HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/19/2002, BUS 3 - BOB JONES CITY-TO-SEA BIKE TRAIL PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT PLAN i
councit ° Nov
November 19,2002
j acenda nepoizt 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Terry Sanville,Principal Transportation Planner
SUBJECT: BOB JONES CITY-TO-SEA BIKE TRAIL PRELI ARY
ALIGNMENT PLAN
CAO RECOMMENDATION
The City Council shoal&
1. Evaluate policy options for locating a bike path along Prefumo Creek west of Highway 101
and provide direction on the desired alignment; either partially within or fully outside the
35-foot creek setback; and
2. Support the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Architectural Review
Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Bicycle Advisory Committee, and
adopt a resolution approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Bob Jones City-to-
Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
At its Decemberl1, 2001 meeting, the City Council reviewed a proposal to adopt a preliminary
alignment plan for the Bob Jones Bike Trail. The Council referred the item to the. Planning
Commission with direction to evaluate the plan's relationship to and.effects on important natural
resources along San Luis Obispo and Prefumo Creeks.
At its September 25, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary alignment
plan and its environmental documents and unanimously recommended that the Council approve
them. However, the Commission recommends that the bike path be completely excluded from
creek setback along Prefumo Creek. Additional description of the Planning Commission's
discussion and recommendations is provided in a later part of this report.
DISCUSSION
A.Background
1. Project Description: The proposed Preliminary Alignment Plan establishes a route and
development standards for a Class I Bikeway generally parallel to San Luis Obispo Creek
between Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley Road (2.25 miles long) and parallel to Prefumo
Creek (in part) between Madonna Road and Calle Joaquin (1.11 miles long). These bike paths
would include paved surfaces between 2.4 meters (8 feet) and 3.5 meters (12 feet) wide. Other
project features include split rail fencing between the path and creek areas, native plant
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Page2_.
landscaping to reinforce the existing riparian corridor, and signage. The Plan also identifies
possible interpretive sites and rest areas.
2. Implementing The Bike Plan: In 1993 the City adopted the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
This plan (updated in May 2002) identifies an extensive network of off-street bike paths (called
Class I Bikeways) and on-street bike lanes (called Class II Bikeways) that extend throughout the
community and provide connections between neighborhoods and major destinations. By 1995
the City had installed about 4.5 miles of new Class II Bikeways along major streets and
highways and had begun the long-range process of developing off-street bike paths. The first
successful Class I bike path extends along the east side of the Union Pacific Railroad between
Orcutt Road and Jennifer Street and is connected to the downtown by the.Jennifer Street Bridge.
In 2000, the City hired the RRM Design Group to prepare a Preliminary Alignment Plan for the
Railroad Safety Trail and the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail. In December 2001, the City
Council adopted the Preliminary Alignment Plan for the Railroad Safety Trail. At that same
meeting, the Council reviewed a Preliminary Alignment Plan for the Bob Jones Trail. The
Council believed that the issues associated with the location and design of the trail adjoining the
creek corridors were not sufficiently discussed in a public forum and referred the Preliminary
Alignment Plan to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. A synopsis of the
Planning Commissions deliberation is presented later in this report.
B.Evaluation
1. The Purpose of Class I Bikeways is to provide bicycling corridors that are relatively free
from traffic conflicts. The intended users of the path are novice bicyclists, children, families,
and recreational and commute riders who seek a safe way of moving throughout the community.
While the primary purpose of bike paths in rural areas is for recreation (an example is segments
of the Bob Jones Trail under County jurisdiction), trails in urban areas such as San Luis Obispo
often have a duel function of accommodating both recreational and transportation-oriented trips.
2. Support for Class I Bikeways can be found in the response to transportation surveys
distributed to San Luis Obispo households every two years. These surveys ask city residents to
identify things that the City can do that would encourage them to bicycle more often.
(Increasing the number of bicycle trips is an objective of the City's General Plan Circulation
Element.) The survey response from both bike riders and non-riders alike is that provision of
bike paths separate from streets is an attractive inducement to bicycling (see Attachment 2 for
details), with non-bike riders showing more interest in their development than experienced
riders.
Staff believes that Class I Bikeways can also act as "training grounds" for non-riders — people
Who are concerned about riding safety for themselves and their families and will not utilize on-
street bike lanes until they become more experienced cyclists.
3-a
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Page3
17
3. The Purpose of the Bob Jones Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan is to establish the "most
promising" alignment for a Class I Bikeway that links with the path system planned as part of the
Mid-Higuera Enhancement Plan Area. The Route Plan will be used as a planning tool to:
(a) Provide direction to the City in planning the alignment of the path through City-controlled
property south of Prado Road.
(b) Provide guidance to the City 'in its planning and consideration of flood management
facilities along San Luis Obispo or Prefumo Creeks. It is the intent of the trail alignment
plan that Class I bikeways be integrated with the design of any flood.management facilities,
such as parallel channels, to achieve flood management, environmental protection, and
bicycling objectives.
(c) Provide guidance to property owners who may further develop or redevelop their properties or
where long-term land use changes are anticipated. Examples include the Caltrans office and
yard operations along South Higuera Street, portions of the Elks Club Property, the Drive-in
Theater property, and vacant parcels at 40 Prado Road.
(d) Provide guidance to the sponsors of development on the Dalidio Property to integrate a bike
path system into their project that provides an attractive and convenient connection to the
Bob Jones Trail from west of the freeway..
4. Locating Bike Paths Adjoining Creek Corridors reflects the development and subdivision
history of San Luis Obispo and how it influences the alignment of new facilities. The following
factors helped guide the planning for the Bob Jones Trail, and for locating bikeways adjoining
creeks elsewhere in San Luis Obispo's urban reserve:
Create a Conflict Free Environment: bike paths are successful when they are infrequently
crossed by public streets and are not crossed by private driveways or roads. Every vehicle
crossing point (or uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point) creates a conflict location and reduces
the utility of the path for riders that are concerned with bicycling safety. Therefore, alignments
that are free of crossings are preferred — and those adjoining creek corridors work well because
these corridors offer an attractive natural edge condition were crossings are minimized.
