Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/4/2018 Item 15, Gurnee Purrington, Teresa From:T Keith Gurnee <tkgurnee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, September 3, 2018 4:32 PM To:E-mail Council Website Cc:Johnson, Derek; Hudson, Jake; 'Barry Rands'; 'Bob Shanbrom'; 'Richard Schmidt'; 'Rick Racouillat'; 'Roger Longden'; ted-foster@sbcglobal.net; 'Tess Matthews'; 'cc mc lean'; sherimortola@gmail.com; allisondonatello@yahoo.com; 'David Haefmeister'; 'Gina Hafemeister'; 'Debbie Anthony'; 'Kate Murray'; dwaeir@aol.com; 'Connie Bruton'; 'carolyn smith'; 'Stewart D. Jenkins'; 'Terry Conner'; 'Nyri Achadjian' Subject:Anholm Bikeway Attachments:Scan0016.pdf; Scan0011.pdf; Scan0014.pdf; Scan0012.pdf Madame Mayor and Members of the City Council, Attached is a set of scanned correspondence representing the positions and proposals of Anholm Neighbors United (ANU), a group that ahs consistently tried to offer compromise solutions during the planning process for the Anholm Bikeway project. The sequence of the attached correspondence and design idea are presented in the following order: 1. A cover letter outlining our latest suggested recommendations for Council action on this project. 2. Our latest design ideas for diversions on Broad St., traffic calming improvements on both Broad and Chorro, and a cover letter sent to the Planning Commission outlining these ideas. 3. A paper dated August 14, 2018 describing our suggested traffic calming and diverter ideas and the reasons for them. 4. A report by CEQA Specialist Douglas Wood outlining his concerns with the staff’s CEQA Addendum on the staff recommendation. Should you have any questions about our proposals or our suggested actions, please don’t hesitate to email or call me at 707/696-2937. Thanks for your consideration, and good luck tomorrow night. 1 Anholm Neighbors Unified 108 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 September 3, 2018 Mayor Heidi Harmon City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: The Anholm Bikeway Dear Mayor Harmon and Members of the City Council, We hope what your Council does with the Anholin Bikeway can bring this community together, and we in the Anholm Neighbors United (ANU) have an alternative that could do just that. Our group of neighborhood residents has met many times since this project came to the fore, we hope your decision tonight will embrace this common sense solution for the common good. A recent Letter to the Editor in the Tribune called for "sharing our streets". The Anholm neighborhood already has "shared streets" and has had them for years. While this system of shared streets has worked well and safely for years, we know this Council wants to do something to make them even safer. Recognizing this, ANU has worked tirelessly with Barry Rands, the Safety Officer of the SLO Bike Club, to offer compromises to improve our streets while preserving the livability of our neighborhood. Our latest proposal as highlighted in our August 14, 2018 report to the Planning Commission (please see attachment) is a promising solution that deserves serious consideration. It is consistent with the Council's direction to return with a plan that involves diversion on Broad Street, but in a way that would avoid the significant increase in traffic levels on Meinecke or Chorro that the staff recommendation would produce. Yet it does not appear that our proposal has been adequately evaluated in the latest staff report_ Recommended Action: We are very close to an alternative that could work for all parties. We just need a little more time. Therefore, ANU respectfully requests that the Council consider taking the following action at its meeting of September 4, 2018: 1. Endorse the Option contained in the staff report that would allow the improvements on Broad St. north of Ramona and on Chorro south of Lincoln to proceed while delaying action on the middle section for 3 months. Mayor Heidi Harmon Page 2 2. Reject the staff recommendation_ for a full diverter on Broad St. between Ramona and Meinecke that would divert more traffic onto Chorro and Meinecke and that would make neighborhood access to our neighborhood grocery store more difficult. 3. Accept the August 21, 2018 action of the Planning Commission not to reclassify Chorro, Lincoln, Murray, and Meinecke to accept higher traffic volumes. 4. Direct staff to thoroughly evaluate the traffic impacts of the latest ANUalternative and staff recommendations for a shared street system with robust traffic calming in light of the traffic impacts of the 22 Chorro, 790 Foothill, and 71 Palomar projects within the next 2 months and present their findings at another city -hosted meeting with the neighborhood at the City/County Library far public feedback. 5. Have staff report back to the Council on its findings and the results of the neighborhood meeting within that 3 -month period for further action. 