HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2002, 6 - 2002 UPDATE OF THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DISPOSITION OF UNRESOLVED PARKING AND ACCESS IS council M.6"D,
July 16,2002
. .
agenba izEpoat ltm.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO �
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Works s*"
Prepared By: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner ES
SUBJECT: 2002 UPDATE OF THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
DISPOSITION OF UNRESOLVED PARKING AND ACCESS ISSUES
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council should;
1. Adopt a resolution approving a Negative Declaration .and adopting the Access and Parking
Management Plan (July 2002).
2. Review unresolved parking and access issues and identify those that should be considered for
inclusion as a Council Goal in the upcoming 2003-2005 Financial Plan.
DISCUSSION
This agenda report presents two separate but related elements. Staff recommends that the City
Council first adopt a resolution adopting the Access and Parking Management Plan (July 2002)
(Recommendation #1), then discuss unresolved parking issues and, by motion, act on
Recommendation#2.
A. Amending the Parking Management Plan. At its April 30, 2002 meeting, the City Council
directed staff to schedule a Council business item to consider amending the 1995 Parking
Management Plan (PMP). The limited scope of these amendments was to include the variety of
parking demand management and parking management activities (called Tier 1 and Tier 2
activities)previously acted on by the Council. These activities are identified in Appendix A.2 of the
updated plan. In addition to Council direction, staff has updated the PMP to include the following
minor changes:
1. Revise the Introduction on page 4 to reflect major events that have occurred since the plan was
last amended in 1995;
2. Change the references to the Business Improvement Area throughout the document to the
Downtown Association•,
3. Amend Actions 1.9 and 2.6 to reflect the fact that the City now provides 15-minute parking in
the downtown. Change Policy 7.5 to reflect recent changes in the Municipal Code that address
petition requirements for Residential Parking Districts.
4. Change the title of the plan to"Access and Parking Management Plan"as suggested by Council
Member Marx. Staff supports this change since the Plan now includes alternative access
strategies(Tier 1 and 2). 6-1
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Page 2
A legislative draft of the amended and retitled Plan accompanies this report as Exhibit A to
Attachment 1. Staff has prepared an Initial Environmental Study(Attachment 2) that evaluates the
impacts of the proposed amendments and the Community Development Director has recommended
that a Negative Declaration be granted.
Staff wants to emphasize that, in order to update the PMP at this time, the Council should limit its
review of language amendments to only-those areas already acted on by the Council. Matters not
yet acted on should be handled in the manner suggested below.
B. Review of Unresolved Parking and Access Issues. At its April 30, 2002 meeting,the Council
also directed that the Planning Commission consider some of the more costly and complex parking
demand reduction proposals (called Tier 3) and determine if the Commission is capable of
administering these programs or whether a new standing or ad hoc advisory body should be created
to do this work. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the Tier 3 proposals at its July
10, 2002 meeting, with recommendations forthcoming to the City Council.
However, beyond those issues that are covered by Tier 1, 2 and 3 activities, there remains
unresolved issues that were addressed by the draft Parking and Downtown Access Plan (PDAP).
These residual issues have been debated from time to time by the City Council over the past five
years. Staff has identified them below. The City Council should review each issue and identify
those that should be considered for inclusion as a Council Goal in the upcoming 2003-2005
Financial Plan. Staff recommendations for the disposition of each issue are provided below.
Issue 1: Establishing.Parking Utilization Thresholds(triggers). The draft PDAP includes a
series of parking utilization thresholds that would need to be exceeded before the design and
constriction of additional parking garages could proceed. Staff believes that existing and future
City Councils will fully consider the issue of"need" before committing millions of dollars to
additional parking structures and that each project will be subject to significant public scrutiny
and input. Therefore including "triggers" in the Access and Parking Management Plan that
either stifle or permit new structures is unwarranted.
Staff.Recommendation: Exclude from further consideration. The need for additional parking
strictures will be established as part of the Financial Planning process.
Issue 2: Implementation Timing of PDR and Parking Supply Activities. The City Council has
been approving PDR and parking management activities on an ad hoc basis. The preparation of
each Financial Plan will involve City Councils establishing financial priorities for PDR and parking
supply projects. The current 1995 Parking Management Plan calls for these types of projects.
However, it does not address the balancing of effort between constructing parking structures and
reducing downtown employee parking demand, nor does it include methodologies for determining
the success or failure of individual or combined PDR activities.
Staff Recommendation: Include for consideration as a Council Goal as part of the 2003-05
Financial Plan to study policy options for balancing supply and demand reduction activities and
establishing performance standards for each. This further analysis would not attempt top4lish
specific time frames (tied to calendar years) but should evaluate the appropriate sege of
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Page 3
implementation, with levels of effort being set by the Financial Plan process. Depending on the
level of interest expressed by the Planning Commission at its July l0a' meeting, the Commission
may assist Council in reviewing and prioritizing the different strategies.
