee Price, City Cler
SUBJECT: 8/28/03 Special Meeting Agenda Item#3 re: Circulation Element
Due to the quick turn-around time, the Minutes of the August 13`h Planning Commission are not yet in
available in final form. To assist the Council, a copy of the attached Action Update for the Planning
Commission is being provided for reference.
RED FILE
M ING AGENDA
DATE, 9 5ITEM #21L3 ! 'COUNCILcDD DIR
2-ICAOFIN DIR
CACAO 2-FIRE CHIEF
Z-ATTORNEY ZPW DIR
ErCLERK/ORIG -ZPOUCE CHF
❑ D T'HEADS 2rREC DIR
8 DIR
CHR HR DIR
Council Mcmomndum Template
J
SwMeeting Update `
August 13, 2003
Page 2
The greatest value of the SRTP is the information to the ommission to
nsider for project approval.
4. Comme the innovative service strategi (e.g. demand area response
transit, expres rvice).
5. The service changes wi improvement over the current system, and
other improvements will ow.
6. The transit s will also change as the 's demographics change.
The Com ' sion recommended the adoption of the Negativ claration and the Short
Ra ransit Plan as recommended by the MTC. Also, pedestrr . rovements
ould be made to Prado Road if there is no direct service to the Prado Center.
Citywide. GPA and ER 102-03: Request to amend the General Plan Circulation
Element reclassifying seven residential collector streets as local segments, and
environmental review; City of SLO Public Works Department, applicant. (Jake
Hudson)
After receiving a presentation from staff regarding the seven street segments in question,
The Planning Commission voiced their concerns regarding possible inappropriate
classifications for several other street segments throughout the City emphasizing North
Broad Street and the neighborhood streets surrounding Cal Poly. The Planning
Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Aiken absent) to recommend approval of the
Negative Declaration and proposed amendment to Figure #2 of the Circulation Element.
Additionally, the Commission requested that more streets in the Circulation Element be
evaluated for possible reclassification in a timely manner, before the next Circulation
Element update. Five members of the public voiced their support of the General Plan
Amendment, noting their concerns about excessive speeding in their neighborhoods.
3. 636 Woodland Drive. R, TR and ER 11-01; Tentative tract map to cr a 23
I tial parcels and one open space parcel; consideration of pos ' rezoning
of the pr y to R-1-S (Low-Density Residential with a spe ' considerations
overlay); and ronmental review (EIR); R-1 zone; Bo en Ranch Partners,
applicant. (To be co ued to August 27, 2003) (Lvedo)
This item was continued without disc on.
4. 1716 Osos Street. U 18-03; Re t to al Bed and Breakfast Inn in the R-3-
H zone; Suzie Kyle and Neta dney, applicants. m Ricci)
The Commission was pportive of the change in use at this loca ' from a fraternity to
a bed and brea st. However, there were mixed feelings as to her a parking
reduction co d be supported by required variance findings. On a - ote, the
Commis ' n continued consideration of the Use Permit, with consideration of a king
Va ' nce, to the meeting of August 27, 2003, with the following direction:
From: courtney cable<courtneycable@yahoo.com>
To: <pmandevi@slocity.org> =RECEiVEDDate: 8/27/03 10:33AM
subject: Flora Street Dear Mrs. Mandeville,
We strongly support any measure to reduce the speeds
that vehicles are travelling down our street. The
width of the street plus the hill seem to combine to
encourage faster driving than we are comfortable with
in our neighborhood.
By the time cars reach our house from the corner at
Sydney, many are accelerating through the 3040 mph
range as they approach the hill up to Laurel Lane.
From the other direction, the cars have picked up
speed from coming down that hill, and zip by our house
before starting to brake for the stop sign at Sydney.
It's not that people are intentionally driving too
fast(other than some teenages, of course); the
conformation of the hill and street makes it easy to
speed up. Even as aware of the issue as we are; we
find we can go too fast if we are not paying attention
to the speedometer.
If changing the street designation to residential
local will help address the problem, please proceed
with the process. We think that additional measures
will be necessary, such as speed bumps.
Thank you,
Courtney Cable and Austin Dito
2665 Flora Street
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder-Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RED FILE gCOUNCIL TCDD DIP
MEETING AGENDA la ACAO
CA 'FIN DIP
�ACAFIRE CHIEF
DATEVI? a3 ITEM #_Liq ATTORNEY 2rPW DIP
ja'CLERK/ORIG R�POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS ZI AEC DIP
2r Erma Z R DIP
t
r
n �
it I ri
Ilf
i
r j � •, i i
1 � •` i i
f9ool mr i ---
i
IIL —
I ••
� • i
i
i
i /
i
\ i
\ i
� l
i
-`I--------------
I •\
l - -
i \
i
g 3 Q
o I �
0 id �.
m m co o
CL ~' Ono
O .
P3 w
rA
a- moo
o h+•
as
z � r � k
}� » .
PO a, CD
N
C
Mill oMMI
u : : ' C
.Diane Reynolds- Fwd: streets -- _____
—-----------lya-gef]
From: Barbara Ehrbar
To: O'Connor, Julie
Date: 8/29/03 8:02AM
Subject: Fwd: streets
L<Tfii-s-carne in after 5ip.m,.-.,r
Diane Reynolds-streets Page 1
From: slmmanager<slmmanager@longs.com>
To: <behrbar@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: 8/28/03 5:17PM
Subject: streets
Dear Council,
Please adopt the local street segment amendment as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
I attended and spoke at that meeting.
Thought I would be able to be there tonight, but since it is
the first item on the agenda, so I might be late and miss
it.
Thank you,
Frank Merson
195 Ramona
Comer of La Entrada and Ramona
CC: <finerson @ longs.com>