Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1998, 1 - AMTRAK/MULTI-MODAL TRANSFER CENTER (MMTC) SITE council j acEnaa aEpont CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works Prepared By: Al Cablay,Public Works Manager SUBJECT: Amtrak/Multi-Modal Transfer Center(MMTC)Site CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact (ER 52-97). 2. Approve the conceptual layout of the MMTC (A T IA c H WA-e"-r `E) REPORT-IN-BRIEF On March 3, 1998 the City Council gave their approval of a conceptual layout for the first of the city's dual transfer sites, the new Downtown Transfer Center Site. The second of these two (2) transfer sites system is the site that is referred to as the Amtrak/MMTC site. At the March 3'd, 1998 meeting the City Council was provided with an update on the MMTC, with detailed discussion occurring at the February 3, 1998 City Council meeting. Tonight's request is for Council approval of the recommended conceptual layout for the MMTC (see Attachment 4) and the mitigated negative declaration. The initial environmental study and resolution adopting the mitigated negative declaration are attached. The plan and the proposed mitigation measures represent a culmination of efforts that included many points of view and perspectives, ranging from local government staff to nearby residents and businesses. The conceptual site plan addresses the following issues in its design: • The need for much needed additional parking at this site for both Amtrak and Railroad Square patrons • The need to secure a convenient location for present and future multiple modes of transportation as a transit transfer facility • The need to provide for a layover location for the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Agency(SLORTA)bus system which is closer to the downtown than the present site • The need to preserve the historic "Freight House"from further deterioration The approval of both the conceptual site plan and the mitigated negative declaration allows the project to stay on schedule and meet the deadlines as specified by the approved grant funding for the project. City Council Agenda-Amtrak/Multi-Modal Transfer Center Page 2 DISCUSSION Background Shortly after the City Council granted approval to pursue purchase of the property adjacent to the Amtrak Station (located at 1940 Santa Barbara Street), the firm of Wilbur Smith Associates was contracted by the city to assist staff in generating conceptual layouts for the Amtrak/MMTC site. Four (4) site plans were initially developed, each with a different approach to the same core issues related to the site.These issues were: ❑ Additional Amtrak parking; ❑ Passenger transfer opportunities ❑ Bus layover capabilities; ❑ Ingress/egress concerns for the intersections of High-Santa Barbara and Upham/Morro/Site Driveway-Santa Barbara. A stakeholders group was formed to facilitate the discussion and build consensus on the solutions to the issues facing the development of a Multi-Modal Transfer Center (MMIC) and the Downtown Transfer Center. Much discussion took place regarding the feasibility of this site as a multi-modal facility. Nelson/Nygaard Study Staff retained the firm of'Nelson/Nygaard to perform a route impact analysis because of the uncertainties of moving all bus transfer activities to the MMTC. The result of that analysis showed that the MMTC would not be the preferred site for a major transfer station until sometime in the far future. The twin impacts of circuitous routing to reach the MMTC site and the partial loss of one route in order to maintain on-time performance meant that the Downtown needed to remain the major point of convergence for transit systems. However the report did indicate that near build out of the City (15-20 years) the MMTC would be a viable location for these activities and recommended the City pursue purchase. The need to provide additional Amtrak parking, and a closer location for SLORTA bus parking provided additional reasons to acquire the site. Public Private Partnership Study Separately, a consultant team hired by SLOCOG, on behalf of the cities of Paso Robles, Grover Beach and San Luis Obispo, studied each of those city's multi-modal transfer center sites for potential "Public-Private Partnerships". The consultant team consisted of Professor Walter Rice, Ph.D., Cal Poly Professor of Economics and Schiermeyer Consulting Services. A base assumption of their study included the MMTC site operating as a full transfer facility. Their work scope included recommendations for each site as to future expansion and development. For San Luis Obispo, along with the list of potential partnerships, the consultant recommended: Improved Amtrak frequencies combined with the re-structuring of services at the MMTC center to improve connectivity with Amtrak. This independent study served to confirm the direction and commitment to develop the Amtrak site into a multi-modal transfer center with the goal that it develop to its fullest potential in the future, as the local and regional transportation systems grow over time. The consultant team's final recommendations were contained in a report that was reviewed by the Stakeholders Group, as well as the City's Economic Development Manager. City Council Agenda-Amtrak/Multi-Modal Transfer Center Page 3 Analysts Once the Nelson/Nygaard study was received the.emphasis of design at the MMTC changed. No longer needed was a full functioning transfer facility; now