Issue 3: Location of Parking Structures and Priorities. The draft Parking and Downtown
Access Plan (PDAP) divided the community's central area into quadrants, forecast parking demand
within these quadrants, then established general parking garage locations (Palm H, Fremont
Quadrant, Palm-Nipomo and Wells Fargo as optional sites). Recent history has shown that
redevelopment of downtown properties (the Court Street Project and the County Administrative
Complex) has a major influence on parking structure location,size, and priority. Availability and
configuration of property, potential zoning changes (eg. the CC Zone expansion proposal) and
compliance with General Plan and Parking Management Plan policies are other factors that have a
major influence on site selection and project scale. Given the fluid nature of downtown changes,
staff believes that establishing fixed locations and priorities, and committing to garage construction
may have limited value.
Staff Recommendation: Exclude from further consideration. Staff believes that existing and
future City Councils will thoroughly evaluate opportunities and constraints when determining the
appropriate location for a parking garage or when setting implementation priorities.
Furthermore, decisions to select specific sites are subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). An environmental document and the public review process required by CEQA
will be required when specific sites are officially selected for garage development.
CONCURRENCES
On Friday, June 28, 2002, the Downtown Association Parking Committee reviewed the
administrative draft of the PMP. The Committee suggested that certain minor technical changes
be incorporated into the Plan. These changes are identified by item A.4 on the first page of this
Agenda Report. The DA Parking Committee passed the following motions:
1. The Downtown Association Board should concur with the revisions to the Parking
Management Plan, including the technical changes recommended by the Parking Committee.
2. The Downtown Association Board should ask the City Council to be informed of the
schedule for undertaking a more comprehensive revision of Parking Management Plan and
include the Downtown Association as part of that revision process.
FISCAL IMPACT
Amending the Parking Management Plan will have no fiscal impact to the City.
ALTERNATIVES. The City Council may:
1. Continue consideration of one or both of the action items and request additional information
from staff.
6-3
I
Council Agenda Report: 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Page 4
2. Consider incorporating other amendments into the Access and Parking Management Plan so
long as these supplementary amendments do not increase environmental concerns beyond those
addressed in the Initial Environmental Study.
3. Delay consideration of updating the Parking Management Plan until Planning Commission
recommendations on Tier 3 activities are received and acted on.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution Amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan
Exhibit A: Legislative Draft of the 2002 Access and Parking Management Plan
Attachment.2: Initial Environmental Study for Amending the 1995 Parking Management Plan
6-4
-- ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING AND RETITLING THE 1995 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION 8480 (1996 SERIES)
WHEREAS, the City adopted its first Parking Management Plan in 1987 and revised the plan
in 1990 and 1995; and
WHEREAS,the City recognizes its responsibility to effectively manage parking throughout the
community to help maintain the quality of life in residential areas and the economic and cultural
vitality of the commercial core; and
WHEREAS,the City further recognizes that reducing the employee demand for private vehicle
parking through implementation of trip reduction measures also contributes to the downtown's
economic-and cultural vitality and quality of environment; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the revised and retitled
Parking Management Plan, has determined that its implementation will not have a significant
adverse impact on the environment, and has prepared a Negative Declaration consistent with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental determination
made by the Community Development Director, and has determined that it is prudent to revise the
Parking Management Plan to maintain consistency with the Circulation Element and to refine
parking and access management policies and programs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as
follows:
1. Council finds no significant environmental impact. The findings of the environmental review
of the revised Parking Management Plan will not result in any significant environmental
impact and the Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the revised Plan.
2. The revised Parking Management Plan, retitled the "Access and Parking Management Plan
(July 2002), "attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted.
3. Copies of the Access and Parking Management Plan (July 2002) will be distributed to City
departments and made available to the public at the Public Works Department and City Clerk's
offices.
On motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 92002.
616
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 —Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
e,olyd
Agor y Jorgensen
6-5
EXHIBIT A
MY of San WIS OBISPO
ACCESS AND PARKING
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
Updated Decembet 1995
R TIN 700?
