HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2016 Item 01 SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan Meeting Date: 9/20/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: SLO TRANSIT 2016-2021 SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee and the Planning Commission:
Adopt resolution approving the 2016 Short Range Transit Plan, with modifications as
recommended by the Mass Transportation Committee on July 13th, 2016 and the Planning
Commission on August 24th, 2016.
DISCUSSION
A Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is intended to provide a general business plan to guide the
transit organization’s development over the coming five years. The SRTP includes analysis of
four key areas: 1) transit demographics based on surveys and ridership counts, 2) review of the
current organization’s effectiveness and efficiencies, 3) identification of opportunities for
improvement and 4) comparison with similar “peer” systems.
This analysis produced a wide range of options for additional public input and comment. The
analysis and public comment helped shape the final and most feasible recommendations.
Additionally, the resulting SRTP provides guidance for improved operational, capital and
institutional plans, including an implementation plan for the recommended changes.
The current SRTP was adopted in 2009 and is now beyond its five year planning horizon. Few of
the recommended changes from the last plan were implemented, largely a result of the financial
recession slowdown of development activity. In spite of this, the SLO Transit system continues
to see ridership gains and, as a result, new operational challenges to meet these demands.
The 2016-21 SRTP is aimed at addressing these challenges and to help ensure that local public
transit remains relevant to the community’s development and social service needs. Furthermore,
this SRTP plan has been prepared jointly and in parallel with the San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) SRTP to identify means to best coordinate the two services. Moreover,
an adopted SRTP is a requirement to be eligible for certain funding sources and enables the
pursuit of other local, state and federal grants. Finally, the City’s Circulation Element also
requires that the City adopt a SRTP every five years.
Background
Utilizing state grant funds and a joint RFP process with RTA, LSC Transportation Consultants
Inc. was awarded the contract to conduct the independent third-party analysis for the
development of the SRTP. Commencing in February of 2015, staff has worked with LSC to
1
Packet Pg. 6
provide institutional data and background information. This information included current
routes/schedules, ridership counts, financial expenditures, operational knowledge, etc. for the
initiation of the draft SRTP. Over the course of 16 months a total of eight Working Papers,
specific to different parts of the comprehensive analysis (e.g. current operations, public input,
recommended changes, peer analysis, operational, capital, financial needs, etc.) were created and
made available for public review. The compilation of these Working Papers make up the
recommended draft of the SRTP. Throughout the process a number of remote and in -person
stake-holder interviews, public input and comment periods/opportunities have been afforded, and
which help shape the final product. These are summarized below:
1. Feb 27, 2015 – SRTP Kick-of Meeting with Transit Providers (SLO Transit & RTA)
2. Mar, 2015 – Online Rider Surveys (30-days)
3. Mar, 2015 – Driver/Contractor Interviews
4. Mar 3-5, 2015 – Onboard Rider Surveys
5. July 14, 2015 – Stake-Holder Interviews (SLOCOG, MTC, CalPoly, etc.)
6. July 15, 2015 – Joint MTC/RTAC Meeting
7. Dec 4, 2015 – MTC Special Meeting
8. Jan 13, 2016 – Joint MTC/RTAC Meeting
9. Apr 5, 2016 –Public Meeting, Recommended Changes
10. Apr thru May 2016 – 30 Day Public Comment Period
11. May 11, 2016 – MTC Review of Public Comment
12. June 15, 2016 – MTC Special Meeting
13. July 13, 2016 – MTC Meeting, Recommendation for Adoption
14. July 13, 2016 – Planning Commission, Initial Presentation
15. Aug 24, 2016 - Planning Commission, Final Action
16. Sept 20, 2016 – City Council
Public Desired Service Improvements
It is worth noting that during the Public Perception surveys conducted in 2015, SLO Transit
received high marks from the community. Out of the 1,573 collected surveys, SLO Transit
received a combined 96% “Good” or “Excellent” rating in “Overall Service Quality” by the
public. The current success of the program is also further highlighted when it was demonstrated
that SLO Transit was outperforming most of its peers, during the peer-system-analysis, in a
number of key performance indicators.
