Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-30-2020 ATC Agenda Packet - Special MeetingCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Monday, November 30, 2020 Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Active Transportation Committee are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in Council meetings in the following ways: 1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view: ➢ View the Webinar: ➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6801784949299949323 ➢ Webinar ID: 771-290-427 2. Public Comment - The Active Transportation Committee will still be accepting public comment. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways: • Mail or Email Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to emailcouncil@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited to one page emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org, which will then be read aloud during the public comment period on the item specified. • Verbal Public Comment o Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Committee Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. o During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is opened for the item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City Clerk’s office at cityclerk@slocity.org to more information. All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting. Active Transportation Committee Agenda November 30, 2020 Page 2 6:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Teleconference MISSION: The purpose of the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) is to provide oversight and policy direction on matters related to bicycle and pedestrian transportation in San Luis Obispo and its relationship to bicycling and walking outside the City. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Jonathan Roberts ROLL CALL : Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette Dunaway, Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, Jonathan Roberts (chair) PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1. Minutes of the November 19, 2020 Special Meeting ACTION ITEM 2. ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FUKUSHIMA – 100 MINUTES) Recommendation: Provide a recommendation on the Active Transportation Plan for City Council consideration and provide input on lingering refinements to the plan. *See Staff Report in Agenda Packet* THIS AGENDA ITEM WILL BE REVIEWED AT THIS MEETING OF MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2020, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE REVIEWED (IF NEEDED) AT THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SPECIAL MEETING ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2020. ADJOURNMENT Active Transportation Committee Agenda November 30, 2020 Page 3 The next Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee is scheduled for Thursday, January 21, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. Agenda related writings and documents are available online or for public inspection at the Public Works Department, 919 Palm Street, SLO. Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address: http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/60965/Row1.aspx DRAFT Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of November 20, 2020 Page 1 Minutes - DRAFT ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Thursday, November 19, 2020 1 Regular Meeting of the Active Transportation Committee 2 3 CALL TO ORDER 4 5 A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Committee was called to order 6 on Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Roberts. 7 8 ROLL CALL 9 10 Present: Committee Members Thomas Arndt, Lea Brooks (vice chair), Donette Dunaway, 11 Timothy Jouet, Briana Martenies, Russell Mills, and Jonathan Roberts (chair) 12 13 Absent: None 14 15 Staff: Active Transportation Manager Adam Fukushima 16 17 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 18 None. 19 20 --End of Public Comment-- 21 22 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 23 24 1. Review Minutes of the Active Transportation Committee Meeting of October 20, 2020: 25 26 ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, SECONDED BY 27 COMMITTEE MEMBER ARNDT, CARRIED 7-0-0, to approve the Minutes of the Active 28 Transportation Committee Meeting of October 20, 2020, with recommended changes. 29 30 Public Comment 31 None. 32 33 --End of Public Comment-- 34 35 INFORMATION ITEMS 36 37 2. Active Transportation Plan Update 38 Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a PowerPoint presentation and 39 responded to Committee inquiries. 40 41 Public Comment 42 Andrew Webber 43 DRAFT Minutes – Active Transportation Committee Meeting of November 19, 2020 Page 2 Helene Finger 44 45 --End of Public Comment-- 46 47 No action was taken on this item. 48 49 ACTION ITEM 50 51 3. Bike Share Services 52 Active Transportation Manager Fukushima provided a PowerPoint presentation and 53 responded to Committee inquiries. 54 55 Public Comment 56 None. 57 58 --End of Public Comment-- 59 60 ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER JOUET, SECONDED BY 61 COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, CARRIED 7-0-0, to recommend not pursuing shared 62 micro mobility at this time but to continue monitoring it in cities similar to San Luis Obispo 63 including partnering with Cal Poly (if there is interest) to survey interest and demand in San 64 Luis Obispo. 65 66 ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BROOKS, SECONDED BY 67 COMMITTEE MEMBER MILLS, CARRIED 4-3-0, to recommend removing bike share 68 from the list of recommended Major City Goals for Fiscal Year 2021-23. 69 70 ADJOURNMENT 71 72 The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. The next Regular Active Transportation Committee 73 meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 6:00 p.m., by teleconference. 74 75 76 APPROVED BY THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020 77 78 79 City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 Staff Report ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (FUKUSHIMA – 100 MINUTES) RECOMMENDATION 1. Recommend the City Council adopt the Active Transportation Plan. 2. Provide any lingering refinements on the Plan DISCUSSION Background Over the past two years, spanning at least 17 meetings, the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) has provided valuable feedback and taken formal actions to recommend moving forward with segments of the Active Transportation Plan as they have developed, from the Vision & Goals, to Proposed Projects, Programs, Implementation, and Design Guidance. The purpose of this meeting is to culminate the extensive committee work by considering a final formal recommendation on the Active Transportation Plan in its entirety and providing any feedback on lingering refinements before it is considered by the Planning Commission for a recommendation and by the City Council for adoption. The recommendation from this agenda item will be included as part of the staff report and recommendation for the following upcoming meetings on the plan: • December 8, 2020: City Council Study Session • December 9, 2020: Planning Commission Hearing • February 2, 2021: City Council Adoption of the Plan Changes in the Public Draft Active Transportation Pan As the ATC made formal recommendations on each segment of the plan over the past two years, staff has incorporated the recommendations and compiled them for consideration in the Administrative Draft. The Administrative Draft Active Transportation Plan was provided for internal review by several City departments, including City Administration, City Attorney, Fire and Police Departments, Office of Sustainability, and the Community Development Department (planning and development engineering groups), and Public Works (including Construction Inspection, Transit and Parking divisions). On November 19, 2020, the City released the Public Draft Active Transportation Plan, which is available for download on the project webpage at www.slobikewalk.org. The public draft will be available for comment until December 31, 2020. The following is a description of changes that have been made to the plan since the Administrative Draft. Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 2 Chapter 1: Introduction • Language added to give more description of what the ATP is and what it sets out accomplish including the broad objectives of the plan. (pp. 8-10) • More information on how the ATP fits with wider city policy especially General Plan and Climate Action Plan policies. (p. 11) • Section added on key foundations of the plan to show the cross-cutting themes that run throughout the plan, which are sustainability, equity, community resiliency, and economic vitality. (pp. 12-13) Chapter 2: Vision and Goals • The Vision of the plan was amended to include “access to sustainable transportation options” (p. 17) • Based off of feedback from the ATC and the Administrative Review, the goals and policy actions were restructured to make them clearer and remove several redundant statements. In addition, the policy actions were categorized into “priority actions” and “other important actions” to provide more clarity given the number of actions in the plan. None of the actions were removed since the ATC last reviewed them, however some actions were consolidated to remove redundant statements. (pp. 19-25) • The Goals (pp. 19-25) were renamed to make them clearer and more distinct. Within the renamed goals, several action items were rearranged to provide simpler categorization. In the last draft the ATC reviewed, the previous Goals were: Goal 1: Safety, Health, & Sustainability Goal 2: Access & Mode Shift Goal 3: Collaboration and Equity The following are the renamed Goals, which have been provided with descriptions instead of open-ended questions that the ATC found confusing (i.e. “What does the Plan do for SLO?”). The renamed Goals are: Goal 1: Build It Goal 2: Safety Goal 3: Accessibility Goal 4: Equity • Instead of having a section at the end of the plan that lists all of the policies in a separate attachment, the Draft Plan has instead numbered the policies in each respective chapter including this chapter. (pp. 19-25) • At the end of the Vision and Goals Chapter a new section on performance measures was included. These performance measures are based off policy actions previously shown in earlier drafts of the Plan the ATC reviewed. They are now repeated here and consolidated in one table for quick reference. These performance measures will be reported on every other year in line with the two-year budget cycle and are also repeated again in the Implementation Chapter. (p. 26) Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 3 Performance Measure Goals Goal # Goal Measure Current Goal Status (Baseline) 1 The share of citywide commute trips made by bicycling to 20% and 12% by walking by 2030 Current Mode Share: • Bicycle - 8.3% • Walk - 7.2% • Drive Alone - 67.7% 2 Consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan and General Plan Mode Share Objectives, decrease the share of total citywide trips made by single-occupant auto to 50% or less by 2030 Current Mode Share: • Drive Alone - 67.7% 3 Achieve Platinum Level status as Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists Gold Status 4 Continue progress towards the City's Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, endeavoring towards a 75% reduction by 2030. Three-Year Total (2015-2017): • 3 fatal collisions • 43 severe injury collisions 5 Complete installation of the Active Transportation Plan's Tier 1 bicycle and pedestrian network by 2030. 6.5% of the ultimate Tier 1 network currently in place: • 0% of new low-stress bikeway mileage • 0% of new enhanced pedestrian/bicycle crossings 6 Consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element policies, strive to allocate transportation funding across various transportation modes approximately proportional to the General Plan Modal Split Objectives Baseline to be set in 2021 7 Double the mode share for all bicycle and pedestrian trips for public K-12 schools in the city Baseline to be set in 2021 • As listed in Goal # 1 above, the mode share percentage for walking has been made more clear at 12%. This is to provide more specificity from the Circulation Element which lists the goal at “18% for walking, carpool, and other forms of transportation.” Chapter 3: Bicycling and Walking in SLO Today • Map Figure 11 was added on AB 1550 Designated Disadvantaged Community Areas and language was added describing what these areas mean in the “Define Equity” chapter subheading. (p. 54 and 56) Chapter 5: Recommended Bicycle & Pedestrian Projects • Several facility photos replaced with local examples. (throughout) • Section added on how this chapter relates to the plan Goals. (pp. 82-83) • New language on how the projects relate to and have consistency with recommendations from the Downtown Concept Plan (p. 85) Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 4 • Section added describing that all projects will require more detailed project-level analysis to determine feasibility (p. 94) • Section added describing what “major” and “minor” crossing improvements are (pp. 101- 103) • Updated and moved map on existing and missing sidewalks from Chapter 7 to Chapter 5 as figure 24 (p. 105) • Moved the map on Level of Traffic Stress after buildout of the Plan to this chapter as Figure 25. (p. 107) • Proposed crossing improvement on Madonna at Ralphs Shopping Center driveway was removed due to infeasibility since it is too close to the Madonna/US 101 intersection (Caltrans), however the proposed crossing improvement at Madonna/US 101 intersection remains unchanged (p. 100) • Proposed crossing improvement at Johnson / Lizzie removed since the intersection already has crosswalks at all approaches and is signalized. (p. 98) • Proposed crossing improvement on Broad St just south of Rockview Pl removed due to infeasibility (and redundancy) since it is too close to the other proposed crossing improvement at Broad / Rockview Pl. (p. 99) • New proposed crossing improvement added on Madonna Road at the new road leading to San Luis Ranch (p. 100) • Proposed protected bike lane on Tank Farm Rd extended to fill gap between existing location of Santa Fe Street to proposed rerouted location of Santa Fe Street. (p. 99) • Proposed protected bike lane added on Laurel Lane between Orcutt Rd and Johnson Ave • Areas of “bike access” from previous bike plan added as “bicycle/ped access” to all network maps. (p. 99) Chapter 6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Programs • Made graphic bubbles of the“6Es” and placed the appropriate bubbles with each program (pp. 112-122) • Added a program on Parklets (p. 121) • Section entitled “Recommended Program Policies” has been added at the end of this chapter, listing and numbering each policy relating to programs. (p. 123) • Policy 6.6 amended to include language that while traffic laws will be enforced, efforts to improve facility design may be more effective in making bicycling and walking safer and more attractive. (p. 123) Chapter 7: Implementation • Added a standalone map on quick build potential projects (p. 142) • Updated facility costs table based on recent bids (p. 138) • Moved discussion on Level of Traffic Stress to Chapter 5 (pp. 106-107) • Added the Case Study example of a Quick Build project on Higuera Street downtown (p. 141) • Added a call out bubble describing how many miles of each proposed facility type would need to be built on average per year to reach the 2030 completion goal of the Tier 1 project network (p. 145) • Added several new grant funding opportunities (pp. 146-147) • Added a section stating that as part of the update of the Parking and Access Management Plan, the city should evaluate the potential opportunities to leverage revenues from Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 5 parking fees to fund active transportation improvements that may help reduce parking demand (p. 147) • Included the Performance Measures tables here again as first shown in Chapter 2 (p. 149) • Included a numbered summary of implementation policies to the end of this chapter (pp. 150-151 Appendix A: Project List • Column added on notable project constraints Design Appendix • Added some other national guidance such as the Access Board’s ADA Standards (p.4) • Added language on designing for all ages and abilities for bicycling (p. 10) • While the ATC recommended the Bicycle Design Vehicle examples be updated to reflect more up to date bicycle examples, the Draft Plan kept them as is since the source of these examples is from the AASHTO Guide. When the AASHTO Guide is updated, future iterations of this appendix can also be updated. (p. 11) • All design policies have been removed from the Toolbox section and moved to a new Design Policies section. (pp. 13-26) • Policy 2.3 has been amended to reflect that the city should endeavor to meet surface tolerances of no more than ½ wide and no more than 3/8 in. high parallel to travel, and no more than ½ in. high perpendicular to travel, which is consistent with Caltrans standards. (p. 13) • Policy 3.6 updated to be consistent with the City Engineering Standards (p. 14) • Policy 4.10 amended to reflect that all City-owned traffic signals should include Lead Pedestrian Intervals where practicable to provide a head-start for pedestrians (p. 15) • Policy 5.4.3 amended to reflect that depending on the location of sidewalks, ultimate sidewalk widths may be limited by factors such as emergency response needs, presence of street parking, utility conflicts and other physical constraints. (p. 16) • Policy 5.8 amended to reflect that curb extensions should be designed so that they do not create conflicts with stormwater drainage. (p. 16) • Policy 5.14 added to reflect that if supported by council, the city should create a formal parklet program (p. 17) • Policy 5.15 amended to reflect that parklets shall not be approved on roadways with vehicle speeds (posted or measured 85th percentile speeds) that exceed 30 mph. (p. 17) • Policy 5.16 added to reflect that parklets shall include appropriate barriers to prevent pedestrians from encroaching into the vehicular traveled way. (p. 17) • Policy 6.4 amended to reflect that bicycle ramps shall follow guidelines of the United States Access Board on ADA. (p. 17) • Policy 6.12 amended to reflect that landscaped medians or planter boxes may be placed within the buffer area in protected bike lane installations. (p. 18) • Policy. 