Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-10828 - Adopting the Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishops Peak and Pacheco Elementary, amending the 2013 Bicycle Transportation PlanRESOLUTION NO. 10828 (2017 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN FOR BISHOP'S PEAK AND PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, AMENDING THE 2013 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO INCLUDE THE CLASS I PATH BETWEEN RAMONA DR AND FOOTHILL BLVD, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 2013 BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Land Use and Circulation Elements to the General Plan support Safe Routes to School efforts; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a Vision Zero policy to eliminate all fatal traffic deaths and severe injuries by 2030; and WHEREAS, the Circulation Element to the General Plan has modal split objectives of 20 percent for bicycles and 18 percent for walking, carpools, and other forms of transportation; and WHEREAS, the City coordinated with neighbors, parents and officials of Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools on outreach and public input through community meetings and other methods; and WHEREAS, the Class I Path between Ramona Dr and Foothill Blvd is a proposed bicycle and pedestrian facility that is not identified in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2017 the Bicycle Advisory Committee reviewed the Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools at a public hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the Plan and amend the Bicycle Transportation Plan to include the Ramona Dr and Foothill Blvd Class I Path. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds that, after consideration of the Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools as recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee, staff recommendations, public testimony, and reports thereof: a) The proposed Safe Routes to School Plan will promote bicycling and walking to Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools in an effort to make these activities safer, more accessible, and attractive for children and their families. b) The proposed Safe Routes to School Plan will further General Plan goals to increase bicycle and walking. c) The proposed Ramona Dr. to Foothill Blvd Class I Path will provide a new bicycling and walking facility for school access and connect the neighborhoods. R 10828 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) Page 2 SECTION 2. Approvals. a) The Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools as set forth in Exhibit A is hereby approved. b) The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan is hereby amended to include the Ramona Drive to Foothill Blvd Class I Path as depicted in Exhibit B. SECTION 3. CEQA Determination. The City Council finds that the amendments to the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan do not trigger any of the circumstances set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and hereby adopt the Addendum to Initial Study/Negative Declaration ER 71-13 as set forth in Exhibit C. Upon motion of Vice Mayor Rivoire, seconded by Council Member Christianson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Council Members Christianson, Gomez, and Pease, Vice Mayor Rivoire and Mayor Harmon NOES: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of August, 2017. Mayo146di armon ATTEST: Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Page 3 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 J&Z ,[ , 2017. Carrie Gallagher City Clerk 1. . Safe Routes to School Improvements for �. 7� Bishop's Peak & Pacheco Elementary Schools Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT A Page 4 Access/Safety Issue Identified by Community: High traffic volumes/speeds create an uncomfortable walking and bicycling environment along Ramona Dr. and Foothill Blvd. Limited bicycle accommodations at the Foothill Blvd./Broad St. intersection, and lack of other controlled crossings along Foothill Blvd. further impact connectivity between the neighborhoods north and south of Foothill Blvd. Recommended Project Description: Pursue construction of a Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along the eastern edge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints property to provide a low -stress north -south connection between Ramona Dr. and Foothill Blvd. This connection would provide a link between the planned Broad St. Bicycle Boulevard and the proposed enhanced crossing at Foothill Blvd./Ferrini Rd. (see Transportation Improvement Project #1). Notes: Project requires agreement between City and LDS Church for access easement or right-of-way acquisition. See conceptual designs on following page. Implementation Strategy: Can be implemented as City Capital Improvement Project, pending agreement with LDS Church representatives. Appendix A: Project Fact Sheets A-5 R 10828 Ramona Dr. to Foothill Blvd. Class I Path Addresses Needs Assessment Issue #: #1,15, 23 PACHECO y FLEMEN7ARY T SCHOOL Estimated Cost: "`" z $143,000-$514,000 01 0 �o ICS Priority: #2 (High Priority) FOOTHILL BLVD a LDS CHURCH FOOTHILL .y PLAZA RAMONA DR y y Access/Safety Issue Identified by Community: High traffic volumes/speeds create an uncomfortable walking and bicycling environment along Ramona Dr. and Foothill Blvd. Limited bicycle accommodations at the Foothill Blvd./Broad St. intersection, and lack of other controlled crossings along Foothill Blvd. further impact connectivity between the neighborhoods north and south of Foothill Blvd. Recommended Project Description: Pursue construction of a Class I bicycle/pedestrian path along the eastern edge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints property to provide a low -stress north -south connection between Ramona Dr. and Foothill Blvd. This connection would provide a link between the planned Broad St. Bicycle Boulevard and the proposed enhanced crossing at Foothill Blvd./Ferrini Rd. (see Transportation Improvement Project #1). Notes: Project requires agreement between City and LDS Church for access easement or right-of-way acquisition. See conceptual designs on following page. Implementation Strategy: Can be implemented as City Capital Improvement Project, pending agreement with LDS Church representatives. Appendix A: Project Fact Sheets A-5 R 10828 1 yn C A zni yy0 vy nc < y B� I DRIVE Az z i z �n=m D r p r r 0 m � � C1 ng Om{ D O A m j` A cn m m O — m � m — m • O m 0 p z p n 7) Ln cnmm M p oC-)c 2vAi� . m, I m C O m D �m D rD Or Z � D z U) n o m c A D M OZ O m = m W D n L n n 0 p = O cA m _ Z C - p 7 m r < m m_ 0nW DDS. O 0 O v 7 Z � D D m < o < •9 -op. BROAD STREET ZVI- gmilh P�-A �i #&a i..f T O 0 2 r r co G 0 rA X� x o W� o' mz 0 0 N O p C p ' z , cr.inr SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS FOR 0 = 4D BISHOP'S PEAK & PACHECO ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS RAMONA TO FOOTHILL CLASS I BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PATH Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Page 6 ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY ER 71-13 1. Project Title: Safe Routes to School Plan for Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools; 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update (GPI/ER 71-13) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager afukushima@slocity.org (805) 781-7590 4, Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Contact: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager afukushima@slocitv.org (805) 781-7590 6, General Plan Designation: The Safe Routes to School Plan encompasses multiple land use designations. Transportation Improvement Project #3 (Ramona Dr. to Foothill Blvd. Class I Path), which is the focus of this Addendum, is located within the High -Density Residential designation. 