CITY
�� II
.f l
•-sir-n-_..-�� /- i--��f ''�
wt��� .� .,�♦ ��.� ���J� ®roti
OF SAN LUIS / : ' /
PUBLIC WORKS SECTION
61 Chorro Street, Suite C San Luis Obispo, California 93401
1
city of san luis ® IS ®
ACCESS & PARKING MANAGEMENT
PLAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Allen K. Settle,Mayor
Jan Howell Marx,Vice Mayor
John Ewan
Ken Schwartz
Christine Mulholland
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mike McCluskey, Director
Timothy Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
Keith Opalewski, Parking Manager
CITY ADNUNISTRATION
Ken Hampian,City Administrative Officer
Wendy George, Assistant City Administrative Officer
i
6-8
CITY TRANSPORTATION PLANS
The City of San Luis Obispo adopts and maintains plans that help direct the implementation of the
General Plan Circulation Element. These plans include:
Title of Document Status
Access Parking Management Plan (this document) i 1pdated 1nly, -O(l?
Bicycle Transportation Plan i l=dated May,2M
Short Range Transit Plan Adopted November, 1997
Pavement Management Plan Adopted February, 1988
For more information about City transportation plans, projects and programs, contact the San Luis
Obispo Public Works Department, Transportation Division at(805) 781-7210.
2
6-9
�o TABLE OF CONTENTS
Topic Page
Introduction............................................................................................................................................4
Relationship to Other Plans and Policies..............................................................................................4
Scopeof Plan.........................................................................................................................................5
ParkingManagement Goals ...................................................................................................................6
Definitions .........................................................................................:...................................................6
GeneralUse of Parking..........................................................................................................................7
EmployeeUse of Parking......................................................................................................................8
JurorUse of Parking..............................................................................................................................9
Expansionof Parking ..........................................................................•...............................................10
Enforcement.............................................:...........................................................................................10
Financing of Commercial Core Parking............................................:................................................11
ResidentialParking ••••.........................................................................................................................12
Program Administration and Promotion.............................................................................................12
APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking.......14
A 2 Approved Parking Management and Demand Rednction Programs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,15
A.23. Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts............................................:..............................16
A.34 City Council Resolution # (2.002 Series. revising this VInn........................ ..............17
3
6-10
o INTRODUCTION
Between 1977 and 1987, a number of studies were conducted to assess the vehicle parking situation
in downtown San Luis Obispo. As a result of this work, the City built two parking structures that
house 669 vehicles. The first parking structure located at the corner of Palm and Morro Streets was
completed in 1988. The second garage at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets was completed in
1990. An expansion of the Marsh Street garage that add-, 342 .spaces (net increase of 745 nacecl
will he completed in Sed temher 2002_ These three pmjectc resulted in a total of 1,007 garage
spaces In addition, the City manages over 1,600 spaces located in surface lots and along
downtown streets. Another result of these early parking studies was the City's adoption of its first
Parking Management Plan in 1987. The management plan was updated in 1990 and again in 1995
to reflect the completion of some of the major parking projects, and to better define management
policies.
In February 1993, a group of local architects and designers completed a Conceptual Physical Plan
for the City's Center (commonly known as the Downtown Concept Plan). The City Council has
adopted, in concept,the Plan and feels that it should be considered when making planning decisions
that affect the City's center- The Plan was revised in 1997 to reflect changes to the Court Street
Parking l.nt area The Concept Plan suggests that a number of new parking structures be built and
that the pedestrian character of the commercial core be improved.
In November 1994, the City adopted a new General Plan Circulation Element. The adopted
Circulation Element directs the City to conduct studies of downtown parking needs and to consider
ways of reducing traffic congestion by promoting the use of other types of transportation. The
Circulation Element also directs the reevaluation of the use of curb space in the commercial core
with the aim of creating more short-term parking spaces.
This plan has been revised to address a number of events and decisions that have occurred since
19965,including the following:
Q in 1997, a Downtown Parking and Access Plan was completed by Meyer-Mohaddee and
Associates_ While never adopted by the City Council, this draft plan estimated fimirear: king
demand, identified candidatean rking garage location-, as well as a variety of actions that the
City could take to hetter manage its currentap rking supply and reduce employee demand for
downtownar:king-
�'' Ac a way of incrementally implementing the draft Dnwntnwn Parking and Access Plan,the.
Council authorized the implementation of a variety of meacnrec to encourage employpec to nce
means other than their private vehicle-, to access the downtown in Inly 7001 a "C,nld Pacc"
program was initiated that provides subsidized montbly transit passes to downtown emI2Iny=y-
Parking stalls for car =only have also been reserved in existing arking_ctnirhirec Other
parking management activities have also been pursued_ Appendix A_2 identifies these.ap rn nved
activities_
Q On 05/01/2001 the City Council amended Section 6 1 of the Parking Management Plan to
4
6-11
provide clarity on the use.,of Parking Find revenues
Q The City Council approved a Memorandum of I Jndemtanding (M011) with private nrorrtv
developers that, among other things, calls for the constniction of.9 new parking stmcttire nn the
southeast corner of Palm and Morrn Streets that will house 243 vehicles This project is
designed to satisfyap rking demand created by the retirement of the Court S tap rking int and
the development of a retail commercial project on that site (theeelands Project")
Q The City Council authorized its staff to solicit proposals from consultants to prepare s h math
plans for aap rking-mixed use facility east of Santa Rosa Street Entitled the "North Area
Regional Facility(NARF),"this design work will investig tae opportunities for cnnstmcting new
parking garages to serve the downtown core and the expanded County Administrative
Complex
The San Luk Obispo Downtown Association participated
in the review of this the 1995 Parking Management Plan. This updated plan will be used as a
management tool to help direct how vehicle parking should be provided and used throughout San
Luis Obispo and how the demand for downtown ap rking will he managed.
RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND POLICIES
The City's General Plan Land Use Element establishes the pattern of land uses throughout San Luis
Obispo. The General Plan Circulation Element identifies how transportation services will be
provided to land uses envisioned by the Land Use Element. One of these transportation services is
vehicle parking. This plan provides specific direction for the management of vehicle parking in a
way that supports the Circulation Element's overall transportation strategy. This plan focuses on
the management of vehicle parking in the community's commercial core. Parking of bicycles is
addressed by the Bicycle Transportation Plan (20.02 1993) but is an issue that is relevant to the use
of City parking structures and surface lots.
SCOPE OF THIS PLAN
This plan establishes vehicle parking policies and programs that apply throughout San Luis Obispo.
However, its primary focus is the management of parking in the commercial core. This plan also
identifies, inpp ndi� x A ?. ap=ved management techniques for better using exighng parking
sees,and for reducing the employee demand forap rking spaces in the nmm r ial core
This plan may be revised from time to time to address parking needs in areas beyond and within the
commercial core. For more information about City parking programs, contact the Parking Section
of the Public Works Department at(805)781-7230.
%MEM PARKING MANAGEMENT GOALS
5
6-12
I i
Support the commercial core as a viable economic and cultural center and preserve its historic
character.
Support the goals of the Domitown eoncept Pim, Conceptual P yciral Plan firer thy'--y
Canter.
Provide enough parking in the commercial core for visitors and employees.
Reduce the demand for employee parking through various programs such as carpooling,
vanpools,transit suhsidieSand hicycle and pedestrian systems development_
Support the transportation strategy presented in the General Plan Circulation Element.
C3Except as officivyise stzftd aird vvidifi, badget constraints, Cant' out actions described in this
plan wiffrin five yezus of its adupdon by die eity eumicii within budget constrains and
consistent with Financial Plan goals and policies that are undated ey=two years-
15WEM DEFINITIONS
The following words and phrases used throughout this plan have the following meanings:
Commercial Core is the central business district in San Luis Obispo. Its boundaries are the same
as the Downtown Association Area (see Appendix
A.1).
Commercial Deliveries are made to businesses in the commercial core using trucks that are
commercially licensed.
Downtown Business frupiuvement 21aex (BW Downtown Association (DA) Advisory Board
is an 11-member group established pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 by the City Council
to promote the economic health of the commercial core. The DA (and its advisory committees)
participates in the development of City programs that affect the downtown and provide advise to
City staff and the City Council.
Long-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered, are located along streets, in monthly permit
lots or parking structures,and typically allow parking for 10 hours or more.
Parking Structures are multi-level buildings that are managed by the City and provide parking for
the general public, commercial core employees,and jurors at the Palm Street parking structure.
Short-Term Parking spaces may be free or metered and typically have a two-hour or less time
limit.
6
6-13
Oiibi GENERAL USE OF PARKING POLICIES
1.1 The City should maximize the use of all parking structures and surface lots.
1.2 The City should encourage any development of surface parking lots in the commercial core
to conform, to the degree possible, to the Bomitom, Physiml Pimi "Conce teal Physical
Plan for the City's Center."
1.3 Curb parking spaces are intended for short-term parking. People parking for longer periods
should use monthly permit lots and long-term metered spaces and parking structures.
1.4 The City may install parking meters or post parking time limits where at least 75% of a
block's frontage is developed with commercial uses. The City will consider requests by a
majority of residential and commercial property owners along a block to install parking
controls.
1.5 Thirty-minute parking spaces shall be placed at the ends of blocks in the commercial core
where short-term parking is needed. The City will consider requests by property owners to
locate 30-minute spaces at other locations.
1.6 Parking for commercial deliveries in the commercial core should be managed so that:
Illegal double parking or excessive circulation by delivery vehicles is discouraged.
Q Deliveries are discouraged during peak traffic periods and during retail business hours.
Merchants may consider lockbox systems that allow for unassisted nighttime access for
deliveries.
Oversized vehicles do not attempt deliveries.