However, the 2016 increase in ridership levels has strained the overall transit system in trying to
keep up with ridership levels. In the transit system’s current form, it will be unable to support
both new riders and support city growth indefinitely. Furthermore, when the public was asked:
“What could SLO Transit do better?” the following themes appeared.
1. Later evening service throughout the academic school year
2. Later evening service throughout summer periods
3. Later weekend service in general
1
Packet Pg. 7
Service Change Recommendations
A major goal of the SRTP alternatives was to maximize service in order to meet desired service
improvements. This is accomplished by focusing service on higher yielding ridership corridors
and streamlining the overall system. Careful consideration was given to appropriately move
service off of neighborhood streets and onto arterial roadways to improve the safety and on -time
performance of the system. Great efforts were made to minimize what is perceived as “loss of
service” and only done so if meaningful gains, system wide, could be accomplished by doing so.
The existing route structure will be streamlined to enhance service quality along key travel
corridors, provide meaningful new connections, and improve service safety and efficiency.
Overall, the route network will be reconfigured into a series of four basic bi-directional routes,
serving different quadrants of the City and with better integration at the Transit Center. In
addition, it is recommended that the routes be identified with a simpler nomenclature, with “A”
and “B” designations to differentiate travel direction. The “A” (i.e. Route 1A, 2A, etc.) routes
will operate in clockwise direction while the “B” (i.e. Route 1B, 2B, etc.) routes will provide the
counterclockwise bidirectional service, see Figure 36, Page 140 of the 2016-21 SRTP:
Routes 1 and 3 will continue to focus and serve the Southeast quadrant of the city but will
be streamlined and revised to create new complementing Routes 1A and 1B. Route 1A
will serve Johnson, Laurel and Broad St. in a clockwise direction approximately every 45
minutes using a single bus. Route 1B will provide the counterclockwise service with an
additional extension to the Marigold Center and French Park Neighborhood with one bus
in each direction. Although the Plan recommends reducing Route 3 service east of the
UPRR Bridge due to low ridership, development of the Righetti Ranch is scheduled to
begin shortly and new housing will be constructed on the north side of Tank Farm Road
within the next 12-24 months. Since implementation of the SRTP changes will occur no
sooner than summer of 2017 it is unlikely the service reductions would take place and
then be reestablished when the development is occupied. Staff will make final
recommendation on this service change as part of the 2017 implementation plan.
Route 2 will be expanded to further serve the Southwest quadrant of the City.
Enhancements to this route include additional meaningful service from S. Higuera St.,
over the new LOVR interchange bridge, to the Jr. High School along the LOVR
commercial corridor and down Madonna Road with bidirectional service (Route 2A and
2B).
Routes 4 and 5 will be streamlined serve the Western quadrant of the City in a newly
renumbered Route 3A (clockwise) and 3B (counterclockwise). Service between
downtown and Cal Poly will be shifted from Grand Avenue to California Boulevard
(replaced with 4A/4B enhancements). Los Osos Valley Road east of Madonna Road will
be eliminated (replaced with 2A/2B). Overall, this will reduce service frequency in the
low-ridership areas on the western side of the system, free up two buses for use in higher
ridership areas, and improve on-time performance.
Routes 6A and 6B will be consolidated and configured into a bi-directional loop serving
Cal Poly and downtown, renumbered as 4A (clockwise) and 4B (counterclockwise).
1
Packet Pg. 8
During peak daytime periods in the school year, two buses will be operated in each
direction. This strategy will improve connections between the Foothill/Highland corridor
and downtown (and connecting bus services). It will also result in a simpler route
structure that is easier for passengers to understand.
All routes will enhance use of the Transit Center for easier system-wide connections.