Successful Integration with Development: with few exceptions, land adjoining creek corridors
inside the City's urban reserve is zoned for urban development. Dividing private properties with
a bicycle corridor can limit opportunities for on-site circulation, create multiple conflict points if
on-site circulation is allowed to cross the corridor, and limit efficient site planning for urban
uses. For these reasons, peripheral bike path locations are preferred to internal alignments, with
connecting links provided to adjoining uses where appropriate. However, not all peripheral
locations are appropriate: locating a Class I Bikeway adjoining a public street where the path is
crossed by multiple driveways is also an undesirable solution.
The Ouality of the Riding Experience: bike paths can be an inducement to bicycling—especially
for non-riders. On-street bike lanes, while suitable for more experienced bicyclists, are typically
3. 3
i
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Page4
not wide enough nor free of intersecting conflict points to attract novice riders or parents of
novices. Also, on-street bikeways in urban areas have limited recreational value. Bikeways that
adjoin a green corridor, but sufficiently set back and buffered from that corridor, can provide a
more enjoyable environment and provide a greater bicycling inducement.
There Are Few.Other Viable Options in the north south direction for providing an attractive
Class I bikeway that connects to the planned rural county sections of the Bob Jones Trail.
Widening streets to provide exceptionally wide bike lanes is cost prohibitive, impacts adjoining
land uses including housing areas, and would not provide a corridor free of conflict from
encroaching motor vehicles or the industrial operations of the City's wastewater treatment plant.
(Note: the project report—Attachment 5—documents alternative alignments that the consultants
have evaluated. Staff and consultants are available to respond to questions about any alternative
alignment the Council may be interested in.)
5. Developing the Route Plan.
General Approach. RRM's planning team included landscape architects, planners, and wildlife
biologists. From the very beginning, City staff required that the planning effort support the City's
overall objective of protecting important habitat resources along creek corridors. From within the
City's organization, transportation planning and natural resources staff provided guidance to the
consultants.
The general principal followed by the planning team was to keep that path out of the creek setback,
wherever possible. Attachment 3 presents this principal in cross sectional drawing form. No path
segment is being planned within the creek channel (except bridges), nor would streamside
vegetation be removed to accommodate the path. However, because of past development(much of
which occurred decades ago), there are nine locations where existing buildings or infrastructure
features necessitate encroachment into the creek setback. Avoiding these encroachments would not
allow a continuous path to be developed and would negate the project.
Relationship to Flood Management Planning. All of the consultant and staff team's work was
coordinated with the City's flood control studies performed by Questa Engineering for San Luis
Obispo Creek—studies that could result in parallel flood control channels or other flood mitigation
features being installed at select locations. If flood control channels are approved for construction,
the bikeway would be integrated with their designs to achieve flood management, environmental
protection, and bicycling objectives. For example, the bikeway would likely utilize the same
alignments as service roads adjoining the outside edge of flood control channels.
Addressing the Tight Spots. City staff and consultants reviewed many of these "tight spots" (the
nine setback encroachment areas) in the field with the Council at their October 25th field trip. We
are prepared to identify mitigation strategies that have been incorporated into the design of the
project to compensate for any encroachment and consider additional mitigation. However, it should
be noted, that many of the nine encroachment areas involve disturbed urban land and taken as a
whole, the City's bike path project will provide opportunities for significant enhancement to the
riparian corridor in the form of planting native species. The summary section of the project report
(Attachment 5) identifies each encroachment area, alternatives alignments considered, and
3- 4
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike.Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Page5 ,
mitigation.
Refining the Route's Location. After receiving direction from the City Council in December
2001, the City's planning team was expanded to include engineering, utility, and planning staff.
The team took a closer look at ways to reduce creek setback encroachments and substantial
refinements were made.
The most significant improvements to .the project's performance involve the City's wastewater
treatment plant property south of Prado Road. In this area, the path's alignment was pulled
father away from the creek (partially inside the fence line for the wastewater treatment plant) to
occupy largely disturbed ground. At the south end of the project, the path diverts away from the
creek to cross the field area, parallel U.S. Highway 101, and make a more direct link with the
proposed bridge crossing of Prefumo Creek. This rerouting allows for the creation of an
expanded wetland enhancement area (about 2.28 acres) just north of the settlement ponds and
provides an alternative routing for service vehicles to the south end of the plant property. For
details see Segment 3, Sheets 5 and 6 in the project description document. Attachment 5
Planning Commission Recommendations: At the Planning Commission's September 25, 2002
meeting, the proposed change to the paths alignment on the southern portion of the wastewater
treatment plant property was discussed. The proposed "modified" alignment would cross the
open field area and parallel Route 101 along the property's western boundary: This diversion
from the existing paved service road adjoining the creek would enable an expanded wetland area
to be developed north of the existing settlement ponds and avoid bisecting this new area with a
public path. The negative aspects of this modified alignment is that it places bicyclists closer to
Route 101, in a noisy and windy environment that is less desirable to ride in than a creek-side
setting. Also, there may be some additional cost in developing this alignment since the existing
service road adjoining the floodway channel would not be used as the bike path and a new
segment would need to be constructed.
The Planning Commission heard public testimony concerning this issue and took a "straw vote"
on the preferred alignment — with the modified alignment proposed by staff gaining majority
support.
For the other locations where the bike path would encroach into the creek setback, the Planning
Commission supported these encroachments and recommends that the revised path alignment
presented by staff be adopted by the City Council.