6. Reject the options that call for eliminating on -street parking in favor of exclusive pike lanes or double cycle tracks on Broad and Chorro as options that should be viewed as dangerous for children and other inexperienced cyclists, as well as negatively impactful to the Anholm neighborhood. In closing, we respectfully beseech you to do what is right by our neighborhood and our community. Our attempts to find a compromise have been sincere. Working with cyclist Barry Rands, we are nearing a solution that could work for all parties involved. Please give it a chance and, in doing so, give peace a chance to break out in our neighborhood. Sincerely, T. Keith Gurnee cc. Anholm Neighbors United GENP-1719-2018 Anholm Bikeway Plan Planning Commission Report August 14', 2018 Page 4 Figure B: Traffic Calming & Broad Street Diverter Plan low �I ROUGEOT RAW 1.kx A � f c� fix. -o[ om m �..IK NU45511'� 44 a��x aaya �a b a u Oa �y9s s .ANHOLM BIKEWAY PLAN 1 -UMMAIZV MAP . MIDDLE SEGMENT IMPROeVEMEN r PLANS (LINCOLN TO RAMONA) 0 Packet Page 18 al I r _C CD ON kk tA Rec a T. Keith Gurnee 108 Broad Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (707)696-2937 tkgurneeGgmail com August 14, 2018 HAND DELIVERED John Fowler, Chairman Planning Commission City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: The Anholm Bikeway Dear Chairman Fowler: As a resident of the historic Anholm neighborhood since 1972, my wife and I have been alarmed at what the city has been trying to do to our neighborhood with its Anholm Bikeway plans. For the better part of two years, the neighborhood has pulled together to develop some design ideas of its own as a counter proposal to what the city is trying to do to the place where we live. This letter and its attachments is a representation of the views of Anholm Neighbors United (ANU), an affiliation of a number of neighborhood residents who have gotten together multiple times during this process to brainstorm how to protect the livability and character of our neighborhood. As the representative of this group, I hope that we might be given up to 10 minutes at tonight's Planning Commission hearing to present our neighborhood -based design ideas for the streets that serve us. Attached to this letter are the following documents: • A narrative of our proposed ideas and recommendations, A set of graphics representing those ideas, and A report prepared by Douglas Wood and Associates on the flawed CEQA analysis associated with this project and outlining a series of recommendations to bring the project into compliance with CEQA. This is a project of profound importance, not only to our neighborhood but to our city as a whole. We look forward to presenting our thoughts and recommendations in the hopes that the Planning Commission will do the right thing by our neighborhood. Sincerely, it IV T. Keith Gurnee CC: Jake Hudson Anholm Neighbors United August 14, 2018 Introduction: Anholm !Neighbors United (ANU) is a work group comprised of 15 residents of the Anholm Tract, one of the city's most desirable historic neighborhoods. It was formed well over a year ago out of concern for what the city was proposing to do to our neighborhood with the Anholm Bikeway project. Since that project has been in the works for over two years, ANU has met 6 times to consider the various City proposals and to craft some ideas of its own as counter -proposals to the plans devised by the city. While those of us who live in the Anholm neighborhood feel that Broad and Chorro have been successful and safe as shared streets, it became clear to us that our city leadership is determined to do something to our neighborhood. We concluded that we needed to come up with a "least worst" option that the neighbors could live with as an alternative to the city's proposals. As a result, ANU has offered a range of design ideas generated from within the neighborhood. Those neighborhood ideas which have evolved over time have always been intended to: • Improve public safety for all modes of travel • Preserve as much on -street parking is possible in the neighborhood • Retain Broad and Chorro as shared streets that have worked well for years, and • Do no harm to our neighborhood. The neighborhood's earlier design ideas received a strong positive response from the large audience that attended a city -organized neighborhood meeting at the City/County Library earlier this year. Now that city staff is presenting yet another alternative that has yet to be vetted with the community, so do we have some new ideas we would like to present to you this evening. Our preferred Resolution_ It is the consensus of our group that the best solution is to leave things as they are. Why? ➢ The system of shared streets on Chorro and Broad has worked well for years. Bicycle ridership is noticeably up, and there have been no car -on -bike or bike -on -car accidents recorded reported by the Police Department in the last five years. ➢ The elimination of any on -street parking would create a severe hardship for residents living along Broad and Chorro. ➢ The city should take the money it would spend on the Anholm Bikeway and devote those funds to making public safety improvements for bike lanes on arterial streets like Foothill Boulevard which is where the accidents and fatalities are occurring. ➢ Based on the staff report, the "No Project" alternative is the most "environmentally preferred alternative" resulting in the least amount of traffic impacts on Chorro Street. In other words, "if it ain't broke don't fix it!" It's a solution looking for a problem and a waste of public funds. The Staff -Recommended Alternative: The city remains determined to do something to our neighborhood as evidenced by the latest staff recommended alternative being considered by the Planning Commission this evening. This alternative, which the public is seeing for the first time tonight, has yet to be vetted with the neighborhood and the greater community. This latest alternative is consistent with the Council's direction provided at its meeting of April 20, 2018 to provide "diversion" on Broad Street. While it has some features that our neighborhood could live with, there is only one feature that is a nonstarter for our neighborhood: the diverter that calls for the full closure of Broad Street between Ramona Street and Meineke that would allow through passage for bicycles only. This suggested diverter would destroy the connectivity and functionality of our neighborhood by closing off access from both Broad and Chorro to our neighborhood grocery store. Traffic to that store from Broad would be diverted onto Meineke to Chorro, then north onto the Foothill/Chorro interchange which will be heavily impacted by the 22 Chorro and the 790 Foothill projects. Should 790 Foothill be approved by the city, the Broad/Chorro/Foothill intersections will be a nightmare to navigate. The staff's recommended alternative will result in increased traffic volumes on Chorro to the point where the Circulation Element would have to be amended to reclassify Meineke, Chorro, and Lincoln as streets meeting irto carry higher levels of traffic than they are currently designed to carry under the LUCE. In other words, the city is proposing a project that is inconsistent with its General Plan. Hence, we have endeavored to come up with an alternative solution that we feel could meet the city's goals with minimum impacts to our neighborhood. The Neighborhood Alternative: The ideas generated by the neighborhood in collaboration with respected cyclist Barry Rands, a member of the SLO Bike Club, would keep Broad and Chorro as shared streets. Our ideas are intended to slow traffic speeds and hopefully traffic volumes on Broad, Chorro, Meineke, and Lincoln while maintaining ease of access to our neighborhood shopping center, retaining the maximum amount of on -street parking, and improving public safety. The latest ideas derived from our group also need to be thoroughly analyzed and vetted with the greater neighborhood and community. We would like to see an alternative that would include many of the features suggested by staff while modifying others. In addition to the traffic calming measures suggested by staff i.e. bulb -outs, speed bumps, and speed pillows, etc., these would be the features of the Neighborhood Alternative that would include two (2) diverters: ➢ The Ramona/Broad Diverter: We recommend a diverter design that would close only the southbound lane on Broad while leaving the northbound lane open to Foothill Boulevard. The design of this diverter would also reduce traffic volumes on Meinecke and Chorro and possibly obviate the need to amend the General Plan. We have shown two design options for this diverter: 1. The Northern Ramona Broad Diverter: This option would close the southbound lane on Broad Street from Ramona to the first driveway entrance to the shopping center. The street closure could be devoted to a mini parklet with seating areas and a bioswale. This would allow residents of the Anholm neighborhood to freely access the shopping center using Broad Street and returning to their residences using Ramona to Broad. The advantage of this option is that there would have to be no circuitous movements to gain access to and from the shopping center without having to use Foothill Boulevard. 