ACTIONS
1.7 The City will:
C3 Publicize the availability of parking spaces in underused lots and will offer incentives to
increase their use.
`3 Take actions that better direct people to parking structures and underused parking lots
and long t .rm metered .nrhan rking aromas
7
6-14
`3 Continue to offer permits for 10-hour metered parking spaces.
Maintain long-term metered spaces on Pacific Street and along side streets near the
Marsh Street parking structure for overflow parking,but periodically evaluate their use.
1.8 The City will consider:
Allowing the mixture of daily and monthly parking in underused permit lots.
Managing employee use of the Marsh Street parking structure so that (A) more spaces
can be reserved for shoppers, and (B) more employees are encouraged to use the Palm
Street structure,which has more vacant spaces.
1.9 City staff will periodically evaluate and revise as appropriate:
c3 The placement of 15-and 30-minute parking meters.
The layout of existing parking lots or structures when they are resurfaced or restriped
with the aim of. (a) maximizing their use, (b) improving circulation, and (c) complying
with requirements to provide parking for the disabled.
The use of curb space in the downtown (including no parking and loading zones) to
identify opportunities for creating more short-term spaces.
Q The optimum mixture of long- and short-term metered spaces and the expansion of
metered curb areas.
1.10 If congestion levels in the commercial core exceed standards set by the Circulation
Element,the City will adopt an ordinance that limits times for commercial deliveries.
� EMPLOYEE USE OF PARKING
POLICIES
2.1 Employee parking programs will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Circulation Element.
2.2 The City and County should develop programs that reduce the number of their employees
that are driving alone to work.
2.3 Commercial core employers should establish programs that encourage employees to:
C3 Use Palm Street Parking Structure, monthly permit lots, and long-term metered spaces.
s
6-15
I
Use other types of transportation to get to work or to carpool. A listing of Council-
approved pro=ms is included aS Appendix A
ACTIONS
2.4 The City will establish a program in the commercial core that fosters carpooling by
employees and visitors.
2.5 The Downtown Association (DA) and Chamber
of Commerce should sponsor on-going education programs that discourage employees from
using curb parking and promote alternate transportation.
2.6 The City should discourage long-term employee use of curb parking in the commercial core
by:
Q Expanding areas with two-hour parking limits when needed to maintain convenient
customer parking opportunities.
c3 Monitoring the use of 15-and 30-minutes curb spaces;
Consider increasing the fines for overtime violations;
Q As requested, consider establishing resident parking districts in areas adjoining the
commercial core and office districts.
2.7 The City will institute a trip reduction program for its employees in compliance with goals
established by the Circulation Element.
2.8 The City should develop a bulk discount rate for its transit passes without negatively
affecting transit funding. Employers should purchase passes and make them available to
employees who substitute riding the bus for driving to work.
2.9 The City will install bicycle lockers at convenient locations in the commercial core and will
promote their use by commercial core employees on a space-available basis..
2.10 The City will work with to consider park-and-ride lots that serve the commute needs of
commercial core employees. The City will evaluate outlying parking lots for their use by
commercial core employees with a shuttle connecting these lots with the core.
JUROR USE OF PARKING
9
6-16
POLICIES
3.1 The City will provide free parking for jurors in the Palm Street parking structure or in
metered spaces when the Palm Street parking structure is full or when a juror drives an
oversized vehicle as per the agreement with the County for limited use.
ACTIONS
3.2 City staff will work with the Jury Commissioner to inform prospective jurors of the City's
parking policies. Staff will monitor the amount of jury parking and inform the Jury
Commissioner if overflow parking becomes a problem.
%Mwoqw EXPANSION OF PARKING
POLICIES
4.1 Parking should be provided in the commercial core for shoppers, tourists, employees and
patrons of government and private offices.
4.2 Building parking structures is the best way of providing more parking facilities while
minimizing the use of valuable commercial land. City-owned land earmarked for parking
structures may be used as temporary surface parking lots..
4.3 Existing City-owned surface parking lots purchased by the Parking Fund which are not
earmarked for parking structure locations may be sold to finance expansion of parking in
permanent structures when and after new parking structures have been built to take their
place.
4.4 Parking structures and surface lots should be located along the periphery of the commercial
core as a means of eliminating traffic congestion and enhancing pedestrian activities.
ACTIONS
4.5 Develop a program to encourage use of underutilized parking lots, which would benefit the
commercial core.
ViiiR ENFORCEMENT
POLICIES
5.1 Parking laws will be strictly enforced to:
G Discourage overtime parking;
io
6-17
C3 Discourage habitual parking violations--people with six or more violations;
' Encourage meter payments; and
C3 Direct people parking for long periods to use long-term parking spaces.