Prefumo Creek Trail: Creek.Protection v. Agricultural Land Preservation. The central segment
of the Prefu no Creek bike trail would parallel the creek. The required setback along this creek is
35 feet. The Route Plan shows the bike path occupying the outer 10 feet of the setback area,
leaving 25 feet from the border fencing to the edge of the riparian canopy (see illustration
below), In discussions with the City's natural resources staff, the 25 feet distance was felt to be
sufficient separation to avoid "flushing" of birds that might occupy the riparian canopy in this
area.
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Page6
It is possible to set the bike path totally outside the 35-foot creek setback along this creek
segment. However, the adjoining land is used for productive agriculture and City policies
promote the conservation of agricultural lands. Therefore, the Route Plan tries to minimize the
impact to agricultural resources while providing sufficient separation from sensitive riparian
habitat.
-Iaten 'a o" 1.
Planting viit^ I
C,7 uet k>I Edce of
ba
Nat've Plants I Riparian
F-1 'aYdth o; a Cor'opy
:reek Buffer I � I
Trail -enci^.g 1 �t
to Protect 1
Creek iiabiat f '� 1 1
Dixe
Trail I r I
3.67 m
(12 St) 7.82 m
87cer.0y 1 (25 ft)
Nn-w. 'his is -he Ua+inurn Allowable
0.6 rn 0.6 n rral Encrpochmcnt into Drcck SctSack.
(2 ft) (2 rt) Bird Flushing Area Other Portions of Alignmeit may �e -egg
Sho!ders Shoulder
Illustration of Pref imo Path Location in Relations to Creek Setback
Planning Commission Recommendations: The Commission determined that achieving
environmental protection and enhancement objectives for this creek segment were of paramount
importance. The Commission recommended that the bike path be located outside the 35 foot
creek setback area, on adjoining agricultural land. This recommendation would result in the
loss of a strip of agricultural land approximately 16 feet wide and approximately 2,200' long,
totaling 0.8 acre(s). Since the existing agricultural service road would also have to be
relocated, additional loss of cultivated land would occur.
The City Council should consider these options and provide policy direction (CAO
Recommendation 1) to either retain the proposed alignment or revise the alignment in support of
the Planning Commission's recommendation.
Specificity of the Proposed—Aligrurient. When the Planning Commission reviewed the
preliminary alignment plan, Commissioner Boswell was concerned about the specificity of the
"most promising alignment," how it might be interpreted, and how the alignment may need to be
modified in the future in response to changing conditions. Staff indicated that the "most
promising alignment" represented the City's initial policy for locating the path and establishing
the principal of locating it outside of creek setbacks wherever possible. However, refinements to
3-(O
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Pagel
the path's precise alignment are likely as affected properties further develop or redevelop. (Also,
as previously acknowledged, installation of flood control channels parallel to the creek would
also affect the precise alignment of the bike path.)
Planning Commission Recommendation: In response to this concern the Planning Commission
included the following language in the plan:
The City may consider alternative path alignments as changes in land use and
environmental conditions occur over time.
Staff supports the inclusion of this language in the preliminary alignment plan.
6. Environmental Considerations
The intent of this planning effort was to incorporate measures into the Route Plan's design that
would avoid significant impacts. The Project's Initial Environmental Study (Attachment 4)
documents these mitigating features. They are also summarized in the summary chapter of the
attached project report(Attachment 5).
Unlike segments of the Bob Jones Trail near Avila Beach, the proposed alignment does not
extend into the riparian canopy of the creek, except at the edge of the mortuary property, where it
unavoidably shares the alignment of an existing service road for a short segment (Segment 1,
Sheet 1, Area 3).
Fencing and additional vegetation would be installed between the path's edge and the creek
setback area to discourage human encroachment and to provide expanded habitat and buffering
for wildlife. In general there would be about 3.63 acres of riparian enhancement provided along
the San Luis Obispo Creek segments of the path. All bridges would be clear span and it may be
possible to cantilever from the existing bridge structures on Elks Lane and from any new bridge
structure on Prado Road to minimize changes to creek banks.
Staff and consultants will be prepared to review the initial study and discuss mitigation strategies
as appropriate.
CONCURRENCES
The preliminary alignment plan and its environmental documents have been reviewed and approved
by the Parks and Recreation Commission (November 2000, consideration of plan only),the Bicycle
Advisory Committee (April 2001), the Architectural Review Commission(November 5, 2001) and
the Planning Commission (September 2002). The Planning Commission recommends the
following two revisions to the Plan:
1. Exclude the bike path from the 35-foot creek setback area along Prefinno Creek west of Route
101 and develop it on adjoining agricultural lands (Council to address in response to CAO
Recommendation#1).
3-rl
Council Agenda Report: Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary Alignment Plan
Page8
2. Acknowledge that the City may consider alternative path alignments for the path as changes in
land use and environmental conditions occur over time.
FISCAL IWACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City for adopting the preliminary alignment plan.
The City cost of installing the trail system will depend on the participation of property. owners as
affected parcels are developed or redeveloped, on the availability of funds from grant sources, and
the potential for integrating the cost with flood management facilities. There is no specific time
frame to implement this project. City-sponsored capital projects will be proposed as part of the
City's Financial Planning process and impacts will be known at that time.
ALTERNATIVES
The City council may consider the following action alternatives:
1. Modify the path's alignment or suggest other modifications to design standards or mitigation
measures.
2. Abandon all or part (Council to specify) of the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail project and
initiate necessary amendments to the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
3. Continue consideration of this item to a date specific and identify additional information
necessary in order to make an informed decision.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Resolution approving the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Preliminary
Alignment Plan.