2. A Southern RamonalBroad Diverter: This option would involve closing the southbound lane of Broad Street between Ramona and Meineke while leaving the northbound lane of Broad open. This diverter would also contain a bioswale while incorporating a southbound protected Class I bike Lane between Ramona and Meineke. While this option would allow free northbound access to both the shopping center and Foothill Boulevard, traffic from those locations back to the Anholm neighborhood would be more circuitous and require the use of side streets. ➢ The Mountain ViewlBroad Street Diverter: This would involve placing a small diverter to block northbound traffic from the 101 freeway on Broad at its intersection with Mountain View St. The design of this diverter would force northbound traffic on to Mountain View over to Chorro. It would also be designed to allow traffic on the southern stretch of Mountain View to take that connection to Chorro. ➢ Extension of the Murray Street median: This concept would extend the existing landscape medians on Murray into the Chorro Street intersection while providing gaps for emergency vehicles, other vehicles, and bikes. The travel lanes on Chorro would be narrowed to a width of 11 feet in each direction separated by a raised grouted rock island. The pedestrian paths on both medians would be connected to each other and remain ADA accessible. The southbound lane on Chorro would have a speed pillow that would not interfere with responding emergency vehicles but would slow other traffic. The northbound lane could either be configured the same way as the southbound lane or it could be equipped with speed bumps connecting the grouted rock feature to the median island. This configuration would allow for lower speed traffic and perhaps lower traffic volumes on Chorro. ➢ Other Public Safety Improvements: We feel that the neighborhood could use some enhancement of some public safety features such as bold painted crosswalks at side street intersections along both Broad and Chorro, enhanced street lighting, and ADA accessible ramps to sidewalks at crosswalk locations. Evaluating the Alternatives: The City Alternative and the Neighborhood Alternative both need to be fully vetted with the greater Anholm Neighborhood and the community at large. Before that, they also need to be thoroughly evaluated based on traffic impacts on the Anholm neighborhood and the traffic impacts associated with the full buildout and occupancy of the projects being considered and Foothill and Chorro. A detailed cost analysis should also be provided for both alternatives. Complying with CECtA. Local CEQA professional Douglas Wood of Douglas Wood and Associates has worked with ANU to ensure that the city is fully complying with the California Environmental Quality Act in its evaluation of this project. He has prepared a detailed report that has been attached to this document outlining his and our concerns with how the city has failed to comply with CEQA, including a set of recommendations for the city to fully comply with CEQA. In exhausting our legal and administrative remedies, Mr. Wood as outlined a series of deficiencies in the city's CEQA analysis, and the last page of his report contains a series of recommendations to bring the city into full compliance with CEQA. Mr. Wood will be presenting his findings contained in his report at this hearing. In Conclusion: AN respectfully requests that the Planning Commission take the following actions on the proposed Anholm Bikeway project and make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. That the Council direct staff to continue this item to allow for a full traffic and fiscal analysis of both the City Alternative and the Neighborhood Alternative and to conduct a thorough vetting of both alternatives with the greater Anholm Neighborhood and the community at large. 2. After obtaining further public feedback from that thorough vetting, recommend that the Council direct staff to complete a fully compliant CEQA analysis as recommended by Doug wood of the recommended alternative derived from that public process. ANHOLM BIKEWAY ALTERNATIVES CEQA ANALYSIS Prepared by Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc. 1461 Higuera Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 August 7, 2018 SECTION 2 RELEVENT CEQA GUIDELINES Issue 1 - General Concepts and Policies SECTION 15002 GENERAL CONCEPTS (g) Significant Effect on the Environment. A significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project. Further, when an FIR identifies a significant effect, the government agency approving the project must make findings on whether the adverse environmental effects have been substantially reduced or if not, why not SECTION 15003 POLICIES. (b) The FIR serves not only to protect the environment but also to demonstrate to the public that it is being protected. (c) The FIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impact of a proposed project. (d) The FIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. (g) The purpose of CEQA is not to generate paper, but to compel government at all levels to make decisions with environmental consequences in mind. (h) The lead agency must consider the whole of an action, not simply its constituent parts, when determining whether it will have a significant environmental effect. (i) CEA does not require technical perfection in an FIR but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure A court does not