the primary use of the site would be Amtrak parking and a SLORTA layover facility. The favored option of the four prepared by Wilbur Smith was modified to eliminate the full transfer facility and still preserve the other two uses. Thus, in the future when the transfer facility will be needed, only slight modifications will be necessary. The preferred design is shown as Attachment 4. However, at the time when actual design takes place the advisibility of leaving portions of the site unused for 15-20 years will be discussed and a better interim design may emerge. Environmental Review Community Development staff has reviewed the four original design concepts prepared by Wilbur Smith in accordance with CEQA, which demands that the project's ultimate build out be studied-'not its interim planned state. Community Development conducted an Initial Environmental Study for the site plans and determined three areas for additional study: a) traffic; b) noise; and c) the freight house. Public Works retained three independent consultants to prepare the needed information as follows: Stuck, area(s) COIISL[Itant(s) • Traffic, Circulation and Parking • CCS Planning and Engineering • Noise • Charles Salter and Associates • Consultation with the State Historical • Bertrando and Bertrando Preservation Office; historic effects After reviewing the studies Community Development determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to address the impacts in those areas identified in the Initial Environmental Study and is recommended to the Council for approval. CONCURRENCES The Community Development Department has participated in the review of all of the concepts both as a member of the Stakeholders Group and as the department responsible for the environmental review process of the city. In addition, SLOCOG staff acting as a partner in the MMTC development process, have also given their support to the staff recommended concept plan. In the area of funding support, SLOCOG staff have also concurred with the grant funding sources programmed for the complete multi-modal transfer center project, as specified under the `Fiscal Impact' section The Mass Transit Committee (MTC) has reviewed the features and design elements represented in this layout. City Council Agenda-Amtrak/Multi-Modal Transfer Center Page 4 FISCAL IMPACT The budget shown below includes funding for both the Downtown Transfer Center and the Amtrak/Multi-Modal Transfer Center. Budgeted Revenue: Local T DA Funds $ 27,000 State TCI Grant $ 582,000 State Prop 116 Grant $1,016,000 Federal STP/SHA Grant $ 500,000 Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Grants600 000 Total Revenue 1 $2,725,000 Budgeted Expenses: Land Acquisition $1,996,000 Stud $ 45,000 Desi $ 84,000 Construction $ 590,000 Construction Management $ 10.000 Total Expenses $297259000 ALTERNATIVES 1. Request Modifications to the p7osed concept plan. The site plan proposed has been reviewed by the Council at its February 3 meeting and in closed session property negotiations discussions. It is designed to a partial implementation of the favored concept plan by the stakeholders group. It will likely be slightly modified during actual design prior to contract bidding. Council could request new designs to be brought forward for their review and input. 2. Do Nothing. The Council may decide that the existing parking situation for the Amtrak Station on Osos Street and the Railroad Square businesses is adequate. Also that the need for a multi-modal center at the present time or for the near future is not appropriate. This option is not consistent with the current policies contained in the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Also, the efforts to keep this project funded at the regional level are worth noting and a decision in support of this option would not be in keeping with past Council direction or action. For those reasons, this option is also not recommended by staff. Attachments: Attachment 1: - Council Resolution Attachment 2: - Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 3: - Initial Environmental Study Attachment 4: - Staff recommended concept I:car/mmtc 31798.doc = y RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER AND PUBLIC PARIONG FACILITY,LOCATED AT 1940 SANTA BARBARA STREET(ER 52-97). WHEREAS, the Public Works Department staff has developed design alternatives for the development of a public parking and transit transfer facility located at 1940 Santa Barbara Street in the railroad district; and WHEREAS, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Department has prepared an initial environmental study that evaluates the potential environmental effects of acquiring said property, developing and operating the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center and public parking facility as shown in the design alternatives; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a mitigated negative declaration for the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center design alternatives (ER 52-97) that was noticed and made available for public review and comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21091);and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact and recommended mitigation measures and monitoring programs as prepared by staff; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination ER 52-97: The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center and Parking