Attachment 2: Excerpt from 2001 Transportation Survey
Attachment 3: Typical Location of Bike Path Outside of Creek Setback
Attachment 4: Initial Environmental Study
Attachment 5: Project Report
Attachment 6: Planning Commission Meeting Excerpt(September 19, 2002)
3-9
oATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIPSO
ADOPTING A PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT PLAN FOR THE BOB JONES CITY-TO-SEA
BIKE TRAIL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo desires to create a comprehensive network of
multi-use paths, consistent with its adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan (May 2002) and General
Plan Circulation Element(November 1994); and
WHEREAS, the Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies Class I bike paths being
developed adjoining segments of San Luis Obispo Creek south of the downtown, and along
segments of Prefumo Creek west of Route 101; and
WHEREAS, in October 1999 the City Council authorized staff to distribute Request for
Proposals (RFPs) to solicit the services of qualified consultants to prepare a preliminary
alignment plan for segments of the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Trail; and
WHEREAS, in response to the City's RFPs and after a competitive selection process, the
City hired the RRM Design Group to prepare the desired route plan; and
WHEREAS, in 2000 RRM Design Group published the draft preliminary alignment plan
for this bike trail and the plan was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City's Parks
and Recreation Commission, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Architectural Review
Commission(ARC); and
WHEREAS, at its November 5, 2001 meeting, the ARC found that Initial Environmental
Studies and Mitigated Negative Declarations published by the Director Of Community
Development for this project has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines.
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the preliminary alignment plan and its
Mitigated Negative Declaration on December 11, 2001, and directed staff to forward the plan to
the Planning Commission for its review and recommendations, with special emphasis on the
project's compatibility with natural resources; and
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed a revised
preliminary alignmentplan that significantly reduced creek setback encroachments and
recommended that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Preliminary
Route Plan, with revisions.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
3-'C1
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. (2002 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1: the Preliminary Alignment Plan and project description for the Bob Jones
City=to-Sea Bike Trail, as presented in Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference,
is hereby adopted, as amended to:
1. Show the bike path'salignment located fully outside the creek setback along Prefumo
Creek; and
2. Include language in the plan that states: "The City may consider alternative path
alignments as changes in land use and environmental conditions occur over time."
SECTION 2: The project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER 98-01) adequately
addresses potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, includes
mitigation measures that will avoid or reduce to insignificant levels impacts associated with the
project; and is hereby adopted.
Upon Motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 11th day of December 2001.
.Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED TO FORM:
/1�&G. op q City Attorney
3-- ID
1
ATTACHMENT 2
TRANSPORTATION SURVEY RESPONSE EXERPT
11. Would you ride a bike more often if one or more of the following was available?
Induce- 2001 Response 1999 Response 1997 Response
ments
Non-Bike Bike Non-Bike Bike Non-Bike Bike
Riders Riders Riders Riders Riders Riders
Separated 23.3% 20.8% 23.9% 17.6% 20.1% 17.1%a
Bike
Paths
More Bike 14.2% 20.0% 15.3% 20.5% 12._2% 17.8%
Lanes
Smoother 15.7% 13.6% 13.7% 14.6% 10.5% 12.0%
Roads
Safe 9.2% 11.8% 11.3% 14.6% 10.9% 15.4%
Parkin
Showers 3.7% 5.3% 4.1% 5.2% 37% 3:6%0
Fewer 12.1% 11.9% 12.3% 10.4% 12.4% -9.70/6-
Cars
.7%Cars
Motorists 11.9% 9.0% 10.0%� 9.7% 10.7% 10.6%%
Drove
Slower
Work/ 4.7% 4.0% 3.7% 3.1% 5.7% 3.3%
School
Schedule
Changed
Had 5.2% 3.7% 5.8% 4.4% 6.6% 3.4%
somebody
to ride
with
More 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.2% 7.0%
Street
lights
Totals 100.00% 100.10% 100.10% 100.10% 100.00 99.90ok
3 - h
A 1i TPS(Cllull M.EEN il 3
TYPICAL PATH LOCATION OUTSIDE CREEK SETBACK
I Creek l Edge of Riparian Canopy or I Creek
ISetboek IF--Top of Bank (Whichever is — Setback
1 Greater) Qetirm ines the ; f
I i Outer Limit of I
t Creek Corridor . I
I I �
Existing Riparian t
Canopy
Top of
Top of
Bonk
tank
6 7 m. $.1 M.
(2d Si) (20 f{ )
Creek
D.7 ri C ft � ( �,fj{�g of
Potftn t ioi f:zr Plontir I • ' t3azk E-�- �e iporicin
ra ti haati+nc Plants in I t
Fall W-dth of Buffer
Trail Fenciig
to Prater.
Creek Hobitct
5
19
1 y .
r J
•a
Sri an
;12 IR) I
y 7oeab:}
{2 R1 (2 s:) Writ uar Differ/
S^vas dwe Shw 3vre PW.W1414 P wnBir9 r„o4
� ' f 1
ATTACHMENTS 4 AND 5
WILL BE INCLUDED IN
INDIVIDUAL BINDERS FOR
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
A COPY WILL ALSO BE
AVAILABLE IN THE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
3 -(3
1 �
- ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT- EXCERPT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25,2002
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. on Wednesday, September
25, 2002, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Stephen Peterson, Jim Aiken, Alan Cooper, Orval Osborne, Michael
Boswell, James Caruso, and Chairwoman Alice Loh.
Staff: Principle Transportation Planner Terry Sanville, Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik, Deputy
Community Development Director Ronald Whisenand, Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo,
and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
3. Segments of San Luis Obispo Creek south of Madonna Road and Prefumo Creek east of
Madonna Road. ER 98-01-13; Recommendations on approval of a mitigated negative declaration
and adoption of the Bob Jones City to Sea bike trail preliminary alignment plan; City of San Luis
Obispo(Public Works Department), applicant.