pass upon the correctness of an FIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document (j) CE -QA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. SECTION 15004 TIME OF PREPARATION (b) Choosing the precise time for CEQA compliance involves a balancing of competing factors. EIRs and negative declarations should be prel2alred as Carly as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental „considerations to influence ro'ect ro ram and desigLi and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment. SECTION 15021. DUTY TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND BALANCE COMPETING PUBLIC OBJECTIVES (a) CEQA establishes a du1y for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. (1) In regulating public or private activities, agencies are required to give major consideration to preventing environmental damage. (2) A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible 11 alternatives or mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen any significant effects that the project would have on the environment. (b) In deciding whether changes in a project are feasible, an agency may consider specific economic. _environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. (c) The duty to prevent or minimize environmental damage is implemented through the findings required in CEQA (d) CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a project should be approved, a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors. SECTION 15064. DETERMINING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAUSED BY A PROJECT (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. (1) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a draft EIR. (2) When a final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each Responsible Agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity ma vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected as expressed in the whole record before,_ the lead agency. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the sigLiificance of the environmental effect of a proJect, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonablyforeseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by„the project. (e) Economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical change shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment. Where a physical change is caused by economic or social effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change may be used to determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If the physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is significant. For example, if a project would cause overcrowding of a public facility and the 1.1 overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be regarded as a significant effect_ (f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead agency. (1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1984) 186 Cal.App.3d 988). Said another way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect. CEQA COMPLIANCE: The City of San Luis Obispo is required by the California Environmental Quality Act to follow the policies and guidelines noted above when considering any project or development proposal submitted to the City. These policies and guidelines include the following: 1. Proceed with production and certification of a thorough analysis of potentially significant adverse impacts which leads to an informed and balanced decision. Z. Production of a complete environmental analysis based upon a good faith effort at full disclosure. 3. Preparation of environmental documents as early as possible in the planning process in order to enable environmental considerations to influence the proposed project and its design. 4. Selection of a project design that avoids or minimizes environmental damage. 5. Consideration of specific economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors in their decisions. 6. Consideration of significant effects based upon the actual project setting rather than generalized conditions. 7. If there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, an EIR will be prepared. 8. If the City is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant impact on the environment, the City will prepare an EIR. 9. Consideration of the views held by members of the public particularly those members of the public directly impacted by the proposed project. C. Issue 2 - Consideration of Project Alternatives SECTION 15126.6. CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (a) Alternatives to the Proposed Project. An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibiyr attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a .project.. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. (b) Purpose. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a proJect may have on the environment the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project orits location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the. attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. Association of Environmental Professionals 2018 CEQA Guidelines 178 (c) Selection of a range of reasonable alternatives. The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall includethose that could feasibly accomplish - most of the basic objectives of the project and could, avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. CEQA COMPLIANCE: The City of San Luis Obispo, as Lead Agency, is obligated to consider a reasonable range of alternatives which are capable of avoiding or substantially reducing any significant impacts of a proposed project. Project alternatives should still be considered even though it may impede the attainment of other project objectives or would be more costly. Each of the three Anholm Bikeway alternatives appear to meet these criteria and should therefore be considered by the City in their selection of a future bikeway design. 7 Issue 3 -Use of Cate arical Exemptions Sections 15300 through 1533.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides a general list of various types of projects which may not to have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This list of exemptions includes 33 different classes or categories of exemptions, two of which were used by the City to justify their Categorical Exemption finding for the first phase of their bikeway alternative. The City staff indicated in their report to the City Council that the Anholm Bike Plan is categorically exempt from CEQA based on two classes or categories of exemption, those being Class 1, Existing Facilities and Class 4, Minor Alterations to Land as further discussed below. City staff is currently preparing construction documents for these Phase I facilities with construction tentatively scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2018. City Staff indicated that this portion of the project was categorically exempt from any CEQA evaluation. SECTION 15301. EXISTING FACILITIES Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. Examples include but are not limited to (c) existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails and similar facilities. 15344. MINOR ALTERATIONS TO LAND Class 4 consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. Examples include, but are not limited to (h) the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way. SECTION 15300.2. EXCEPTIONS (a) Location. Categorical Exemptions are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. 8 (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. Lc) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an actiyLty where there is a reasonable, -possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. SECTION 15382. SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT "Significant effect on the environment" means a substantial, or potentiallX substantial adverse chane in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. including, but not limited to, land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. CEQA COMPLIANCE: According to the State CEQA Guidelines, certain classes of projects may be exempt from CEQA analysis if they have no significant impacts upon the environment. The City of San Luis Obispo has already issued a categorical exemption for the first phase of the City's bikeway alternative. Their decision was based upon the Class 1 and Class 4 categorical exemptions noted above. In both categories, an exempt project is described as "bicycle and pedestrian trails" (Class 1 exemption) and "the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of-way." (Class 4 exemption). Each of the Anholm Bikeway Alternatives involve several elements in addition to the creation of bicycle lanes. Each of three bikeway alternatives contain some or all of the following elements: provision of traffic diverters, the permanent closure of roadways, the provision of pedestrian sidewalks, installation of a median island and speed pillows, installation of speed bumps in addition to the existing speed bumps on Broad Street, the loss of existing on -street parking and the provision of protected bike lanes through the use of barriers to separate bicyclists from automobile traffic. Given the nature and extent of these additional facilities, it is apparent that all of the proposed bikeway alternatives involve more than merely the provision of bicycle lanes within existing rights-of-way. As such, the use of Categorical Exemptions for any of the proposed bikeway alternatives in order to avoid further environmental analysis is contrary to the letter and intent of the State CEQA Guidelines. Any Categorical Exemption which avoids further environmental review can be rescinded if there is a "reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." As noted in Section 5 of this analysis, there are several potentially significant adverse impacts associated with some or all of the Anholm Bikeway Alternatives which, without further analysis, could invalidate the City's Categorical Exemption finding. These potentially significant impacts include, but may not 6 be limited to: transportation/traffic, air quality, noise, population and housing and public services (see Section 5, Environmental Checklist Form). 