This route plan (absent the expansion of hours of service) will increase the annual number of
runs by 6 percent of the existing total, increase the vehicle-hours of service by 9 percent, and
only increases vehicle-miles of service by 0.5 percent. At full implementation, two additional
buses will be operated at peak. The plan focuses transit resources on areas with the greatest
ridership potential; and, specifically;
1. Provides new cross-town travel options between the Madonna Road corridor and the
South Higuera corridor
2. Improves on-time performance by building more layover time into the routes
3. Increases service frequency in the key neighborhoods near the Cal Poly campus and
to/from downtown
4. 4 Provides service to new neighborhoods and employment opportunities
5. Provides flexibility to expand services in the future to serve new developments, such as
Righetti Ranch and the Margarita Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption), § 15262 (Feasibility and Planning
Studies) and/ or § 15276(A) (Transportation Improvement and Congestion Management
Programs).
FISCAL IMPACT
It is important to note that the SRTP is a planning lev el document and does not in and of itself
commit the City to implementation of the service recommendations. The SRTP is a fiscally
constrained document and adoption of the plan in no way commits the Council or the City to
implementation of the service recommendations contained in the plan nor does it imply that the
Council endorses all of these recommendations or plan content. The recommendations contained
in this document are the consultant’s professional judgment in addressing the data, field
observations and overall system analysis and the outcomes for changing service.
The SLO Transit is an Enterprise fund that fully funds the operations using a combination of
local generated fares, state and federal grants. There is no General Fund contribution to SLO
Transit Enterprise fund. Full implementation of the five year recommendations of the SRTP will
be dependent on the Enterprise Fund’s ability to meet revenue requirements from these sources.
While the plan does create some operational efficiencies and related cost savings these savings
are reinvested in service needs. Additionally, in order to create expanded operating hours of
service, as identified by the public, a fare increase may need to be considered at some point over
the course of this plan’s five-year planning horizon in order to achieve full implementation and
1
Packet Pg. 9
keep up with escalating costs.
The FY 2016-17 Transit Budget includes $100,000 to assist in preparing for service changes that
could result from adoption of the SRTP. Staff will provide further information and final
recommendations for SRTP implementation as part of the FY 17-18 Financial Plan process.
Should sufficient revenue sources be available for full implementation, this plan will increase
annual operating costs by 6.8 percent. Besides the prior identified funding sources, there also is
a potential for new revenues from a new countywide Measure J transportation self-help tax
which is set for the November ballot. These revenues are not included in this plan and would not
supplant exiting funding sources. If passed, this new revenue would most likely be focused on
expanding evening service. Capital costs over the plan period exceed the current forecasted
5307 funds by $5.6 Million, which will require new funding. SLO Transit will also monitor
financial conditions to assess future need for fare modifications.
CONCURRENCES
1. Mass Transit Advisory Committee (7/13/16)
2. Planning Commission (8/24/16)
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could deny the plan in its entirety. This is not recommended as the proposed
plan is aligned with several General Plan policies and enhances services to transit users.
2. Approve but modify the SRTP with additional direction to staff.
3. Delay adoption of SRTP with direction for staff to prepare any additional analysis or service
alternatives.
Attachments:
a - Resolution - Short Term Transit Plan
b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review
c - Council Reading File - SLO Transit Final SRTP
1
Packet Pg. 10
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXXX (2016 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE 2016-21 SHORT RANGE
TRANSIT PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo, California operates San Luis Obispo Transit, a
public transit service; and
WHEREAS, the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments requires transit operators to
prepare a Short Range Transit Plan every five years to be included in the regional transportation
plan; and
WHEREAS, the Mass Transportation Committee conducted a hearing and received public
testimony on July 13th, 2016 and recommended approval of the Short Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a hearing and received public testimony
on August 24th, 2016 and recommended approval of the Short Range Transit Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a hearing on September 20th, 2016 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, the records of the Mass Transportation Committee hearing and action and the evaluation
and recommendation of staff: and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Short Range Transit Plan is
consistent with the policies of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has developed a Short Range Transit Plan to
review it public transit service, and to make recommendation for service improvements; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, who operates SLO Transit, as follows:
Section 1. Approval. The City hereby adopts the Short Range Transit Plan dated August
10, 2016 as recommended by the Mass Transportation and Planning Commission.