Principle Transportation Planner Terry Sanville presented the staff report requesting that the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve the.Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Bob Jones
City-to-Sea Bike Trail and adopt the Bob Jones City-to-Sea Bike Trail Plan, as drafted.
Eric Justesen, RRM Design Group, presented a summary of the focus points of the study area and the
goals for the project. He commented on the in-depth environmental analysis of the biological constraints
by the Corps of Engineers and other regulatory agencies. He presented some information about the
creek setback issues and encroachment areas.
Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager, commented on the perspective of this project as it interfaces
with the biological resources with San Luis Creek and its environments.
Michael Clarke, City Biologist, presented information about designing trails and how to minimize the zone
of influence to these trails. He discussed the importance of educating users on proper use of designated
trails and how to utilize screening to minimize flushing distances and increase the width of the available
habitat. He commented on the bridge areas and the minimal detrimental affect it would have to the
wildlife areas. He stated the length of the trail is approximately 2.2 miles and explained how many miles
of intrusions would be on this trail.
Manager Havlik discussed the Prefumo Canyon bike trail and explained the dilemma they have in this
area.
Commr. Cooper asked why there is parking only at one end of this route.
Mr. Justesen explained that because this is a segment in an overall system, they are focused on having a
number of access areas along the trail route. He noted the recommended alignment is along Highway
101 along the west of the settling ponds. He also noted that there are 6-foot and 8-foot fences currently
in place that will probably be relocated and rebuilt with the recommended design.
l '
Commr. Aiken indicated he was in favor of the alignment being located along Highway 101 and asked if
Elks Lane is scheduled to remain open to Prado Road.
Planner Sanville explained the alignment of Elks Lane in its ultimate location will depend on the Prado
Road interchange.
Commr. Aiken asked if studies have been done to determine any hazard or risks associated with
exposure to the sewer treatment plant.
Planner Sanville explained there has been no study done as part of this project study.
Commr. Caruso asked if the McBride and Dalidio properties are annexed and developed in the future,
could that potentially lead to other opportunities for trail alignment.
Planner Sanville replied yes.
Commr..Caruso asked if an agriculture setback should be considered.
Commr. Boswell asked if the optional alignments would be maintained when the plan is adopted.
Commr. Boswell asked if they had an idea of what species would be particularly sensitive to being flushed
on the trail.
Mr. Clark replied the species they are most concerned with are birds.
Commr. Peterson commented how unpleasant much of this path is and asked what could be done to
improve it.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked when the proposed construction of this path would begin.
Planner Sanville replied the timing and the phasing of the project has not yet been determined.
Chairwoman Loh asked why the path cuts through the middle of the Dalidio property.
Planner Sariville responded the City's General Plan shows that of that alignment to the southwest is
earmarked for urban use and the area to the east is identified as open space. The bath would run along
the border between these to land use designations.
Chairwoman Loh felt the edge is a nice place to provide a bikeway.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
John Allacheck, 2144 Price Street, suggested a collaborative feature in this plan would be to have
children help enhance the riparian zones.
Oxo Slayer, 558 Bluerock Drive, supported the project. He commented on the vision that Bob Jones had
and felt the continuity of the trail is important.
Jan DiLeo, County Parks, explained that the county is working on their segment of the Bob Jones
pathway and noted that one segment is a mile long and connects to the Ontario Road staging area and
eventually to San Luis Bay Drive.
Commr. Peterson commented on the struggle they have had with the.creek setback and questioned what
' r
the county is trying to observe on the City's portion of the creek.
Ms. DiLeo replied that in the County, the setback requirements depend on the area plan being dealt with
and commented they do not have a setback they are working with, but have a number of wetland issues.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Caruso made a motion but withdrew it because of no support.
Commr. Cooper commented that riparian habitat takes precedence over agriculture._
Commr. Boswell stated he would like the alignment to stay as it is shown. He suggested a statement be
made when it is adopted that leaves other options open as conditions change and other developments
occur.
Chairperson Osbome expressed his support for the project, and noted that he prefers staffs
recommendation because it is a lesser cost to the environment.
Chairwoman Loh asked how cyclists would be prevented from entering the existing driveway.
Manager Havlik replied they would have gates and the alignment would become the route for any kind of
maintenance. He noted the existing road would be closed off, which would mean less usage and it would
become overgrown with willows.
Commr. Aiken expressed his support for the project, and noted his preferred alignment choice.
Vice-Chair Osborne moved to approve the mitigated negative declaration and adopt the Bob Jones City-
to-Sea Bike Trail Plan, as drafted, which includes the yellow alignment of the bike route [the alignment
adjoining Highway 101]. Seconded by Chairwoman Loh.
Commr. Boswell requested an amendment to add.a finding that would recognize that other options should
be considered given changing information and conditions.
Commr. Cooper suggested that Council read the minutes and consider another staging area.
Commr. Peterson expressed support for the motion with the yellow alignment.
AYES: Commrs. Osborne, Loh, Peterson, Cooper, Aiken, Boswell, and Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
Commr. Cooper moved that when the issue is divided between encroachment on the riparian habitat and
encroachment of the class 1 agricultural land, that riparian habitat takes precedence. Seconded by
Commr. Peterson
Commr. Peterson commented he takes this approach because the agricultural land that is left in that
location is going not going to be viable once the Dalidio project is developed and requested an
amendment to the motion to include the wider creek setback (35 feet).
The motion maker accepted the amendment.
Vice-Chair Osborne commented on the historical location of the agricultural land that often took over
areas that were of biological value. If they were to start over today, they,would keep out of some of these
creek areas and would protect some of the habitat from the agricultural land.
Commr. Aiken commented as changing development occurs, riparian habitat will also change and will
encroach on some of this area.