10 Ii •sauilapin0 db33 alelS aql ;o lualui pue aallal aql of Aaealuoa sl sisAleue leluauiuoalnua aaglanl plane o; aapao ul anlleuaal.le AeA'ka3liq pasodoad s,A4i3 aql 3o asegd lsay aoj uoilduuax3 lealao2ale3 a 3o asn aql `gans sV • laaload alilua up }o uoileaapisuo3 jo laslno aqI. le luauinaop alalduroa a aaedaad of luawaainbaa aql of 6aualuoa sr `(„ Suileaui-aaaid„ se uAioiq) laaload aallua up aanoa of suoildurax3 lealao2ale3 aleaedas pue aldillnm to asn aqy •sluauussasse leluauiuoainua alagl .ioj saaaid aalletus olui laaload alae[ a apinlp of A:)uaNV Peal a Molle lou Saop VZ)33 „•luauluoaTAua aql uo 13edmi Sli 2111lenlena ui uagAi palaplsuoa aq lsnui (..uollae aql jo alogm aql„ wi) „laalo id a to sasuqd Ilu„ lug[ alels sauilapinJ db33 alelS aqy •anoge palou sauilapinjj vb33 aql of Aaealuoa aq of paaapisuo3 si uollae sigy •aelleuaalle Auma3llq pasodoad s,All3 aql jo asegd [sag aql ioj uollduiax3 le3lao2alu3 a panssi pue pa.tedaad Apeaale seq odsig0 sin-[ UPS 3o AI13 aq,l, anoge palou sV :33I VFldW03 db33 -luautuo.tiAua aql uta uug3 jT)jsqd I35.11pui alquaosaloj Xlqumosuai u zo luauzuminua agl ui a ueg3 jMjSXqil ID311p u xaglia ui uillnsal .toj jullualod u st?q g3ignn uotl3u ue jo alogm agI sueaut „l3a oxd„ (e) sDdlo'dd 'sc€Si NOUXIS •uotlu.za o pue IuaW olanap uoilistn 3u uiuuel :luawuoitnua aql uo 13e mi sal VullenleAa uagm pajapisuo3 aq Isnot 135fold t' jo sosuqu iiv SlDvdwl IVINEMNONIAN3 JO NOISSII3SIQ (INV NOIMMISN03 '9ZISZ NOI,L33S -43a_o.t agl.lo XpnjS leiltul aql ui pa.tapisuo3 aq lsnuz uolleaa o pue uoiluluautal uzl uluuel l3a oa �o Lqil Iid (Z) 'luamuotlAua aql uo laajp luu3i3lu�lis u aneq Ai?w pa[otd aql jt auitutalap of ApnlS leiliul ue I3npuo3 lluqs kma2v pt?aq aql `Amina. A.tuuiuzilaid.2uinnollo-q (e) Acifl 's lvIllNi '£90SZ NOI XIS 'MatAal 3tlgnd alunbapu .toj pa z nba.z sdals Suissaawd snoi.xeA aqa of uonclaa ui luautaambaa sial aluls-a.1 sautlapinq aql `molaq palou sv ala `suois zanip 3iyeal `sa.znsola Aempeoa 'sa2ueg3 uoilelna.zta `sAennaNIq pasodoad agl3o lle sapnl3ui uoilie pasodoad agl3o Ala-tilua aql `asea sig[ ul ruoil3e pasodo.zd aqj jo Alaailua atll .tapisuo3 Isnot `odsig0 sin-[ urS jo fat3 aqI 2uiaq Iegl `Aoua2V pea -1 agl legl suoile301 lu.zaAas ut aluls AIll3ildxa sauilapin0 db33 alelS ag.L urjnaW-a ard„ ao §j-nAoj7WVpaluaut g- - f, anssl ZI uiMuleui of Jap io ui slop uzi lmuauiuo.IlAua jurnipullis asnea pinoa goiq,nn Io uomn-ilsuoa agl 'sat uj leluouivaan02 pwaile AlleoisAgd ao mou ioj paau `saiiiiae3 Iuluawu.iano,3 paaalle AiluaisAgd ao mau jo uoisiAoad aqj galm pajploossu speduii leJisXgd as.zanpe Iuijuujsgns ui llnsai iaa[oad aql pinom (e 'SHDIA-dHS DIWInd 'AIX i aanionalseajui aaglo Jo sppoa Io uolsualxa g noagl aI wuxa ion llaa.ilpui ao (sassauisnq puu sauioq mau fluisodo id Aq 'aldwexa aoj) AIjaaaip aagaia `paap we ui glmo.i2 uoilpindod Iugueasgns aanpui (u :Iaa[oid aqj pinoM -ONISfIOH (INB' NOI.LTII1dOd 'IIIX �paload aqj wogiim'Ruiasixa sianai anoqu fqiuialA IJOfO zd aqj ui slanal asiou juaiquie ui aseax)ui oipoiaad -to f ie toduial juquu4sgns tr (p Zpajold aql Inogllm ullslxa slanal aAoge iuiaiA jag(Old aql ul slanal asiou luaiquiu ui asuaaoui juamwad lupuelsgns r (3.10 Lslanal asiou ouiogpunoA so uoiaeaglA au iogpuno.i2 anissaoxa Jo 11011u.zaua2.io of suosaad jo a.insodxa (q ao isaiaua2u aagjo Io spaepuuls algvDildde ao `aaupuipao asiou -to ueld Iex)ua2 leaol aqj ui pagsggelsa spaepupls Jo ssaaxa ui slanal asiou jo uoili?aaua.2 ao of suos.iad jo ainsodxa (e :ui llnsw haloid aqj pinoM -- 9SION 'IIX 241jurib alu papafwd io gul4slxa ue ol IIP!juujsgns aing1a4116a to p.1upue4s r4llun aiv Xup alujolA Cq 155,o.i aql pinoM •suopuuiw iaaap Ouimollol aqa a4uui oa uodn pailo-i aq Amu pilisip to-iluoa uoilnllod lie so auauia2uuum S4ilunb im alquailddu aqj Aq pagsilqulsa upaliaa aaueayiais aql `algelieAe aaagM 'A.LI`lVfl?) 2IIV 'III -molaq pajou se Djjju iy/uoijujaodsuuas pup saaiAjz)S ailgnd quisnoH pue uoiluindod `asioN `fqilpn?) aid `ol paliwii aq lou Aeui Inq `apnlaui saojauj asags 'saAljuuaajIV Auma)llg wloquy posodoid aqj 3o uoilpaaplsuoa aqj oa aaupAalaa auln:)wrd jo alp jugj sea ie lo>?dim Ieilualod aAU aau alagl `ui.iog asil1331qg leIuauiuo.nnug aql ui pauieauoo S101373J luauauiuosiAua uaaIgiia aqj 2uouiy •,,jjudLuI jueagiaiS Alluilualod„ jo 2uipuq e ui lInsal pinoa `SOMI uaallFT Aemwlig wloquV pasodo.id aqj of pailddu uagm 'saoTapj asagj Jo 1p.iaAaS 'uiao,q IslPiaaq:) IpluauiuoaiAug ag1 uioJJ lap saoloeJ IpJuauzuoainua 2uimollo3 OLID 'ueid ail lig uiloguy aqa 3o uots.iaA s, fig atll Jo T asi?ild Io IpA01 p aiaill of aoia lg aqj Xq pajal uioo spm w io j