Section 2. Constraints. That the SRTP is a fiscally constrained document and that adoption
of the plan in no way commits the Council or the City to implementation of the service
recommendations contained in the plan nor does it imply that the Council endorses all of these
recommendations or plan content. The recommendations contained in this document are the
consultant’s professional judgment in addressing the data, field observations and overall system
analysis and the outcomes for changing service.
Section 3. Environmental Review. The Council hereby finds and concludes that the project
is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§ 15061(b)(3) (General Rule Exemption), § 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies) and/ or §
1.a
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: a - Resolution - Short Term Transit Plan (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Resolution No. _____ (2016 Series) Page 2
15276(A) (Transportation Improvement and Congestion Management Programs) and hereby
directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption consistent herewith because the project is largely a
planning and feasibility study that specifies route changes and refinements along existing corridors
that will reduce transportation and reduce congestion and that proposed improvements are largely
programmatic in nature and there is not specificity to determine that any impacts will occur and
therefore falls within the General Rule CEQA exception.
Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________, 2016.
_____________________
Mayor Jan Marx
ATTEST:
_____________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.
____________________________________
Carrie Gallagher
City Clerk
1.a
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: a - Resolution - Short Term Transit Plan (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
USE-OTHER-3400-2016
August 24th, 2016
1. Project Title:
2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan, For SLO Transit
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Dept.
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
805-781-7121
4. Project Location:
Citywide
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Dept.
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Project Representative Name and Address:
Gamaliel Anguiano, Transit Manager
805-781-7121
6. General Plan Designation:
N/A
1.b
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
2
7. Zoning:
N/A
8. Description of the Project:
This document presents a five-year (2016-2021) Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) developed for
the City of San Luis Obispo’s public transit program, SLO Transit. An SRTP is intended to
provide a detailed business plan to guide the transit organization over the coming five years. It
includes a review of demographics and its transit needs, a series of surveys and ridership counts
conducted for all SLO Transit services, a review of the effectiveness and efficiency of existing
services, a review of similar systems, analysis of a wide range of options, and the results of
public input processes. The resulting SRTP provides operational, capital and institutional plans,
including an implementation plan. This SRTP plan has been prepared jointly with the
development of a parallel SRTP for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA)
program, in order to identify means to best coordinate the two services.
The proposed update to the SRTP will not result in any new significant environmental impacts
consistent with the analysis contained in the environmental document prepared for the SRTP in
2003 (ER 101-03; Attached). All potentially significant effects of the SRTP update were analyzed
adequately as having a Negative Declaration.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
City limits of San Luis Obispo and CalPoly University
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Adoption of the SRTP
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.):
None
1.b
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
Noise
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
X
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 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 Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
1.b
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
4
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
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,
by or 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.
Signature Date
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner For: Michael Codron
Print Name Community Development Director
1.b
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
5
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 parentheses following each question. 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.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With 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 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has b een
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). 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 the 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
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
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.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
1.b
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
6
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
24, 31
--X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
5, 11,
31
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
17, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The applicant proposes consolidating, migrating, adding and removing bus routes to align with ridership demands along
existing and identified appropriate service corridors.
Conclusion: No Impact
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
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?
1, 19,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
31
--X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
18
--X--
Evaluation
No agricultural resources associated with this project.
Conclusion: No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
Evaluation
1.b
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
7
Public Transportation is generally viewed as an air quality impact mitigation tool, typically offsetting immersion from expanded
service with increased ridership. The SRTP continues to recommend the use of CARB approved Clean Diesel vehicles and the
pursuit of alternative (i.e. electric, hybrid, etc.) powertrains for its fixed-route bus fleet.
Conclusion: No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
Evaluation
No biological resources are associated with this project .