Facility, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration including the mitigation measures listed in Exhibit A. Attachment 1 l -S Council Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 2 On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted on this day of 11998. Mayor Allen K. Settle ATTEST APPROVED City Clerk re/17�y Jo ensen Attachment: Exhibit A-Mitigation Measures,ER 52-97 jM=n 2= Council Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 3 Exhibit A MPTIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER AND PARKING FACILITY LOCATED AT 1940 SANTA BARBARA STREET (ER 52-97) 1 . Mitigation Traffic mitigation measures listed under A, B, C, and D, page Measure: 11 (of the initial study), including various street improvements along Santa Barbara Street, High Street, and the MMTC project entrances, including restriping, frontage improvements, special traffic signage and controls, and new street lighting. Monitoring Street improvements and traffic controls will be incorporated Program: into the MMTC project design by City Public Works staff and shall be included in final project construction drawings to be approved by the City Council. 2. Mitigation Noise mitigation measure #1, page 15, requiring a landscaped Measure: earth berm along the west edge of the upper parking lot. Monitoring Project plans shall include a landscape/grading plan showing the Program: 3-4 ft. tall landscaped earth berm, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Mitigation Noise mitigation measure #2, limiting hours of the public transit Measure: operations at the MMTC to the hours between 7 am and 10 p.m. to minimize impacts to noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the MMTC. Monitoring Operating hours shall be limited as specified and incorporated Program: into procedural guidelines for both City and Regional transit programs and verified in writing by the City's Transit Manager. 4. Mitigation Noise mitigation measure #3, offer to provide dual glazed Measure: windows and/or insulation and repair for windows facing the MMTC site, to owners of noise-sensitive uses within the 65 dB contour in the Noise Element, as determined necessary by the Community Development Director to meet city noise standards. Monitoring The Community Development Director will notify owners of Program: affected properties, verify need for improvements, and review plans and cost estimates. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for approving property owners' requests and authorizing reimbursement for property improvements. Attachment 2 1- 9 Council Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 4 5. Mitigation Noise mitigation measure #4, primary bus parking areas shall be Measure: located at least 100 feet away from noise sensitive residential uses along Santa Barbara Street. Monitoring Public Works staff shall verify the location of primary bus Program: parking areas in construction drawings to comply with this measure. 6. Mitigation Historic mitigation measure a) the historic SP Freight Measure: Warehouse shall remain on site. Monitoring In its review of project plans, the Cultural Heritage Committee Program: and the Architectural Review Commission shall ensure that the project retains the historic warehouse on site and retains its contextual relationship to the railroad. 7. Mitigation Historic mitigation measure b) As part of the project, the City Measure: shall stabilize and preserve the warehouse to protect it from weathering, vandalism, decay, fire and structural failure. Monitoring Public Works shall prepare and implement a warehouse Program: stabilization and preservation plan, with the advise of the Cultural Heritage Committee and to the Community Development Director's approval. 8. Mitigation Historic mitigation measure c) As funding and development Measure: opportunities allow, the City shall rehabilitate the historic warehouse to preserve its original architectural character, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. Monitoring The Public Works Director shall develop a rehabilitation strategy Program: for City Council consideration, including public/private partnerships for adaptive reuse, grant funding, City general funding, and other measures leading to rehabilitation of the historic warehouse. 9. Mitigation Historic mitigation measure d) the warehouse shall be fully Measure: documented with drawings, photographs, and written history prior to moving or rehabilitating the building. Monitoring Public Works shall, with the assistance of Community Program: Development Departmentstaff and the advise of the Cultural Heritage Committee, provide the historic documentation prior to moving or construction activities. Council Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page 5 10. Mitigation Historic mitigation measure e) archaeological and architectural Measure: information and materials shall be salvaged during project construction and monitoring, and artifacts properly catalogued and displayed or archived. Monitoring Public Works shall ensure that construction contracts, Program: specifications and inspection procedures address this requirement and shall retain appropriate professionals to catalogue and display historic materials, with the advise of the Cultural Heritage Committee and to the approval of the Community Development Director. 