6.13 amended to reflect that drainage grates shall be installed per City Engineering Standards and that drainage grates should be assessed and corrected if deficient. (p. 18) • Bikeway Facility Table updated with protected bike lane width guidance (p. 19) • Policy 7.3 updated to include in-street bike parking to areas downtown to explore for more bike parking (p. 20) Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 6 • Policy 7.14 on bike valet amended to reflect planned and permitted community events. (p. 20) • Policy 7.30f amended to reflect that no more than 50% of required long-term bike parking shall be provided via vertical hanging racks. (p. 22) • Policy 8.1 amended to reflect that a reduced path width of no less than eight (8) feet plus two-foot shoulders may be considered only in constrained locations where a full-width pathway is otherwise infeasible. (p. 22) • Policy 10.3 added to show where consistent with the provisions of the MUTCD, priority at side-street stop-controlled intersections should be given to bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along Neighborhood Greenway routes, with stop signs controlling cross traffic only. (p. 25) • Marked Crosswalk Toolbox (p.28) amended to include additional guidance on high- visibility crosswalk markings, pavers or stamped concrete as well as additional guidance that marked crosswalks alone are often not sufficient on higher speed and volume roadways. • Curb Ramp Toolbox (p.34) amended to reflect that unless otherwise approved by the public works director, separate directional curb ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection should be provided rather than having a single ramp at a corner for both crosswalks. • Updated lane width recommendations in the Lane Reconfigurations and Road Diets Toolbox (p. 44) • Bicycle Lanes Toolbox (p.48) widths amended to reflect those in the Bike Lane Widths Table • Separated Bicycle Signal Phase (p.59) amended to reflect typical uses at areas with heavy right-turn volumes conflicting with bicycle crossings and where shared-use pathways approach signalized intersections as well as to consider prohibiting right turns on red where operation would conflict with a green bike signal indication. • Roundabout Toolbox (p.80) has updated guidance where as before it was missing. PREVIOUS ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE INPUT ON THE PLAN The Active Transportation Committee has provided helpful and extensive input over multiple meetings on the Active Transportation Plan. The following table outlines the schedule of meetings where the Active Transportation Plan has been discussed or recommended actions have been taken. ATC Meetings on the Active Transportation Plan Date Subject Outcome Feb 2, 2018 Plan Kickoff Discussion and Input March 15, 2018 Early Plan Development Discussion and Input July 19, 2018 Early Plan Development Discussion and Input Sept 20, 2018 Early Plan Development Discussion and Input Nov 15, 2018 Plan Update Discussion and Input Nov 29, 2018 Plan Update Discussion and Input Jan 17, 2019 Plan Update Discussion and Input Feb 26, 2019 Bike /Ped Network Discussion and Input March 21, 2019 Bike /Ped Network Discussion and Input April 17, 2019 Bike /Ped Network Discussion and Input May 16, 2019 Plan Update Discussion and Input Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 7 June 27, 2019 Bike /Ped Network Discussion and Input July 18, 2019 Bike /Ped Network Discussion and Input Aug 21, 2019 Bike /Ped Network Discussion and Input Sept 19, 2019 ATP Policies Discussion and Input Sept 25, 2019 Crossing Improvements Discussion and Input Oct 24, 2019 Open House Workshop Workshop Input Nov 21, 2019 ATP Outreach Results Discussion and Input Dec 10, 2019 Project Prioritization Methodology Discussion and Input Jan 16, 2020 ATP Policies Discussion and Input March 10, 2020 Project Prioritization Tier List Action Item May 4, 2020 Vision and Goals Action Item June 11, 2020 Design Guidance Action Item Aug 20, 2020 Implementation and Comprehensive List of Policies in the ATP Action Item PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT In the fall of 2019, City staff branded an outreach strategy known as the “Roll and Stroll” campaign and held a series of both in-person and online community outreach activities for the Active Transportation Plan. The community outreach is summarized in the draft Plan. In-Person Activities In person outreach included five pop-up workshops on weekends in neighborhoods throughout the City, event booths at the SLO Farmers Market and Cal Poly University Union, as well as an open house workshop at the City/County Library. Online Activities Online activities included a project webpage at www.slobikewalk.org, on online interactive mapping tool, and an online Citywide Active Transportation Survey. The online Active Transportation Survey was conducted to better understand existing travel behavior, major barriers to active transportation, and what investments community members would like the City to prioritize in order to increase access to walking and bicycling. Postcards were distributed to a randomly generated list of 4,500 city residents to invite participation in the survey, which resulted in 709 completed surveys, providing a statistically valid sample. Other community members were also offered the opportunity to participate in the survey, although the results were not counted as part of the statistically valid survey sample. An Interactive Online Mapping Tool was created to provide participants with an opportunity to mark locations throughout the city to identify locations of desired intersection crossing priorities, bikeway, and pedestrian facility improvements. The input received as part of these public outreach activities was used to guide development of the projects, policies, and programs included in the Draft Active Transportation Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 8 An Initial Study / Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Plan (Attachment 1). An extended public review period for the Initial Study / Negative Declaration runs from November 19 through December 31, 2020. The Active Transportation Plan is a program/policy-level document, which means it does not provide project-specific construction details that would allow for project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. Specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and adoption of the ATP would not authorize any development. Information such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings will be required in order for future “project-level” CEQA analysis to occur. Under CEQA, a programmatic document is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and/or for a project that will be implemented over a long period of time. Therefore, the Initial Study/Negative Declaration was prepared at a “program- level,” which is appropriate. The Initial Study does not identify any potentially significant impacts that would occur as a result of adoption of the Active Transportation Plan. CONCURRENCE The Planning Commission will consider a recommendation of the Draft Active Transportation Plan on Wednesday, December 9, 2020. Staff will inform the Council of ATC and Planning Commission recommendations as part of Council’s consideration of the Active Transportation Plan adoption hearing on February 2, 2021. In addition, information on the Draft Plan has been shared with the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Draft Active Transportation Plan has also been shared with the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force for any recommendations it may wish to provide. The Administrative Draft Active Transportation Plan was provided for internal review by several City departments, including City Administration, Office of the City Attorney, Fire and Police Departments, Construction Inspection, Office of Sustainability, and the Community Development Department (planning and development engineering groups), and Public Works. Other community groups have helped shape the Active Transportation Plan including the SLO Chamber of Commerce, Downtown SLO, SLO County Public Health Injury Prevention Committee, SLO County Healthy Eating-Acting Living Coalition, Bike SLO County, Save Our Downtown, SLO U40, Cal Poly administration, Cal Poly ASI, and others. RECOMMENDATION 1. Recommend the City Council adopt the Active Transportation Plan. 2. Provide any lingering refinements on the Plan City Staff in the Community Development Dept has recommended that the ATC reach a recommendation at the November 30th meeting on this item in order for the Planning Commission to have sufficient time to consider a recommendation ahead of its December 9th Planning Commission hearing. Therefore, the ATC should consider a recommendation on the Plan on November 30th and if additional time is needed to provide feedback on lingering refinements to do so on December 3rd. Agenda Item 2 November 30, 2020 Page 9 ALTERNATIVES 1. The ATC may choose to not provide a recommendation to the City Council on the Active Transportation Plan. Staff does not recommend this as the ATC has provided valuable and extensive