ACTIONS
5.2 City enforcement officers will strictly enforce all parking laws, especially overtime
violations and the misuse of loading zones.
5.3 The City in cooperation with the Downtown Association will develop a plan to discourage
habitual violators.
4� FINANCING OF COMMERCIAL CORE PARKING
POLICIES
6.1 The City's Parking Program will be self-supporting. The principal purpose of Parking
Fund revenues will be used to:
a) Maintain and expand parking operations and supply, including effective parking
demand reduction programs, and
b) Repay bonds that financed the construction of the parking structures.
Pilot or "test case"parking demand reduction activities may also be funded, provided that
they are well defined and monitored for a defined period of time, and a measurement of
effectiveness is predetermined.
6.2 Commercial core merchants, business owners, and property owners should help finance the
parking program.
ACTIONS
6.3 The City will deposit all revenues from parking fines into the Parking Fund.
6.4 The City will:
Review parking meter and citation rates every two years and make adjustments as
needed
Continue to charge variable rates for different types of parking.
limits. (Note:_this.action.was.implemented.iri
6-1V
20,01.)
'7 Continue to collect in-lieu fees from development projects in the commercial core.
for changc'.;(Note:athis_action was implemented ui.2001.)
Consider new fee programs applicable to commercial core merchants, business owners,
and property owners.
6.5 The City, upon Council direction, will evaluate the elimination of parking meters in the
commercial core and the creation of a comprehensive financing plan to finance the Parking
Program.
lummum RESIDENTIAL PARKING POLICIES
7.1 Parking along streets in residential areas should be used by residents and their guests.
However, no individual household has the exclusive right to use a particular section of curb
parking and curb parking is not guaranteed in front of each household.
7.2 The City may prohibit or limit curb parking in residential areas to ensure safe traffic flow,
pedestrian crossing conditions or to install motor vehicle or bicycle lanes consistent with the
Circulation Element or the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
7.3 The City will create residential parking districts when needed to manage parking and
maintain the quality of life in residential areas.
7.4 All residential parking districts must comply with provisions of Section 10.36.170 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
ACTIONS
7.5 Upon receiving a petition from the a 60%, majority of affected residents living within a
proposed parking district, the City Council may create a district consistent with provisions
of the municipal code. (For the location of existing Residential Parking Districts, see
Appendix A.23)
'� PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND PROMOTION
POLICIES
8.1 The City's Parking Manager is responsible for interpreting and implementing the provisions
of this plan.
8.2 As the need arises, the City will evaluate the potential for hiring a private company to
12
6-19
_J
manage its parking structures.
8.3 The Parking Manager will continue to work with the
(BWj Downtown Association (DA)Chamber of Commerce, and County government to
cooperatively implement this plan.
8.4 The Parking Manager will undertake a wide range of actions to make the public aware of
the provisions of this plan.
8.5 Applications for amending the Parking Management Plan shall be filed with the City's
Parking Manager. Applications will receive an extensive review process and will be acted
on no more frequently than annually by the City Council.
APPENDIX
A.1 Map of Downtown Parking and Business Improvement Area Showing Existing Parking
A2 Approved Parking Management and demand Reduction Pmgramz.
A.-23 Map of Existing Residential Parking Districts
A.34 City Council Resolution# (+995 2002 Series)revising this plan
13
6-20
e =g o:se
- -- - -
Y 2
S R m R . m � •p9GJ
� F O Rwul•w A
� a
a mJILJ El __ a U
F GG
slRs
o
mm n.
�I�IIY�ttt�W�WWyy�Y a� [ED
IUAO R.
G
7 142 � m
oaam n.
Z N Spi
�r]�E hf •men. _ •
O ��a3��g� i G G LY e-r.Rl...%LL.. '.:+. _ FR ........•I� .mon.
m - mmm R.
Cao OD6 -000t 00tt 110zt OOfI sort
O� � m � •� rml � r a _ mh
0 �N • 0 I v R � m
N c O I >t 2
H O
M
g _
EEID —_
a
O
U GN J $G F L O O
W� o v a LFA a I N
fq �zoaaa-�� � .