11 . Mitigation Historic mitigation measure f) The project design should Measure: protect and enhance the site's historic character through architectural detailing, site elements, and interpretive displays. Monitoring The Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Program: Committee shall review project plans for compliance with this requirement. 1, city.o f San lues OBlspo INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ER 52-97 1 . Project Title: San Luis Obispo Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: 1940 Santa Barbara Street. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: San Luis Obispo County Council of Governments 1150 Osos Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: General Retail, Services and Manufacturing. 7. Zoning: C-R-S-H, C-S-S, and C-S-S-H. 8. Description of the Project: The proposed Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center (MMTC) will provide parking facilities for Amtrak rail passengers; and bus layover, passenger waiting and transfer . facilities for both local and regional public transit buses. It will include site and street improvements, including installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk, bikeways; bus turnout; passenger waiting facilities; retention and possible relocation and restoration of the historic Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse; and possibly traffic signals at the Santa Barbara/Morro/Upham Street and Santa Barbara/High Street intersections. Because the MMTC is intended to serve a variety of transit modes, it will also have .transfer facilities for the Downtown Trolley, local paratransit services, Amtrak and Airport shuttle bus service, tour busses, ridesharing, taxis, and bicycles. 9. Project Entitlements Required: • General Plan Conformity determination for property acquisition (CPC 18-96). Attachment 3 Muld-Modal Transit Transfer Center,ER 52-97 Page 2 • Administrative Use Permit to allow a bus station in a C-S-S zone. _. • Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval. • Minor Subdivision or Lot Line Adjustment. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The proposed Multi-Modal Transit Center site is located in the City's historic Railroad District, an area characterized by mixed retail- commercial, residential and service-commercial uses. Currently owned by Union Pacific Railroad, the 2.47 acre site is located along the east side of Santa Barbara Street, between Upham and High Streets. The historic Southern Pacific Railroad Freight Warehouse at 1940 Santa Barbara Street is located approximately in the middle of the site (see Exhibit A). The site was once part of the Southern Pacific Railroad Yard, a widened are of railroad right-of-way between Santa Barbara Street and the railroad tracks which was used to service and support the Railroad's freight and passenger operations from the early 1900s through the 1960s. To the north are the train depot, offices, restaurants and shops. To the south are the Pacific Home Do-It Center and various service-commercial uses. To the east across the railroad right-of-way are houses and apartments and a residential neighborhood; to the West, across Santa Barbara Street, are commercially zoned properties including houses, a restaurant, and various commercial uses. 11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement: Because the project sponsors plan to use a combination of local, state and federal funding, the project will be subject to review by several agencies: • San Luis Obispo Council of Governments • California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) • California Transportation Commission • Federal Transit Administration (FTA) The City of San Luis Obispo is lead agency for the purposes of project design and engineering and environmental review. The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments is the project sponsor and is coordinating project funding from a variety of government sources to assist the City in meeting local and regional transportation needs. Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center,ER 52-97 Page 3 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. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water X Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services X Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems M There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish 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. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project-could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an X attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and that an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, and that (1) certain "Potentially Significant Impacts" will be mitigated to less than significant levels with the inclusion of mitigation measures, noted in the initial study, and (2) An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. NZ, Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center,ER 52-97 Page 4 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 all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. nature Dat John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager For Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name 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. 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). 