7. Zoning: The Safe Routes to School Plan encompasses multiple zones and areas of public right-of-way. The Transportation Improvement Project #3 (Ramona Dr. to Foothill Blvd. Class I Path), which is the focus of this Addendum is located within the R-4 (High -Density Residential) zone. Description of the Project: The Safe Routes to School Plan includes a list of several transportation improvement projects previously identified in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and analyzed in the adopted Initial Study / Negative Declaration for the approved Bicycle Transportation Plan. These infrastructure improvements are proposed to improve the safety and functionality of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the Safe Routes to School study area (a focused area within the scope of the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan). The Safe Routes to School Plan would support and implement Bicycle Transportation Plan Policy 3.3, which Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Addendum to Initial Study ER 71-13 Page 2 Page 7 states that: "The City shall continue to work with the San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District to create and support "Safe Routes to School Plans" and programs for schools in San Luis Obispo". The Safe Routes to School Plan includes a modification to one of the projects included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan (Foothill/Ferrini Crossing project). This modification is identified as Transportation Improvement Project #3 Ramona Dr. to Foothill Blvd. Class I Path in the proposed Safe Routes to School Plan. This Addendum is proposed to address this minor modification to the Foothill/Ferrini Crossing project. The proposed modifications include: • An approximate 20' by 440' Class I path on the eastern edge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints property between Ramona Dr and Foothill Blvd. The Safe Routes to School Plan also includes the following projects not included in Bicycle Transportation Plan, all of which are located within the public right-of- way: • Foothill Blvd Bicycle Improvements between Patricia and Santa Rosa. Possible improvements include buffered bike lanes, protected bikeways, and intersection/conflict zone enhancements • Ferrini Rd and Felton Way Curb Ramps • Crossing Enhancements at Ramona Dr & Palomar Ave, Cerro Romauldo Ave & Ferrini Rd, Cerro Romauldo Ave & Tassajara Dr, Highland Dr & Cuesta, Ramona & La Entrada Dr to include traffic calming improvements such as sidewalk bulbouts, raised intersections, traffic circles, and striping. • Highland Dr and Highway 1 Bicycle Improvements such as striping improvements and channelization enhancements ■ Sidewalk and curb ramp improvements at: Craig Way, Highland Dr, Jeffrey Way, La Entrada Ave, Del Norte Way, Ramona Dr, Patricia Dr, Fel Mar Dr, • Pedestrian Signal Enhancements at Foothill/Patricia and Foothill/Broad/Chorro. Copies of the Draft Safe Routes to School Plan can be found on the City of San Luis Obispo's website: http://www.slocity.or2/Home/Comr)onents/News/News/5084/17?backlist=%2fho me Copies of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan can be found on the City of San Luis Obispo's website: Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Page 8 Addendum to Initial Study ER 71-13 Page 3 http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=3785 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The Safe Routes to School Plan study area consists of a '/z mile bikeshed and walkshed around the Bishop's Peak and Pacheco Elementary Schools encompassing mostly residential but some commercial, and public (educational) land uses. The Ramona Dr to Foothill Class I Path is on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints property (651 Foothill Boulevard) in a high density residential land use zone and adjacent to the Foothill Plaza Shopping Center (commercial). The proposed facility is across Ramona Street from the Villages Assisted Living Center, the Valencia Apartments and single family residential units. The project is located in an urbanized area, and supports grasses and ornamental landscaping. The additional improvement projects noted above are located within developed public right-of-way. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The City Public Works Department is requesting approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan, which includes transportation projects previously identified in the adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan, a modification to the Foothill/Ferrini Crossing project to include a Class I path from Ramona Drive to Foothill Boulevard, and additional improvements within the public right-of-way as noted above. The Foothill/Ferrini Crossing project was included as part of the previously adopted Negative Declaration for the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan; therefore this Addendum is proposed to address this minor modification, in addition to noted public right-of-way improvements, which are similar to the improvements described and analyzed in the adopted Negative Declaration. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None 12. Previous Environmental Review: On November 5, 2013, the City Council adopted a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. A copy of the adopted initial study is attached. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously adopted Negative Declaration if only "minor technical changes or additions" have occurred in the project description since the initial study was originally prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Environmental impacts associated with the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan were evaluated in the Negative Declaration GPI/ER 71-13. The request to revise the Foothill/Ferrini Crossing project will enable the crossing to be accessed from Ramona Street. Approval of the Safe Routes to School Plan, including the proposed modification to a project previously identified in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, would not Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Addendum to Initial Study ER 71-13 Page 4 Page 9 result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the adopted Negative Declaration, and would not increase the severity of any impact identified in the adopted Negative Declaration. The proposed improvements within the public right-of-way would not result in any new impacts not previously disclosed in the adopted Negative Declaration, and would not increase the severity of any impact identified in the adopted Negative Declaration DETERMINATION: In accordance with Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that this addendum to the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Negative Declaration is necessary to document changes or additions that have occurred in the project description since the Negative Declaration was adopted. The preparation of a subsequent environmental document is not necessary because: 1. None of the following circumstances included in Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines have occurred which require a subsequent environmental document: a. The project changes do not result in new or more severe environmental impacts. b. The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major changes to the adopted Negative Declaration. c. The modified project does not require any new mitigation measures. 2. The proposed Safe Routes to School Plan includes a series of projects that are identified in the approved 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan, and this Addendum addresses a modification to one project identified in the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan and additional improvements within the public right-of-way. The Safe Routes to School Plan and proposed modifications to a previously approved component of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan is minor and consistent with the scope of the approved 2013 Plan. 3. The changes are consistent with City goals and polices that promote an integrated system of bikeways that enables safe and convenient bicycling, with an emphasis on travel to schools. Attached: Initial Study / Negative Declaration GPI/ER 71-13 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C city of san Luis oBispo INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 71-13 1. Project Title: 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brian Leveille bleveille@slocity.org (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: Citywide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department Contact: Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner pmandeville a.slocity.org (805) 781-7590 Page 10 6_ Description of the Project: The project is a comprehensive update to the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). The Bicycle Transportation Plan was originally adopted in April, 1985. Since adoption, the plan has been updated in 1993, 2002, and 2007. As with previous updates, the recommended modifications to the 2007 plan are intended to comply with State standards in order to be eligible for State Transportation Account (BTA) grants which are a key source of funding for City bicycle facilities. The City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan is used for the planning, development, and maintenance of bicycle facilities and activities in San Luis Obispo and in adjoining County jurisdiction that is within the City of San Luis Obispo's Urban Reserve (anticipated outward limit of City growth). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 51 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Page 11 Copies of the public hearing draft of the 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update can be found on the City of San Luis Obispo's website: litip:llwww.sf❑city.org1.'p.i licworks!docl3mcnIs.asp4bicycle The main elements of the recommended update include: New Projects — Eleven new projects are included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan update. The projects are listed below with corresponding page number in the Public Hearing draft 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan. Project Name: Page: Jennifer St. bridge, access to Morro St. Bicycle Boulevard A17 Boysen Ave. Connection A27 Santa Rosa at Boysen, Grade Separated Crossing A28 North Chorro Intersection Enhancement A32 Cuesta Park/Loomis St. S. Bound Hwy. 101 Exit A35 Southwood Sharrows A69 Spanish Oaks Underpass Ramp A71 Class II Connection to Prado (Part of Bob Jones Trail) A87 LOVR grade separated crossing east of LOVR interchange A90 Industrial to Bougainvillea A106 Industrial/Tank Farm Class I Bypass A107 Madonna to Laguna Lake Traverse, Class I Path A126 Plan Format — Plan topics are now organized in chapters rather than appendices. Objectives and Policies are found within chapters and definitions are included on page sidebars. Plan requirements relative to California Streets and Highways Code are included in a separate contents page. Implementation Actions — Implementation actions have been added to identify steps needed to implement Plan policies. Implementation actions are located in policy sections for each chapter where a relationship exists with the stated policy. Project Ranking and Presentation — The Plan update uses the same criteria used for the 2007 plan. In the "Bicycle Transportation Network" chapter there is a discussion of the top two ranked projects by facility type. Graphics are included to depict the location of each project in the City. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 52 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Page 12 2007 BTP Accomplishments and 2013 BTP Modifications — A listing of accomplishments is provided which summarizes implementations of bicycle related projects from the 2007 Bicycle Transportation Plan. A synopsis of additions and modifications from the previous plan provides information to compare the recommended 2013 BTP update with the 2007 BTP. The projects and policies contained in the BTP are intended to support the planned expansion of the City's bicycle facility network. Table 1, below, summarizes existing and proposed BTP network mileage. Table 1.1 - Existing and Proposed Bicycle Transportation Network Mileage (as of December 2012) Bicycle Transportation Plan Statistics Facility Existing Mileage Proposed Mileage Total Mileage Class I Bike Paths 7.2 (22%) 26.1 33.3 Class II Bike Lanes 29.7 (62%) 17.9 ! Class III Bike: Routes Sharrows Boulevards Subtotal 20.6(100%) 2.9 (58%) 0.5 81% 24.0 (75%) 0 2.1 5.9 8.0 -47.6] 20.6 5.0 6.4 32.0 Total 60.9 (54%) 52.0 112.9 10. Project Entitlements Requested: The recommended Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) Update requires Planning Commission review and City Council Approval. The Planning Commission will review the BTP as recommended by the Bicycle Advisory Committee and recommend action to the City Council. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan will be submitted to the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) to determine its consistency with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); and to the California Department of Transportation, Bicycle Unit, to determine its consistency with State Code requirements and to certify the plan. `■ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 53 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Page 13 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. FISH AND GAME FEES Aesthetics X Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture 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 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more X 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 15073(a)). V CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2-54 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 no effect determination from Fish and Game. 