Conclusion: No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5, 23,
24,26,
31
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
24,
26, 31
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 26,
31
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 24,
31
--X--
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along
appropriate corridors within city limits.
1.b
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
8
Conclusion: No Impact
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
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? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4,10,
14,27,
29, 31
--X--
IV. Landslides? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with minor additional service expansion along
appropriate corridors within city limits.
Conclusion: No Impact
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,13,
20,21,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1,13,
20,21,
31
--X--
Evaluation
Public Transportation is generally viewed as an air quality impact mitigation tool. The SRTP continues to recommend use of
the CARB approved Clean Diesel vehicles and the pursuit of alternative (i.e. electric, hybrid, etc.) powertrains for its fixe d-
route bus fleet.
1.b
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
9
Conclusion: No Impact
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4, 31
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
4, 31
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
--X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
30, 31
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 17
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 17,
31
--X--
Evaluation
No use of or introduction of hazardous materials are associated with the project.
Conclusion: No Impact
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
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 or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
1.b
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 27,
31
--X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
5, 27,
31
--X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
4, 5,
27, 31
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 31 --X--
Evaluation
Implementation of the SRTP has no impact on hydrology or water quality.
Conclusion: No Impact
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
25, 31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
5, 12,
31
--X--
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes are consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan which
encourages the expansion of public transit services.
Conclusion: No Impact
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5, 31
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5, 31
--X--
Evaluation
No mineral resources associated with this project.
1.b
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
Conclusion: No Impact
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 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?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 3,
9, 10,
31
--X--
12, 31 --X--
Evaluation
There are no recommended changes in vehicle type which would increase noise. Current proposed alternative energy fleet
conforms with applicable noise ordinances.
Conclusion: No Impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 31 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 31 --X--
1, 31 --X--
Evaluation:
No housing related impacts associated with this project.
Conclusion: No Impact
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental 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? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
c) Schools? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
1.b
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
d) Parks? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
Evaluation
There are no impacts on public services. The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing services with
minor additional service expansion along appropriate corridors within city limits and CaPoly University.
Conclusion: No Impact
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 10,
31
--X--
Evaluation:
The SRTP recommended service changes predominately refine existing bus services, with only minor additional service
expansion, along appropriate corridors, within city limits and in order to address ridership demands. In theory, riders will be
able to access more recreational facilities (e.g. Damion Garcia) on a more frequent basis by using public transit. Although it
should be noted that parks are not typically recognized as ma jor trip generators for the Transit Industry.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2,12,
21,31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2,
4, 31
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
12, 31
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2, 21,
28, 31
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 31 --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2,31
--X--
1.b
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
Evaluation
The SRTP recommended service changes are consistent with the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan which
encourages the expansion of public transit services.
Conclusion: No Impact
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,16,
31
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
7,16,
27,
31,
32, 33
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
7,16,
27, 31
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
7,16,
31
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
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 commitments?
5,
7,16,
31,
32, 33
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
5, 8,
31
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
5, 8,
31
--X--
Evaluation
No utility or service systems associated with this project.
Conclusion: No Impact
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
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?
--X--
Implementation of the SRTP will have no impact on fish or wildlife.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
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 projects)?
--X--
Implementation of the SRTP would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
1.b
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the SRTP would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse
effects on human beings.
19. 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 they are available for review.
Consulted were the ER 101-03, City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for
review at the City Community Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following
web site: http://www.slocity.org/government/department -directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
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.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area
discussion, as appropriate.
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
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. 2013 California Building Code
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
17. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
18. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
19. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, on file in the Community Development
Department
20. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development
Department
21. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
22. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
23. Archeological Resource Inventory, Applied Earthworks, Inc. October 2015
Attachments:
1.b
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
1. 2016-2021 SL Transit Short Range Transit Plan
2. ER 101-03
1.b
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: b - Aug 24, 2016 Planning Commission - Initial Environmental Review (1323 : SLO Transit 2016-2021 Short Range Transit Plan)