jsil?laagD lujuauiuo.iinug ou pup pale a.i sem ApnjS leillul oN -uoijujuauinoop jujuamuoiiAua pa.iin as Jo juajxa puu 9a111eu agJ auiullalap of aapao ui slaajja luluauiuoxlnua sjoafolil e of luunalaa ale Iugj aslINZ)ago stg1 uioaj suollsanlu aq4 ssa.ippp AIJUDICtAl saloua y peal •aaueai3iu is Jo spiogsasgj paI>'laosse siagl puu sloe uii IF!jUalod Io juauissassu pallujap alluinoolla of popualui we uxaoj sigl ui suoilsan aqZ •lain uaaq aAug sauilapin0 ybg:) ui gl.ioj las ui.zallao aqj uagm Spnis leplui ue ioj sluauia.imba.i agl laaw -iaa[oid pasodold p glim palmoosse sppdwi lueo1puffis Alluilualod A3iluapi of pasn si souilapin0 ybgg alujS aqj Io 0 xipuaddV ui pauiuluoo uiaog Jslploaq:) 1pIuauiuoaiAug agZ LUJo j Jsq.yaaqj InluaruuoJrnu,7 alij- 5 anssj acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a] conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulations stem taking into account all modes of transportation includin mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections streets highways and freewa s pedestrian and bicycle paths... and- mass transit or b] conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards. CEQA COMPLIANCE: As discussed in Section 3, Use of Categorical Exemptions of this analysis, a Categorical Exemption finding should be invalidated if there is a potentially significant adverse impact associated with any or all of the Anholm Bikeway Alternatives. According to Section :.5300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, any Categorical Exemption which avoids further environmental review can be rescinded if there is a "reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." The "unusual circumstances" of the Anholm Bikeway Alternatives related to the five environmental factors noted above include, but may not be limited to: Transportation/Traffic: the redirection of existing traffic patterns will result in vehicle traffic being added onto several roadways in the area, two of which already experience traffic levels which exceed their General Plan capacities. Air Quality: the generation of additional vehicle miles traveled due to the rerouting of established traffic patterns could contribute to increased levels of pollutants and possible air quality violations. Noise: the rerouting of established traffic patterns may result in the permanent increase in ambient noise levels on several roadways above those without the project, thereby affecting existing residential uses. Population and Housing: elimination of on -street parking could directly impact the ability of existing residents on Broad and Chorro Streets to have direct access to their homes. Public Services: the provision of traffic diverters, median islands and speed bumps as well as the permanent closure of roadways could directly impact fire and emergency vehicle access to the project area. This concerns gains significance when considering the location of the Villages retirement community on Broad Street 13 - - -- .. � •-mob•--�••-•��•-•-• Y:.rv-.nwr�,f � u� �a..c.a..r■ u.�br-a�c v� Yc�vYr�c—rrrrva airazivar �acc SECTION 3 RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon the above analysis, the following recommendations are provided in order to ensure the City's full and complete compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines. 1. The City of San Luis Obispo should proceed with the preparation and certification of a complete environmental analysis for all phases of the Anholm Bikeway Project. Preparation of this environmental analysis should proceed immediately in order to enable environmental considerations to influence the proposed project in its design. 2. This environmental analysis should be based upon a project design that avoids or minimizes environmental damage and considers specific economic, legal and social factors in their decision. The views held by members of the public, particularly those members of the public directly impacted by the proposed Anholm Bikeway Project, should be considered. 3. The City's selection of a project design should reflect the consideration of the range of alternatives that have been prepared. The future design of this project should avoid or substantially reduce any significant impacts associated with the proposed project. 4. The City should rescind the Categorical Exemption applied to Phase 1 of the City's version of the Anholm Bikeway Project and include this phase within the environmental analysis as recommended above. 5. The City Council should direct City Staff to prepare an Initial Study, complete an Environmental Checklist Form and prepare a Program EIR (rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration) which covers all project phases and addresses all potentially significant impacts of the Anholm Bikeway Project. This Program EIR shall then be circulated for public review and comment prior to any final decision made by the City Council on the in-home bikeway project 15