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 X 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 15073(a)). V CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2-54 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Page 14 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, 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 the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, nothing further is required. Signature Doug Davidson, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development �i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Date For: Derek Johnson Community Development Director INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 55 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Page 15 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. 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 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2-56 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) >~YutRIT C Page 16 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 Significant Significant Significant Impact 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? Issues Unless Impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update 14 Mitigation X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would the ro'ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X 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? 14 X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 3 X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Evaluation a), b), c) The Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) update would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas. Planned locations of bicycle paths are generally located at grade and could not impact scenic vistas. In locations where there are grade separated crossings any planned bridge structures would be subject to review for conformance with Community Design Guidelines and would be subject to Architectural Review. The Community Design Guidelines of San Luis Obispo contain requirements that proposed improvements such as bridge structures must be designed to minimize visual impacts and be compatible with the character of the site and surroundings. Less than Significant Impact. d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any proposed bicycle facilities are also subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. All bicycle facilities included in the plan will be required to conform to standards of the City's Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. Class I bike path lighting is required to comply with City standards. Additionally, lighting placement is required to comply with the policies in the Bicycle Transportation Plan which call for lighting along creeks to be designed to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. The project does not have the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: 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 12 X the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 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? Evaluation a) b) c) No new paths are proposed to be located on properties used for agricultural purposes or which contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance. The BTP update would not conflict with any existing zoning for agricultural uses and would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts. The BTP update involves no other changes to the existing environoment which could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Conclusion: No Impact 3. AIR UALITY. Would theproject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 2 X quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 57 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Pae 17 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER# 71-13, 2013 through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a Significant Significant Significant Impact candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional Issues Unless impact BicBicycle Transportation Plan Update y p P plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Mitigation Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Incorporated c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an X applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The 2013 BTP update will have the effect of increasing bicycle ridership which will have a potential benefit of producing a positive impact on air quality. There is no potential the implementation of the proposed update to the 2013 BTP update would have a potentially significant effect on air quality, pollutant concentrations, or objectionable odors. No Impact. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or 1, 10 through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a X 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? 3 b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, X policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but X not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native X resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? 1, 10 X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved X local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) In cases where proposed Class 1 bicycle facilities are located in areas which contain riparian habitat, or are located within creek setbacks, Creek setback regulations of the City's Zoning Regulations would apply. In addition to standard City policies and regulations, the previous 2007 BTP and update 2013 BTP include policies and standard mitigation for locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impact to less than significant levels. Existing City policies and standards would apply to any proposed facilities which could have a potential impact which would reduce potential biological resource impacts to less than significant levels. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. v CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 58 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) F.XHIRIT C Page 18 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update y p p archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) Mitigation Incorporated X 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the roject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 16 X historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X T d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Evaluation a), b), c), d). Installing Class II bike lanes and bicycle boulevards along City streets will have no effect on subsurface resources. Installing Class 1 bike paths may affect currently unidentified cultural resources if resources are found during the minimal grading and excavation needed to provide a stable base for the bike path. As part of the required environmental clearance for the construction of Class I facilities, provisions of the City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines will direct project -specific evaluations and the provision of mitigation measures, including avoidance where necessary. If potential cultural resources are found during construction, the City's Guidelines require that construction cease until a qualified archaeologist determines the extent of the resource, and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: 4 X I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map X issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 X 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-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life X or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers X are not available for the disposal of waste water? Evaluation a), b), c). The City of San Luis Obispo is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code. Less than significant impact. d), e). Moderately expansive soils are common in the project vicinity. All new construction will be required to meet or exceed building code standards for these soils. Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 59 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) F.XH1RiT C Page 19 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 Significant Significant Significant Impact materials? Issues unless impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Bic y p p Mitigation b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Incorporated X Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, X that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for X the Dumose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. a) b) The State of California passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warning Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzencggcr Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. Updates to the Bicycle Transportation Plan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gases since they support alternatives to use of motor vehicles by enhancing facilities which can be used for bicycles. Updates to the Bicycle Transportation Plan are consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. R_ 14AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the Droiect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment 4 through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 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? 8 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section X 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 X hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working X in the project area? 4 X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of -loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Evaluation a), b), c), d) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update has no potential to expose the public to hazardous materials. The project would not involve the use, transportation, disposal, or emission of hazardous materials. No Impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 60 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) F)CHIRIT C Pal?e 20 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially I Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 Significant Significant Significant Impact requirements? Issues unless Impact BicBicycle Transportation Plan Update y p p Mitigation 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 Incorporated e), f) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update has no potential to result in an airport related safety hazard for people using the bicycle facilities in the plan which may be within the airport land use area. No impact. g), h) The Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not impede access for emergency response. In the case of Class 1 bike paths, the dimensions are sufficiently wide to accommodate most emergency vehicles, and their construction would pave a positive impact on emergency access. No Impact. Conclusion. No Impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the roiect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? 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)? 3 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, X 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, X or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 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? X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 10 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map X or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) 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? X i Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), 0, g), h), i). Proposed new Class I bike paths would be paved with asphalt, which will incrementally increase impervious surface. However, unlike roadways traveled by motor vehicles, the quality of runoff water should not be significantly contaminated with oils or greases that could impact ground water or adjoining habitat areas. The design and location of all Class I bike paths adjoining creeks have been integrated with adopted flood management strategies for those creek areas, as established by independent Council action or by adoption of specific plans for various sub -areas of San Luis Obispo. Additionally, any construction requiring drainage analysis shall be consistent with the City's Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. `■ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 61 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Paue 21 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Significant Significant Significant Impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural Issues Unless Mitigation Impact Evaluation a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed Incorporated or community conservation plans which would be affected by the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose X of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X b) Physically divide an established community? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X communit y conservation Tans? Evaluation a), b), c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan Policies and regulations and there are no proposed deviations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or community conservation plans which would be affected by the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 11. NOISE. Would the ro'ect result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of "unacceptable" noise 7 levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise X Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? X c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Evaluation. a), b), c), d). Implementation of projects related to the Bicycle Transportation Plan update would not expose people to unacceptable noise levels and would not generate noise levels in excess of the City's noise ordinance. Construction activities generate noise, and may temporarily raise the ambient noise levels above acceptable levels for the duration of construction, including groundborne vibration and noise. Construction noise is regulated by the City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates time of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. The project would be required to meet the noise standards contained in the Ordinance, which includes limitations on the days and hours of construction. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 62 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Page 22 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or Significant Significant Significant Impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Issues Unless Impact infrastructure)? Mitigation Incorporated 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Evaluation a), b). The proposed changes to the bikeway network will facilitate non -vehicular access to and from existing developed areas within the City's urban reserve, and to new commercial and residential districts envisioned by the General Plan and supporting Specific Plans. The update to the Bicycle Transportation plan will not induce population growth or displace existing housing. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 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 transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), I) New bicycle facilities will incrementally increase the demand for maintenance services as well as patrol by City Rangers, however these costs are considered as part of the City's budget process prior to the facility's construction. Less than significant impact. Conclusion, Less than significant impact. 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse X physical effect on the environment? Evaluation a) Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan will have a positive effect on recreational opportunities within San Luis Obispo. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 63 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Pae 23 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation Significant Significant Significant Impact BicBicycle Transportation Plan Update Y P p system, taking into account all modes of transportation including Issues unless Mitigation Impact X mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components Incorporated 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing X measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including X mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components X of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of 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 X congestion management agency for designated roads or X highways? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in X substantial safety risks? provider's existing commitments? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm X X equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a X change in air trafficpatterns? Implementation of facilities included in The Bicycle Transportation Plan are required to comply with City design standards and would not introduce dangerous design features or incompatible uses. Bikeways included in the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update are anticipated to have an overall positive impact on transportation and circulation by providing an alternative means of transportation to private vehicles. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: 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 treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm X drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of X which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded X entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 PH2 - 64 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Pale 24 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 Significant Significant Significant Impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update Issues Unless Impact species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- Mitigation sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal Incorporated X related to solid waste? Evaluation: a), b), c), d), e), f), g). Implementation of the Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not impact City utilities for water and wastewater and will not generate solid waste or create additional demand on landfill facilities. No Impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 17. 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 X 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? The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have any effects on habitat for fish and wildlife species and will not impact historic resources. Less than significant impact. 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 X viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) The Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will not have cumulatively considerable impacts and will not result in potential effects from probable future projects. Less than significant impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X indirectly? The 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan update will not have environmental effects which could case substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No Impact. 18. 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. Identif earlier anal ses and state where they 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. Cit of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, April 2006 2, SLO CounLy Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009 3. City of San Luis Obispo Zonin Regulations, August 2012 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 PH2 - 65 Resolution No. 10828 (2017 Series) EXHIBIT C Paye 25 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER # 71-13, 2013 City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 Significant Significant Significant Impact Bicycle Transportation Plan Update City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database Issues Unless Impact Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 Mitigation l5. t16.14. Ai ort Land Use Plan, May 2005 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010 Incorporated 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005 5. Ci of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, revised April 2006 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010 7. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 & Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website: hq://www.catepa.ca.gov/SiteC]eanup/CorteseList/ 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 11. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo Count 12. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 13. San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 Cit of San Luis Obispo CommunityDesign Guidelines, June 2010 l5. t16.14. Ai ort Land Use Plan, May 2005 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 2010 V CITY OF SAN (_UIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2013 W •