Vice-Chair Osborne reiterated the choice for the dimensions of the creek setback and commented this 25
or 35 feet was a political decision and not an ideal biological figure, which is a low figure from a biological
standpoint.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Peterson,,Aiken, Boswell, Caruso, Osborne, and Loh
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried 7-0.
RECEIVED
From: Phil Ashley <pashley@calpoly.edu> NOV 19 2002
To: <cdev@thegrid.net>, <jmarx@slocity.org>, <janmarx@fix.net>, Allen et9L0 CITY CLERK
<asettle@calpoly.edu>, <asettle@slocity.org>, <cmulholland@slocity.org>, <jewan@slo ,
<kschwartz@slocity.org>
Date: Tue, Nov 19, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: No To Stream Corridor Bikeways! COUN&r CDD DIR .
SLO City Council Members& Everyone: 9CAO 2f FIN DIR
R6 ACAO la FIRE CHIEF
2 ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR
Definition: "stream" is the generic term for all inland flowing RI CLERK/ORIG (Z( POLICE CHF
waterways from large rivers down to creeks, brooks, and even smaller ❑ DEP EADS Z REC DIR
rivulets. Z = Z UTIL DIR
TLib ElHRDIP
Please reasd the last paragraphs of this letter first!
Tonight, Tuesday, 11/19/02, the SLO City Council is scheduled to make a
decision if it appropriate to use stream corridors as bikeways. For
critical ecological reasons the answer is just as obvious for bikeways
as it is for motorized roadways. Absolutely not except for needed
perpendicular bridge crossings of streams and short distances along
streams where NO alternatives are available.
Yet in the decision the Council is supposed to make tonight, block after
block of San Luis Obispo Creek conidoris being utilized for SLO City's
part of the Bob Jones Bikeway(BJB). It is true that City Staff have
aligned some of the proposed BJB just outside the City's 25' creek
setback corridor, except where it crosses SLO Creek and along the
City's Waste Water Treatment Facility for about a mile. But the bottom
line is a 25' stream setback even in a city, especially in its more
fringe areas as where the BJB is proposed in SLO City, is very minimal
environmental protection setback. Therefore the proposed BJB would be an
enormously long and significant adverse impact on the SLO Creek
corridor.
It has been and will likely again tonight be argued by City Staff and
their consultants that it is not reasonable in a city to expect that a
bikeway can be placed further from a stream than is being proposed for
the BJB due to already existing significant city development impacts to
the stream. In other words what difference does it make adding a long
linear significant impact to a stream when all these other adverse
impacts already exist along it.
But this stands on its head CEQA logic to protect against significant RED FILE
and cumulatively significant environmental impacts. It is because of all M ING AGENDA
the development in cities that has occurred along streams that cities
should do everything possible to ensure long bikeways are not placedDA I 9 ITEM #
along stream corridors to prevent more such significant and cumulatively
significant impacts from occurring to city streams!
If there truly were no reasonable alternatives to the BJB being aligned
along the SLO Creek corridor it would be a different situation. But
there ARE GOOD ALTERNATIVES! Let us take a linear look from upstream to
downstream.
1. In the Mid Higuera Plan area a terrible precident was set by a
misinformed City Council when a Type I (so-called "recreational")
l '
bikeway was placed right through the small, peaceful, passive Bianchi
Lane Park on the west side of SLO Creek. The excuse was the proposed
bikeway is outside the 25'creek setback except for the long several
100' diagonal bridge crossing needed to get to the east side of the
Creek where there is no room for it between Highway 101 and the Creek.
For good ecological reasons the formal sign at the beginning of this
park states"No bikes allowed". Putting the bike alignment through the
grassland part of this Park adjacent to the Creek is a classical example
of the worst kind of habitat fragmentation. By bicycle people
continually buzzing through this grassland wildlife foraging area,.
daytime wildlife as birds will continually be frightened off their
critical valley foraging habitat, as the area is simply too small to be
fragmented by a bikeway. This places human recreation over the critical
survival needs of other species and turns potential human selflessness
into unacceptable selfishness.
An axiom of environmental protection is when human recreation is pitted
against the survival needs of other species as in and along creek
corridors, the protection and survival of habitat and species must
prevail. It is environmentally appropriate to say in order to get people
out of their cars and onto bicycles we must provide them with good safe
and where possible recreationally desirable bikeways—BUT NOT AT THE
EXPENSE OF SENSITIVE HABITATS AND RELIANT SPECIES..
2. For the above ecological reasons (to avoid needless impacts to the
Creek and the grassland wildlife foraging benefits of Bianchi Park)the
bikeway should have been aligned along Higuera Street since this whole
area is being redesigned/redeveloped with the Mid Higuera Plan including
Higuera Street for a safe bikeway.
3.Then logically and to avoid more significant impacts to the Creek and
its corridor, the BJB should remain on the east side of the Creek along
Higuera Street, cross the Madonna intersection, and proceed down South
Higuera on the right side in front of the buildings there. There's lawns
and trees in front of the these buildings that would make a safe scenic
passage along this stretch with no impact to the Creek and its corridor!
4. When the alignment gets to Elks Lane it would veer off Higuera Street
and could either immediately cross Elks Lane and go down the Cemetary
side
of Elks Lane or stay on the right side of Elks Lane until the bridge
crossing SLO Creek and there perpendicularly cross the Bridge to get to
the Left side of Elks Lane.
5. Then, since this entire farm field/drive-in threater stretch of Elks
Lane is to be redeveloped, a nice safe esthetic BJB should be designed
along the left(east) side of Elks Lane in a wide tree-planted bike
corridor. The BJB has no business instead being proposed along the Creek
corridor for many future City blocks! This alone is a huge unmitagable
significant adverse impact to SLO Creek no matter what Staff
misinformingly and erroneously say about mitigating this impact by
"restoring"the Creek!