input over the last two years of plan development. ATTACHMENTS 1) Initial Study Negative Declaration of the Active Transportation Plan San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Initial Study Negative Declaration NOVEMBER 2020 Prepared for: City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared by: Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 617 W 7th Street, Suite 1103 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Attachment 1, Page 1 of 33 INITIAL STUDY – NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Contact Person and Phone Number: Adam Fukushima, Active Transportation Manager (805) 781-7590 Afukushima@slocity.org Project Location: The City of San Luis Obispo’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) applies to all areas and plans/projects within the City of San Luis Obispo limits. Figure 1 shows the regional location, and Figure 2 shows the plan location. Regional Location and Setting The City of San Luis Obispo is located in the Central Coast Region of California along U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101), approximately 230 miles south of San Francisco and 190 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. San Luis Obispo is accessible via U.S. 101 from the north and south, State Route 1 (SR 1) from the northwest, and State Route 227 (SR 227) from the south. Local Setting The City is characterized by a mild Mediterranean climate that is moderated by the influence of the Pacific Ocean, located approximately 10 miles to the west. The City receives approximately 20 inches of rain annually, 287 sunny days per year, with a July high temperature of 74°F and a January low temperature of 43°F. The City encompasses approximately 10.7 square miles of land in a narrow valley between the coastal Santa Lucia Mountains on the east, which reach an elevation of up to 3,000 feet, and the Nine Sisters volcanic hills on the west. The San Luis Obispo Creek bisects the City and is a defining feature of the Downtown District. The City also has a permanent open space greenbelt at its edges. Surrounding Uses The City is surrounded by unincorporated San Luis Obispo County land characterized by agricultural uses (vineyards, field crops) and open space containing oak woodland and grasslands habitat. Distinctive facilities and land uses proximate to the City include California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), Cuesta College, and San Luis Obispo Military Camp to the north, San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and numerous vineyards and wineries to the south, Los Padres National Forest to the east, and the Irish Hills to the west. Attachment 1, Page 2 of 33 Figure 1- Regional Location Attachment 1, Page 3 of 33 Figure 2- Plan Setting Attachment 1, Page 4 of 33 Existing Setting Historical and Demographic Setting The history of San Luis Obispo dates back to 1772 when Junipero Serra founded Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. The City was officially incorporated in 1856. According to the City’s General Plan Annual Report, the City’s population in 2019 is 46,802. Since 2011, the population in the City has grown by around 1,500, an average rate of 0.4 percent per year, while the County of San Luis Obispo also grew at an average rate of 0.4 percent per year during this period. Existing Plans and Documents City San Luis Obispo General Plan – Circulation Element The City of San Luis Obispo updated the Circulation Element of its General Plan in 2015 The City's general plan guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community purposes. The general plan is published in separately adopted sections, called elements, which address various topics. This Circulation Element describes how the city plans to provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections to county areas and beyond. The General Plan Circulation Element provides the foundation policies for walking and biking in the City of San Luis Obispo. Within section 1.7 there are two main policies that provide the context of bicycle and pedestrian planning, C 1.7. Transportation Objectives: 1. Increase the use of alternative forms of transportation (as shown on Table 1) and depend less on the single‐ occupant use of vehicles. 2. Ask the San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation Agency to establish an objective similar to #1 and support programs that reduce the interregional use of single‐occupant vehicles and increase the use of alternative forms of transportation. Additionally, bicycling and walking policies are shown in sections four and five of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. These desired mode splits and policies are at the very core of the ATP and established the importance of walking and biking in the City of San Luis Obispo. These are ambitious goals that require substantial investment, coordination and planning; the ATP will act as guidance for proposed projects and programs to achieve the goals and mode share set by the City Council and established in the City’s General Plan. San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan Compared with the 2012 Climate Action Plan (CAP), the 2020 CAP Update puts more emphasis on carbon-free electricity and General Plan transportation mode split. Measures from the 2012 CAP Update were removed and replaced with new foundational actions and supporting measures. The CAP Update builds upon the goals of the 2012 CAP and is based on a more recent inventory for the City. The CAP Update is organized into six pillars, each of which includes a long-term goal, measures, and foundational actions. Altogether, these measures and foundational actions are intended to reduce communitywide greenhouse (GHG) emissions by 43 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and by 66 percent below 1990 Table 1- Desired Mode Split Attachment 1, Page 5 of 33 levels by 2035, which provides substantial progress toward meeting the City carbon neutrality goal while exceeding in time the State carbon neutrality goal. A major part of GHG emissions are from the transportation sector. To meet the emissions goal outlined in the CAP there needs to be a significant reduction in transportation emissions to 26%. To achieve that reduction there needs to be a large shift in single occupancy vehicle trips to active transportation trips both walking and biking. The ATP will play a pivotal role as a guiding document to implement a well-connected and safe active transportation network. Proposed Projects with Completed Environmental Documents The following proposed projects in the ATP are already approved projects and have adopted environmental documents with corresponding impacts and required mitigation measures. These projects are approved, but have not yet been constructed, which is why they are included in the ATP. 1) Bob Jones Pathway Octagon Barn Connection (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) 2) Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft to Pepper Street (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) In addition, the City Council has approved the San Luis Ranch and Froom Ranch Specific Plans, and Avila Ranch Development Plan, which contain proposed projects identified in the ATP. The ATP includes the infrastructure projects identified in these Specific Plans and Development Plan to ensure consistency among plans. Upon approval of the Specific Plans and Development Plan, the City certified associated Environmental Impact Reports, which identify potential impacts and required mitigation measures. These environmental documents referenced above are available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 and online at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents- online/environmental-review-documents The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, and online at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area- plans/san-luis-ranch The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, and online at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area- plans/froom-ranch The Avila Ranch Development Plan is available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, and online at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/specific-area- plans/avila-ranch General Plan Designations and Zoning: Attachment 1, Page 6 of 33 The Active Transportation Plan would be implemented throughout the City and would occur in all General Plan designations and in all zoning designations. Description of the Project: The ATP (Attachment 1) will be the guiding document for active transportation in the City of San Luis Obispo. The 2020 ATP will supersede the existing 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan as the planning document that provide recommendations for the improvements to walking and bicycling in San Luis Obispo. The ATP contains various programs, policies, and recommendations pertaining to the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. ATP proposes expansion of and improvements to the City’s existing shared-use paths, bike lanes and routes, sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and crosswalks. The proposed networks are designed to build upon existing shared-use paths; to connect regional