C e z
{{�1
wSmfY Nb Nm J .00n N D
s- 0m N
W O b V C W 4• Q
asps s p
Q "'mUo2 Z3 1 p ❑ �®
6 1
APPENDIX A.2
Approved Parking Management and
Demand Reduction Programs
# Description Status
Parkin Demand Reduction Programs
1 Increase the maximum charge for garage parking Approved/Completed
2 Transit Dass subsidies for downtown em to ees A roved/Com feted
3 Reduce monthly parkingass costs for high-occupancy vehicles A roved/Com leted
4 Improve bic cle access to the downtown A roved/On oin
5 Establish an advertising program for downtown parking demand Approved/Ongoing
reduction PDR programs
6 j Encourage the county to establish a trip reduction program similar to the Approved/Ongoing
Ci 's Prozram
Pa Idne Management Pro ms
1 Reduce free parking in garages from 90 minutes to 60 minutes Approved/Completed
2 Increase the in-lieu parking fee charged to new development to better Approved/Completed
reflect the cost of downtown parking
3 Increase 2-hour parking in the commercial core and limit long-term Approved/Completed
parking
Respond to citizen proposals to establish residential parking districts in Approved/Ongoing
neighborhoods adioining the downtown.
4 Increase long-term parking at the periphe1y of the downtown I Approved/Ongoing
5 Work with the Downtown Association to establish a program for Approved/Ongoing
discoaLaZing habitual violators
15 6_''2
1
i
1
1
I:s ,
Orr• ��� -'e.•,.1 _ � :,'
ice.'! :r,f . •
i
wool
-.. •�. ''� Y.A A.
1 i
ATTACHMENT 2
INITIAL, STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER
1. Project Title: Access and Parking Management Plan(July 2002)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tent' Sanville (805-781-7178)
4. Project Location: City-wide
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: San Luis Obispo Public Works Department
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Not Applicable
7. Zoning: Not Applicable
8. Description of the Project: Amend the 1995 Parking Management Plan to reflect program decisions
made by the City Council during 2001 & 2002. Modifications to the plan includes a listing of
approved Parking Demand Reduction (PDR) and Parking Management measures included in
Appendix A.2 of the plan.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Not Applicable
10. Project Entitlements Requested: Not Applicable
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
6-24
-4° community development ocpmtment
mcmomnaum
April 11, 2002
TO: Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner
FROM: Michael Draw
Deputy Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: ER 88-02
1995 Parking Management Plan Update
On June 5, 2002, 1 reviewed your project's potential effect on the
environment. I found that the project, as applied for, will not have a
significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact will be prepared.
A Notice of our "Intention to Adopt" the Negative Declaration will be prepared
and a public hearing on the environmental document and the project will be
scheduled before a decision making body. The decision making body may
modify or reverse my decision to prepare a Negative Declaration based on
their review of the project and public comment received at the public hearing.
If you have any questions, please contact my office at 781-7171 as soon as
possible.
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249
(805) 781-7171 FAX:(805) 781-7173 6-25
ATTACHMENT 2
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 Geology/Soils Public Services
Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation_
Materials
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more.
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
6-26
ATTACHMENT 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, --X--
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, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
July 1,2002
Signature Date
For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Dv.
6-27
- ATTACHMENT 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as
project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document.should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
1.AESTHETICS. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damagescenic resources, including,,but not X
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings;open space,and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
c Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X
the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X
adversel effect da_of.ni- httime views in the�area? . _`__
-- T
Comment: Since no specific physical facilities are identified in the amended Parking Management Plan, it is premature to
evaluate the aesthetic impact of potential parking facilities. Impacts will depend on the particular sites selected,the height of
the structures and the particular architectural style selected.
6-28
P% i I r►%..nlnr.114 1 c
Issues, Discussion and Suppor nformation Sources Sources Pc 'ly Potentially Less Than No
-- Sigi....aant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment;which,due X
to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use? .I - t
Comment: Policies and programmed contained within the Parking Management Plan affect fully urbanized areas in the
community's downtown commercial core or other parts of the build environment. Provisions of this plan do not involve
agricultural lands or the conversion of land from agriculture to urban use.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X
quality plan?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X
concentrations?
d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X
people?
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Comment: the changes being made to the Parking Management Plan are the inclusion of TDM measures. These measures are
designed to reduce demand for parking by fostering the use of other non-polluting forms of transportation or improving the
efficiency of motorized transportation (i.e. carpools, vanpools, or enhanced transit use). Therefore the PMP amendments
should have a positive impact on air quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) .Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X
through habitat modifications,on any species identified as.a
candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or, X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department
of Fi'sh and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance(e:g.Heritage Trees)?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native .
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
_T
e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other,approv_ed
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA6FJ9'ST 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Suppor. hformation Sources Sources Ptly Potentially Less Than No
Sigmucant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X
wetlandsas defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marshes,vemal pools,etc
through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means?
Comment: Policies and programmed contained within the Parking Management Plan affect fully urbanized areas in the
community's downtown commercial core or other parts of the build environment. Provisions of this plan do not involve
important biological resources,wetlands,or riparian areas.
5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X
or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X
formal cemeteries?