What good is a"revegetated" Creek restoration plan if so many bike
people are buzzing along the Creek alignment that big birds like hawks,
Y I
falcons, owls, egrets, herons, and kingfishers that use the riparian
vegetation for resting have to leave it most of the time or permanently
because they no longer have an adequate buffer to feel safe from all the
new proposed people impact.
A bikeway with peopl_e.buuing along all day every day will have a far
greater adverse impact on these wildlife along this stretch of Creek
than if the back sides of proposed buildings are placed near the Creek
outside the creek setback. Back sides of buildings no matter how tall
can be great buffers between hoards of people and creek.wildlife.
Wildlife are not afraid of our buildings. Wildlife are afraid of the
presence of people no matter how noble or passive our inner thoughts
because we have for so long directly killed them and destroyed their
habitat. As long as there are hunters and developers of any type this
sad relationship between people and wildlife will continue.
In this case, we destroy wildlife's valley foraging habitat along the
creek by the bikeway itself and by wildlife being forced off their herb
and grass land foraging habitat due to the adverse presence of people on
the bikeway! And in this case we destroy the resting habitat aspect of
the riparian vegetation for the larger birds I discussed due to a very
inadequate buffer between these resting riparian birds and people on the
proposed BJB.
Staff have argued we cannot expect the property owner developers of this
section of Elks Lane to give the required creek setback and then have to
give up another corridor for a bikeway in the front of these huge
parcels
along Elks Lane. This is an absurd argument. These property owner
developers are going to make millions of dollars when this area gets
developed even if a nice safe bicycle corridor is designated along the
front of these properties parelleling Elks Lane.
6. The bikeway would then cross Prado Road on the left(east) side of
Elks Lane and enter the City's Sewage Treatment Facilities along its
entry road. It would then pass through the Facility along this road (or
maybe veer off to the west side of the City bus facility) and then go
down the west side of the City's open space field near the base of the
Highway 101 embankment where lots of trees could be planted as a buffer
between the bikeway and highway. At the end of this large.City owned
open space field the bikeway would go between the west side of the
sewage oxidation ponds and Highway 101 where the City's proposed BJB
alignment project currently ends.
But it does not do this. The manager of the Sewage Treatment Facility
has stated it would be an operational inconveniance for the BJB to
follow the entry road to the Facility. Therefore Staff have aligned the
Bikeway along the east side of the Facility at the top of the Creek bank
in the creek setback. Then when the bikeway would exit the structural
part of the Facility, instead of crossing over to the west side of the
large open space field as 1 said it should above, it continues down the
top of the Creek bank in the Creek setback.
Staff have argued this is not the true Creek corridor as it is the top
of the channelized bank and the true Creek exists many feet away. So
what.Enormous Creek impacts occurred to the Creek when nearly a mile of
it was channelized along the Sewage Treatment Facility in the late
1970's. And the mitigation that was provided was trees planted along the
slope of this channelized embankment. Whether current Staff like it or
not, the existing true top of Creek bank is the channelized bank top
with
its planted mitigation riparian vegetation and the proposed BJB
alignment is in about a mile of this City Ordinance required minimal 25'
creek setback.
This is not the only ecological problem with this part of the BJB
alignment. This proposed alignment is a classical example of worst case
habitat fragmentation.Aligning it along the top of the Creek bank
fragments the resting habitat of the previously discussed larger birds
from their critical survival valley herb and grass land foraging habitat
in the large open space field also previously discussed.
About a month ago on a sunny late Saturday morning, I went to this site
as part of my review for this project When I got to this site a
Red-tailed Hawk was foraging over this open space field and a Great Blue
Heron was foraging in it. Both of them were foraging for the many
rodents that inhabit this critical deep-soiled valley habitat, as well
as foraging for amphibians and reptiles they might also find in and
around the rodent holes.
As soon as I started walking along the proposed BJB alignment starting
just past(south of l the Sewage Facility buildings, these two foraging
birds left this habitat for the entire time I was on the site-about an
hour. They not only left the critical foraging habitat, they also could
not fly over to the Creek riparian resting habitat because I was on the.
proposed BJB aligment between and too close to either their foraging or
resting habitat, so they had to completely leave the area.
When I left the site, they possibly came back. But if the BJB gets built
here this critical deep-soiled valley foraging habitat will permanently
be fragmented and separated from the creek resting habitat by continual
biker use. And an axiom of ecology is displaced wildlife are dead
wildlife because there is no place for them to go because another axiom
of ecology is habitat is generally already at its carrying capacity.
This bad proposed BJB alignment will kill wildlife populations in
proportion to the resting and foraging habitat they lose from the
project!
At least if the BJB is aligned to the west side of this open space
field,
as I have recommended, the valley foraging habitat will not be
fragmented
from the Creek riparian resting habitat. Some foraging value will be
lost even with this west side bikeway alignment, but the field is wide
enough thatthese kinds of large birds would be far enough away from
people on the bikeway to be able to use the riparian resting habitat and
some of the foraging habitat on the far east side of the field.
However, Staff argue they will mitigate the loss of this critical valley
foraging habitat and riparian resting habitat by eliminating any
non-native plants and planting native plants in the field and along the
Creek or by converting the critical deep-soiled valley herb and grass
land foraging habitat to wetlands. WHAT?
We already have far too little deep-soiled valley foraging habitat for
Wildlife as City Staff keep giving it away to developers at the
maximum in order to get the esthetic-steep hill and mountain recreation
-areas (that developers do not want anyway due to the relatively high
cost of developing it compared to flat or mildly sloping valley lands).
But these steep lands are very inadequate habitat due to mostly thin
soils precluding prey species as rodents, rabbits, and moles from
burrowing into it in enough numbers to sustain anything but marginal
populations of predator.species.