routes and paths; to provide access to key destinations; and to serve as recreational assets. The City of San Luis Obispo has a legacy of promoting active transportation, resulting in the City being a great place to walk and bike. The San Luis Obispo ATP will make existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities safer and will increase connectivity to key destinations within the City. The recommendations included in this Plan are meant to enhance non- motorized travel infrastructure and create more travel options for the residents of San Luis Obispo. The Goals of the Active Transportation Plan: • Increase the number of trips completed by biking and walking. • Provide a network of safe, efficient, and enjoyable facilities to support walking and bicycling. • Provides active transportation connections to community destinations such as employment centers, schools, grocery and shopping centers, senior facilities, recreation centers, and transit stops. • Reduce air pollution, asthma rates, and greenhouse gas emissions. • Ensure that disadvantaged communities are actively engaged in the planning process and help shape the projects in their neighborhoods. Outreach to California Native American Tribes Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate Native American Tribes about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. There was no response or requests for consultation from the native American Tribes that were provided the notification. Attachment 1, Page 7 of 33 Program vs Project Level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis The Project (under CEQA), is the adoption of the proposed ATP for the City of San Luis Obispo. The ATP is a program/policy-level document, which means it does not provide project-specific construction details that would allow for project-level CEQA analysis. Furthermore, specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and adoption of this CEQA document would not authorize any development. Information such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings will be required in order for future “project-level” CEQA analysis to occur. Therefore, this CEQA document has been prepared at a “program- level.” Under CEQA, a programmatic document is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and/or for a project that will be implemented over a long period of time. This CEQA document, prepared at a program level, is therefore adequate for adoption of the ATP by San Luis Obispo City Council. Required Approvals: City of San Luis Obispo Required approvals include: Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan Initial Study -Negative Declaration. Other public agencies whose approval is required: No other agency approval is required. Attachment 1, Page 8 of 33 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services ☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation ☐ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation ☐ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☐ Tribal Cultural Resources ☐ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☐ Utilities and Service Systems ☐ Energy ☐ Noise ☐ Wildfire ☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☐ Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES ☒ The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). ☐ The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and 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 Wildlife for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ☐ This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). Attachment 1, Page 9 of 33 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ☐ November 13, 2020 Signature Date For: Michael Codron, Printed Name Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Principal Planner Attachment 1, Page 10 of 33 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptor s to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Attachment 1, Page 11 of 33 1. AESTHETICS Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ 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 San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation/Open Space and Circulation Elements identify viewing corridors and scenic roadways with high or moderate value as well as visual landmarks. The applicable goals and policies from these City General Plan elements include: ▪ 9.1.1 Preserve Natural and Agricultural Landscapes: The City will implement the following policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdictions to do likewise: □ Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be maintained in their current patterns of use. □Any Development that is permitted in natural or agricultural landscapes shall be visually subordinate to and compatible with the landscape features. Development includes, but is not limited to buildings, signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility and telecommunication lines and structures. Such development shall: − Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent. − Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and site lighting. − Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping, that respect the setting, including the historical pattern of development in similar settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its setting. − The City’s non-emergency repair, maintenance, and small construction projects in highly visible locations, such as hillsides and downtown creeks, where scenic resources could be affected, shall be subject to at least “minor or incidental” architectural review. ▪ 9.1.3 Utilities and Signs: In and near public streets, plazas, and parks, features that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views shall be avoided. Necessary features, such as utility and communication equipment, and traffic equipment and signs should be designed and placed so as to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views of the Morros or surrounding hillsides, or farmland, consistent with the primary objective of safety. New billboard signs shall not be allowed, and existing billboard signs shall be removed as soon as practicable, as provided in the Sign Regulations. ▪ 9.1.5 View Protection in New Development: The City will include in all environmental review and carefully consider effects of new development, streets, and road construction on views and visual quality by applying the Community Design Guidelines, height restrictions, hillside standards, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, and the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. Attachment 1, Page 12 of 33 ▪ 9.2.1 Views to and from Public Places, including Scenic Roadways: The City will preserve and improve views of important scenic resources from public places and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 10 are designated as scenic roadways. □ Development projects shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views. □ Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views, consistent with safety needs. □ Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along streets, street trees shall be clustered to facilitate viewing of the distant features. □ Development projects, including signs, in the viewshed of a scenic roadway shall be considered “sensitive” and require architectural review. ▪ 9.3.5 Visual Assessments: Require evaluations (accurate visual simulations) for projects affecting important scenic resources and views from public places. ▪ 9.3.6 View Blockage along Scenic Highways: Determine that view blockage along scenic roadways is a significant impact. ▪ 9.3.9 Undergrounding Utilities: Place existing overhead utilities underground, with highest priority for scenic roadways, entries to the city, and historical districts. The ATP would not involve land use or zoning changes. As a policy document, the ATP would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas and visual character. However, implementation of proposed projects in the ATP such as bicycle and pedestrian paths, sidewalks, grade separated crossings and bicycle and pedestrian supporting infrastructure may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. However, discretionary development would be required to adhere to City development regulations and General Plan policies, including San Luis Obispo Street Tree Ordinance No. 1544, to retain character of the City and minimize environmental impacts. In addition, discretionary development would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and other applicable regulatory land use actions prior to approval. Thus, the ATP would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas and visual character or scenic quality. d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of substantial light or glare. Any proposed bicycle or pedestrian facilities are subject to conformance with the City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum illumination level and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preserve night time views. All bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the plan will be required to conform to standards of the City’s Nigh Sky Preservation Ordinance. Class I shared use path lighting is required to comply with City standards. Any lighting placement is required to comply with the policies in the Active Transportation Plan which calls for lighting along creeks to be designated to shine away from the creek corridor or not be installed at locations where impacts cannot be mitigated. Additionally, the pedestrian lighting recommended in the ATP will meet the City standards and match existing pedestrian lighting. The project does not have the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. Attachment 1, Page 13 of 33 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) d) e) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, but future development of project components contained in the ATP could potentially impact areas used for agricultural purposes or which contain prime farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide important, forest land, or involve a Williamson Act contract. Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify the potential impacts to these areas and mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in San Luis Obispo. It is intended to be a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis, as necessary. In cases where proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located in areas which contain agricultural or forestry resources, impacts and mitigations measures would be identified to reduce impacts to less than significant. Less than significant impact. Attachment 1, Page 14 of 33 Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than significant. 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ g) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ h) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ i) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) d) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct air quality impacts, but future development of project components contained in the ATP could create a less than significant impact due to construction or maintenance activities. Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify the potential air quality impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in San Luis Obispo and increasing use of those transportation modes. The goal of the ATP is to encourage and increase bicycle ridership and walking trips which can replace existing driving trips that would be a net benefit to air quality. The ATP itself does not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations nor does it result in other emissions such as odors. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. Adoption of the ATP alone would not create any air quality impacts because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. Less than Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. Attachment 1, Page 15 of 33 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 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 resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) d) e) f) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, but future development of project components contained in the ATP could potentially affect protected biological species and/or habitats. Construction and operation of trails, paths, signage, etc. may occur in biologically sensitive areas. Individual projects would be subject to site- specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify the potential presence of endangered or listed species and mitigation measures that would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. All construction-related potential impacts resulting from construction run-off would be addressed through adherence to the City’s MS4 General Stormwater Permit from the State Water Board. The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in San Luis Obispo. It is intended to be a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis, as necessary. In cases where proposed bicycle and pedestrian 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 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) includes policies and standard mitigation for locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impact to less than significant levels. While this ATP supersedes and replaces the 2013 BTP, it carries forward all of its policies and standard mitigation for locating bikeways near creeks to reduce the level of biological impacts to less than significant levels. Attachment 1, Page 16 of 33 Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. Adoption of the ATP alone would not create any biological impacts because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 14.01 Historic Preservation Ordinance requires designation of historic resources and sites. According to the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element there are five historic districts that include a multitude of Master and Contributing List Historical Properties. In addition, significant historic and prehistoric sites have been identified in the Downtown and Old Town Historic Districts, and throughout the City limits. The ATP proposes bicycle and pedestrian projects throughout the City. Adoption of the ATP alone would not have a significant impact on any identified historical properties or historic or prehistoric sites because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. Additionally, as part of the required environmental clearance for the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities including but not limited to shared use paths and grade separated crossings, consistency with the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines will be required, which would include additional surveys and evaluation for areas identified as Sensitive. If potential cultural resources are found during construction, the City’s Guidelines require that construction ceases until a qualified archaeologist determines the extent of the resources, and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. Attachment 1, Page 17 of 33 6. ENERGY Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) The City of San Luis Obispo has demonstrated its commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy through many efforts. The City has adopted the California Green Building Standards Code, per San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 15.02, which requires efficiency measures to reduce energy use, and provide energy reduction benefits. The ATP does recommend projects and lighting to support walking and biking throughout the community. The amounts of energy needed during construction and operation of lighting is minimal and would not result in significant energy needs. In addition, any use of energy for construction projects would be temporary and not result in significant environmental impact. The ATP is a programmatic document. During construction of all facilities, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary, including an evaluation of potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 13 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv. Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Attachment 1, Page 18 of 33 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a.i) ii) iii) iv) b) c) d) 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 the proposed structures. San Luis Obispo is located in a seismically active region and is identified as a Landslide Zone by the California Department of Conservation. In 2014, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks prior to a disaster event and fully cover the necessity to address seismic and geological hazards. In addition, all development projects are required to conform to applicable provisions of the current California Building Code. The ATP is a programmatic and guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. As a policy document, the ATP would not directly require ground disturbing activities. However, implementation of the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the ATP may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. The ATP includes proposed shared use paths, sidewalks and other bicycle and pedestrian supportive infrastructure. As such, the ATP could result in construction-related soil erosion and topsoil loss impacts associated with such installations. However, discretionary development would be required to conduct geotechnical studies and adhere to related geology and soils recommendations prior to final siting and construction as part of a site-specific CEQA analysis. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-than-significant impact related to soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and the presence of unstable soils. Less and Significant Impact. e) The ATP does not include the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No Impact. f) The ATP is a programmatic document. During construction of all facilities, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary, including an evaluation of potential impacts to paleontological resources. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. Attachment 1, Page 19 of 33 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1,8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation a) b) The City of San Luis Obispo has recently adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) which provides Greenhouse Gas (GHG) thresholds, policies, and transportation mode share goals for the City. The ATP will be the guiding document to improve the mode share of walking and bicycling and increasing these two modes would reduce GHG citywide. The City’s General Plan and CAP have the stated goals of having the mode share of 20% for bicycling and 18% for walking and other forms of transportation. The ATP’s goal is to provide the recommended projects, programs and policies to achieve those mode share goals. The ATP complements and facilitates the applicable GHG plans, policies and regulations; therefore, the ATP will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. No impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: No Impact. . 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Attachment 1, Page 20 of 33 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) d) In 2014, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks of those hazards. The ATP is a programmatic document and would not expose the public to hazardous materials and does not require or involve the use, transportation, disposal or emissions of hazardous materials. Individual projects such as the construction of bike and pedestrian paths, sidewalks, or supporting infrastructure would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify the potential exposure of the public to hazardous materials but would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant impact. e) The ATP is a programmatic document and would not in itself result in airport related safety hazards. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities recommended in the plan which may be within the airport land use area would be subject to site- specific environmental review, at which time the City would identify any potential impacts and would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. Less than significant impact. f) The ATP does not impede access for emergency response because it is a programmatic document. The ATP does not involve site-specific development, nor would it facilitate new development that would interfere with adopted emergency plans. Individual projects such as Class I shared use paths, sidewalks, or other bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure from the ATP would undergo site-specific CEQA analysis. Therefore, the ATP itself would result in a less than significant impact related to impairment or interference with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan. g) According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), San Luis Obispo is not located in designated California Fire Hazard Severity Zones,49 or in State Responsibility Areas. No impact associated with wildland fires would occur. According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the urban reserve consists of low to moderate fire hazard rates. High and extreme fire hazard rates closely surround the San Luis Obispo urban reserve. However, according to CalFIRE, there are five areas categorized as very high fire hazard severity zones within the local responsibility area (LRA). However, these areas are located on the outer fringes of the city boundaries and the ATP does not propose specific development or other physical changes to the environment through would be put at risk in the case of a wildland fire. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less than significant impact related to risks associated with exposure to wildland fires. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: No Impact. Attachment 1, Page 21 of 33 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c i) ii) iii) iv) d) e) The ATP is a programmatic document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning, in addition the City is not located within designated seiche or tsunami zones. Thus, the ATP itself would not result in construction or operational impacts related to alterations in polluted runoff. Implementation of proposed projects contained in the ATP may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment including Class I paths, sidewalks, or other pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Construction of infrastructure development and redevelopment could result in erosion and potential redirect of flood flows or drainage patterns; however, implementation of proposed actions would not include large-scale construction within San Luis Obispo. Additionally, discretionary development would be required to undergo CEQA review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation, including the implementation of a SWPP and compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations once project details and locations are known. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-than-significant impact related to polluted runoff. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. Attachment 1, Page 22 of 33 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation a) b) ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. The ATP is in alignment with existing land use plans, polices and regulations and will have no impacts to land use planning. No impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: No Impact. 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation a) b) The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan does not identify any mineral resources or mineral resources recovery sites within the City and no impacts would occur to mineral resources. No impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: No Impact. Attachment 1, Page 23 of 33 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 6 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation d) a) b) c) The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is the only public airport or airstrip located in San Luis Obispo. The airport and adjoining Airport Safety zone are located in the southern portion of the City limits, at 975 Airport Drive. Adoption of the ATP alone would not expose people to unacceptable noise levels and would not generate noise levels in excess of the City’s Noise Ordinance because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis, as necessary. The ATP is a programmatic document containing proposed projects and programs that are consistent with the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. Some of the proposed projects including but not limited to bike and pedestrian trails in the ATP are within the vicinity of the airport, which may result in a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or noise levels during construction. However, discretionary development would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Additionally, the ATP encompasses a suite of opportunities that would decrease motor vehicle traffic and traffic-related noise. As such, implementation of the ATP would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less-than- significant impact related to noise. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Attachment 1, Page 24 of 33 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation a) b) The ATP is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. The ATP will help connect existing and future housing to community destinations. The ATP will not induce population growth or displace people or housing. No impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: No Impact. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Schools? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Parks? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ Evaluation Adoption of the ATP would not affect population or employment growth and would not result in growth that would require the assemblage of additional fire or police resources, or the expansion of any schools or other public facilities. The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, however future development of project components contained in the ATP (trails, bridges, small structures, etc.) could potentially increase the need for security for pedestrians and bicyclists utilizing these facilities. Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the implementing agency would identify the potential public service-related impacts. The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in City. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. Adoption of the ATP alone would not create any public service impacts because specific development is not being proposed under this ATP and it would not authorize any development. No impact. Attachment 1, Page 25 of 33 Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: No Impact. 16. RECREATION Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) ATP is intended to increase the pedestrian and bicycle recreational opportunities for the residents of the City and thu s will have a beneficial impact on recreational facilities and opportunities. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Attachment 1, Page 26 of 33 c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Result in inadequate emergency access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) d) The transportation goals, policies and thresholds are determined by the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and supported by the City’s Climate Action Plan. The ATP proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the City. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. The projects and programs recommended in the ATP are intended to improve access and use of transportation modes other than the automobile, which is anticipated to reduce citywide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For this reason, proposed ATP would result in a less than significant impact per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b). Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines sections 15301(c) generally applies to most bicycle projects as it qualifies them as a minor alteration of the existing highway because it repurposes space in the existing paved roadway through placement of striping, landscaping, and posts that are all considered exempt activity under CEQA, and does not expand the physical area which could contribute to a physical impact to environmentally sensitive resources (i.e., biology, geology cultural, historic, etc.), nor does it substantially alter the existing use of the street. The proposed ATP would not result in direct physical changes, however future development of project components contained in the ATP (trails, bridges, small structures, etc.) could potentially impact existing roadways and intersections. For instance, if new crosswalks or bicycle lanes are proposed, these projects could require additional project-level analysis to determine their impacts to (and safety from) roadway and vehicular activity. Additionally, construction activities will require various vehicular trips to and from the various project sites. However, these will be minimal and temporary. In the event that partial or full road closure is necessary during project construction, the contractor will be required to adhere to any and all regulations from the local jurisdiction, Caltrans and/or other regulatory agency. Individual projects would be evaluated by the City Public Works and Fire Departments for consistency with applicable engineering standards and emergency response policies. In addition, individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the implementing agency would identify the potential transportation-related impacts. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the General Plan, and other relevant regulatory documents. Based on these considerations, the proposed ATP is considered to result in a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Attachment 1, Page 27 of 33 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) In accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, on September 8, 2020 potentially affected Tribes were formally notified of this Project and were given the opportunity to request consultation on the Project. The City of San Luis Obispo has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate Native American Tribes about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. There was no response or requests for consultation from the native American Tribes that were provided the notification. The ATP is a programmatic document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, the ATP itself would not result in construction or operational impacts related to tribal cultural resources. As a policy document, the ATP would not directly require ground disturbing activities. However, implementation of projects identified in the ATP may result in infrastructure development and redevelopment such as bicycle and pedestrian paths, sidewalks, grade separated crossings that could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. As part of the required environmental clearance for the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities including but not limited to shared use paths and grade separated crossings, consistency with the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines will be required, which would include additional surveys and evaluation for areas identified as Sensitive. If potential cultural resources are found during construction, the City’s Guidelines require that construction ceases until a qualified archaeologist determines the extent of the resources, and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. In addition, as required by CEQA, project-specific tribal consultation would occur during the review of any project requiring preparation of an Initial Study. Therefore, the ATP would result in a less- than-significant impact related to tribal cultural resources. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Attachment 1, Page 28 of 33 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) c) d) e) The proposed adoption of the ATP would not result in direct physical changes, however future development of project components contained in the ATP (trails, bridges, small structures, etc.) could potentially utilize non-potable and or recycled water during construction, and for potential irrigation. Once the various project components are in operation, waste water and solid waste generation will be limited mostly to construction activity. Individual projects would be subject to site-specific environmental review, at which time the implementing agency would identify the potential utility-related impacts. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. Less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ Evaluation a) b) In 2014, the City adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) to assess hazards and reduce risks prior to a disaster event and to identify fire high risk and evacuation plans. The proposed ATP will not affect emergency response or propose structures that will have occupants that could be affected by wildfires. No impact. c) d) The ATP does recommend Class I shared use paths that may require associated infrastructure. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP Attachment 1, Page 29 of 33 would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan, the 2014 LHMP and other relevant regulatory documents. Less than significant impact Mitigation Measures: None are required. Conclusion: Less than Significant. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially 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 ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the City of San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. The ATP will be essential in providing guidance to achieve the General Plan mode share goals, CAP GHG levels and overall goals and policies supported by City planning documents. Less than significant impact. Attachment 1, Page 30 of 33 Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No 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 viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the City of San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. The ATP will be essential in providing guidance to achieve the General Plan mode share goals, CAP GHG levels and overall goals and policies supported by City planning documents. In fact, the cumulative impact of all of these projects and programs is the to reduce overall vehicle miles travels and an increase use for both walking and biking. Less than significant impact. Sources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ The ATP is a programmatic document that proposes goals and policies pertaining to the future of walking and bicycling in the City of San Luis Obispo. It is intended as a guidance document with the ultimate vision of a connected and complete network of trails, walkways and bikeways that provides safe convenient and enjoyable connections to key destinations around the City. Individual project details such as precise project locations, project timing, funding mechanisms, material types, types of equipment and ultimately construction drawings are currently not available. At such time that specific individual projects are implemented, the implementing agency will conduct site-specific CEQA analysis as necessary. Furthermore, implementation of the ATP would be required to comply with the goals and policies under the City’s General Plan and other relevant regulatory documents. The ATP will be essential in providing guidance to achieve the General Plan mode share goals, CAP GHG levels and overall goals and policies supported by City planning documents. No impact. Attachment 1, Page 31 of 33 22. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 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 23. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, 2015 2. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use, 2014 3. City of San Luis Obispo Housing, 2015 4. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation and Open Space, 2012 5. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation 2001 6. City of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2014 City of San Luis Obispo Noise, 1996 7. City of San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2014 8. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, 2020 9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 11. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance 12. Airport Land Use Plan, 2015 13. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/education/geologicmaps/apfaults.php Attachments 1. San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan Attachment 1, Page 32 of 33 Attachment 1, Page 33 of 33