Comment: Since no specific physical facilities are identified in the amended Parking Management Plan, it is premature and
too speculative to evaluate the impact of potential parking facilities on cultural facilities. Impacts will depend on the
particular sites selected and its potential for containing significant archaeological or historic architectural resources. These
types of evaluation should be done at the time that alternative sites are being selected.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X
that would be of value.to the region and the residents of the
State?
Comment: Proposed revisions to the PMP encourage the use of non-vehicular transportation which should have a positive
impact on the use of non-renewable energy sources.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X
effects, including risk of loss,injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area,or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?
11. Strong seismic ground shaking? X
IIl. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X
IV. Landslides ormudflows? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable;or that X
would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially
result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance,
liquefaction,or collapse? .
d) Be located on expansive soil,as,defried in Table 18=1-B of the X
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating_ substantial risks to life
or property?
�� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTA614"I ST 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Comment: geological impacts will depend on the location of parking facilities and their design. Since the PMP does not
specify articular locations, it is premature and too speculative to evaluate this issue.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
though the routine uue,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X
hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X
emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
f) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of apublic airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for the people residing or working in the project area?'
g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose,injury, X
or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
Comments: At the time that any facility is proposed for construction in compliance with PMP policies, the presence of any
hazardous materials and their mitigation will be evaluated as part of that project's environmental documents. The presence of
hazardous materials is too variable throughout the community and it is too speculative to address potential impacts at this
program level.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X
capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result insubstantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
CRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL31
CHECKLIST 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X
a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
h Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
Comments: construction of all parking facilities will address both State and Federal standards for storm water runoff. Other
site-specific concerns must be addressed at the time that specific parking facility sites are proposed for development.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject:
a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
community conservationplans?
Comment: including provisions for TDM programs is consistent with the Circulation Element policies that call for reduced
dependence on the use of private motor vehicles.
11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X
levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards
established in the Noise Ordinance?
b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Comment: noise impacts will be evaluated at the time that specific parking facility sites are considered for selection or when
articular facilities are proposed for construction.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people X
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Comment: most parking facilities are located in commercial districts and do not displace housing. The policies of the PMP
suggest that parking is a "support use" to land uses envisioned by the adopted General Plan. Therefore, so long as the
provision of parking is linked to planned growth in the downtown, it is not growth inducing.
6-32
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
1.
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Lnpac[
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure?. X
Other public facilities? X
Comment: construction of additional parking facilities will require an increased maintenance effort on the part of the City.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X
expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Comment: inclusion of TDM measures targeted at downtown employees can free up parking spaces for people accessing the
downtown for urban recreation purposes.
15. TRANSPORTATIONlfRAFFIC. Would theproject:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads and highways?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.
farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
a) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,.
noise,or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
Comment: inclusion of specific TDM measures within the PMP acts to incrementally reduce impacts on transportation
facilities. To the extent that TDM programsare successful,they can reduce private vehicle travel demand.
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X
treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Have sufficient water suppliesavailable to serve the project X
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X
.__which_serves or may_serve the,project that it has_adequate.__.._._
6-33
psi CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER# Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to
the provider's existing commitment?
e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X
related to solid waste?
Comment: parking facilities or TDM measures have no or very low impact on waste management and aze not high generators
of waste water.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Comment: inclusion of TDM measures and their funding mechanism within the PMP will tend to reduce impacts associated
with sole reliance on private motor vehicles for access to the communi 's commercial core.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
Comment: any im acts of the proposed revisions to the plan are positive.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
Comment: to the extent that TDM measures are successful, impacts to human beings (improved air quality, less noise, less
traffic congestion)should be positive.
6-34
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2001
C
ATTACHMENT 2
18.EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EK 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 anal s used: Identify earlier anal ses and state,where_the _are available for review.
bj 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 earlieranal sis.
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-
s ecific conditions of the project.
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Attachments:
REQUHZED MITIGATION AND MONITORING.PROGRAMS
1. Mitigation
• Monitoring Program:
2. Mitigation
• Monitoring Program:
3. Mitigation
• Monitoring Program:
6-35
RED-FILE
10 July 2002 MEETING AGENDA
To: Mike McCluskey, Public Works Orem #�
From: Deborah Holley,Downtown Association
Re: Parking Management Plan Update
At the Downtown Association Board of Directors meeting of 9 July, 2002, the Board
approved the recommendation of the Parking and Access committee which was as
follows:
To approve parking and management plan updates as presented to Parking& Access
committee with recommended changes.
fsOUiv ❑ CDD DIR
0 G FIN DIR
AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
ORNEY C PW DIR
CLERK'ORIG C POLICE CHF
PI HEADS C REC DIR
C LITIL DIR
❑ HR DIR
RECEIVED
JUL .1 1 "n"
SLO CITY CL;