This is a sorry plan by the City that ensures nothing except ultimately
more and more valley reliant wildlife species will be added to
endangered and extinct species lists in years to come! So why in our
right minds would we convert this critical, deep-soiled valley foraging
habitat to wetlands?We better not!
And how is replacing plants that wildlife have long ago adapted to out
of survival necessity (even if many are not native plants)with native
plants going to mitigate the loss of this open space field foraging
habitat due to the environmentally/ecologically adverse alignment of the
proposed BJB? No matter whether native or non-native, theherbaceous and
grass plants that are in this open space field now are what prey species
as rodents in large numbers and in turn their prey species rely on for
survival. Messing with these existing biodiverse relationships helping
to keep many wildlife species alive by Staff alleging they will make it
better by changing these successful relationships is not mitigation, but
much more likely just further adverse ecological impacts resulting from
the ill-advised project bikeway alignment.
Finally, Staff will likely say tonight if they cannot avoid the issues I
have brought up in this letter, it is Phil's fault because we have tried
to coordinate with him, but he failed in this respect. A Council member
phoned me this Sunday and said the Council understood I was invited to
go on the bikeway alignment field trips with Staff, Planning
Commissioners, and Council Members. This is not true.
I was invited several months ago (I do not recall if it was Spring or
Summer)to attend a meeting between Staff, their consultants, and myself
on the proposed BJB alignment through the City. I was the only member of
the public invited but I went anyway(Gee, anything I say now is just
heresay—how foolish of me). I soon determined by their presentation
that we were not going to discuss alternatives but just the proposed
alignment the Council is being asked to approve tonight. They said it
was basically too late to discuss the alternative alignments and then
commenced to give a long list of excuses why they want it aligned along
the Creek because that is overall easiest.
I told them easiest or not that is not an excuse for turning our
ecologically important creek corridors into cheap easily obtainable
wasteland strips for bikeways because it is perceived a popular thing to
do or for any other reason. It was a cordial meeting but with these
unresolvable differences,we had to agree to disagree and that is all we
accomplished with their meeting with me..
I never got a notice to go on any site trip with Staff and Planning
Commission and Council members.Apparently why would staff want me out
there on site with you Council members with lots more than the 3 minutes
I get at Council hearings to persuade some or all of you Staffs
proposed BJB alignment is an ecological holocaust in the making? Staff
are too sharp for that. What I got was a notice to attend the PC hearing
on this issue. I realized that once the site visit took place, I would
have little chance to persuade PC members how environmentally bad the
proposed bikeway alignment is in the few minutes I would have at the
hearing.
I did not get a notice of the BJB alignment site visit with Council
Members nor a notice of the City Council hearing tonight on this issue.
As I already said, a Council member phoned me this Sunday. The Council
member left me a message to phone back and talk about this proposed
project but did not indicate in the message that the hearing was
tonight. I did not get home until too late Sunday to phone back. I
phoned the Council yesterday(Monday) and that is the first I knew the
hearing on this ecologically/environmentally big bad project is tonight.
But it does not matter who is to blame for the so-called lack of my
participation on this important issue. I am emailing you this letter
this afternoon requesting it be included in the record. And itis such
an important decision it is your responsibility to read this letter
before you make a decision if your decision is to be considered an
informed decision. And if any of you believe you do not have time
tonight to read this letter before asked to make a decision tonight,
then it is your responsibility to delay the decision to a later date in
order to make an informed decision.
This is because this is SUCH an important decision, as the County and
all other Cities in the County are watching and listening to what you
are doing tonight. And I can assure you, if you approve this bad bikeway
alignment along SLO Creek, the County and other cities will begin to
follow suit with creek bikeways in their jurisdictions, because if the
environmental City did it, then it must be environmentally acceptable.
The message you will be sending if you approve this bad bikeway
alignment tonight or any other time is that creeks alignments including
the critical valley foraging habitat along them in the creek corridor
are cheap, easily acquired wastelands to put bikeways with nothing
needed but smoke and mirrors"mitigation".
This is truly a case where the best and ONLY adequate mitigation is to
avoid all the adverse significant and cumulatively significant impacts
by ultimately approving a bikeway alignment as I have recommended here
far from the ecologically critical and sensitive creek corridor
including its parellel valley foraging habitat!
Due to high blood this and that and doctors' repeated orders to avoid
stress, I will not be at the hearing on this issue tonight for a meager
3 minutes oral testimony. But you have this letter, so please read it
and vote accordingly by voting against this environmentally unacceptable
bikeway alignment.
And if I ever try to reinvent myself as an environmentalist in order to
avoid stressful hearings where wildlife rarely get more than 1 or 2
votes when 3 are needed, an approval of this proposed bikeway alignment
would certainly go down as one of the first and foremost chapters in a
book of environmentally terrible things that should have never been
done!
Sincerely, Phil Ashley, career fish and wildlife biologist
CC: <rrschmid@polymail.cpunix.calpoly.edu>, Richard Krejsa <rkrejsa@calpoly.edu>,
<csinslo@aol.com>, Richard Kranzdorf<rkranzdo@calpoly.edu>, <ecoslo@slonet.org>, Eugene Jud
<ejud@calpoly.edu>, <Shanbrom@aol.com>, <oosbome@fix.net>, <pam@ecoslo.org>,
<brettcross@yahoo.com>, <ppinard@co.slo.ca.us>, <kokopeli01@aol.com>, <cynthia@baileymed.com>,
David Arndt<damdt@calpoly.edu>, <bdan@special-places.org>, Steven Marx<smarx@calpoly.edu>,
<kblakeslee@tnc.org>, <amcmahon@slonet.org>, <icmcmillan@tcsn.net>, <csi@thegdd.net>,
<upndair@netzero.net>, <elliegarcia@earthlink.net>, "pashley@calpoly.edu <pashley@calpoly.edu>