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant significant Impact Page 5 Issues Unless Impact S mitigated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2,22 X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land X uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or X minority community)? The General Plan designates the proposed Multi-modal Transit Center site (MMTC) for Services and Manufacturing (Exhibit A). The site's C-S-S-H zoning allows bus stations and other transit facilities with approval of a use permit. The proposed MMTC would expand bus, car, and bicycle parking facilities in the Railroad Area and provide improved waiting facilities to serve rail passengers and local and regional bus passengers. The MMTC is consistent with General Plan policies which encourage conveniently located public transit facilities and promote the development and use of alternative modes of transportation, such as bicycles, walking, carpooling and public transit. Circulation Element policies encourage expanded public transit facilities to serve local and regional transportation needs, including commuter service. The element supports City efforts to provide transit service to the train station in accordance with its Short Range Transit Plar, and to use railroad right-of-way to meet intra-city transportation needs. Five alternative designs are being considered (Exhibit B). All of the designs include these features: • Bus parking bays • Car parking for rail passengers • Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Amtrak Station • Passenger waiting area • Bicycle parking • 3 vehicle access points: Railroad Square, Santa Barbara Street, and High Street • Bicycle access from the proposed Jennifer Street Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge to the Upham/Morro/Santa Barbara Street intersection • Taxi parking spaces for drop-off/pick-up • Retention of the historic Southern Pacific Railroad Freight Warehouse • Landscaping, site lighting, historic displays and information signage The Santa Barbara/Osos Street corridor will link the Downtown Superstop, a local bus transfer facility being constructed separately, and the Railroad District's MMTC facilities. The corridor is designated as an "arterial" street in the Circulation Element, intended tr provide circulation between major activity centers and residential areas. This transi. Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52 97 Significant significant significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 6 mitigated "spine" is already an important, heavily-traveled cross-town arterial serving residential and commercial uses. Conclusion: The project is consistent with General Plan and related policies. No significant impact. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1, 3, 5 ,projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either. directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area X or major infrastructure? C) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X This project would accommodate existing and expected public transit needs. It is an infill development project. It would not'increase population, job or housing demand and would not displace existing housing. Conclusion: No significant impact. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or ex ose peo le to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 6,7 X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? X Conclusion: No significant impact. The proposed sites are not subject to any known geologic problems, nor will the proposed development contribute to geologic problems. The project is consistent with policies in the Seismic Safety and Safety Elements. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 8, 10, rate and amount of surface runoff? 22 X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved X oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X /-/ice Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lcss Than No ER 52-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 7 Issues Unless Impact 8 mitigated movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through i X substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? Kleinfelder, Inc. was retained by the City of San Luis Obispo to conduct a limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the proposed Multi-Modal Transit Center site at 1940 Santa Barbara Street. That firm's December 1996 report describes the site's soil characteristics, including a description of possible soil contaminants. Based on an analysis of field soil borings, the ESA concludes that: • Site soils consist predominantly of silty sands with interbeds of clay and clayey sand overlying weathered bedrock. The silty sand is encountered at the soil surface and varies from 5 to 10 feet thick. Clay interbeds consist of soft, low to medium plasticity, moist clays. Groundwater may be encountered between 10 and 30 feet below grade surface. • Analysis of soil borings taken on site detected concentrations of TPH - diesel fuel, aromatic hydrocarbons, and certain heavy metals. With the exception of TPH - diesel fuel (at concentrations of approx. 180 and 330 mg/kg) and . lead (Pb), all soil concentrations were below maximum threshold levels and were not considered significant environmental concerns. No further environmental analysis was recommended because: a) the TPH diesel fuel concentration was considered of shallow, limited extent which was not of environmental concern;. and 2) after reviewing the soil samples, the San' Luis Obispo County Health Department determined that the soluble lead-contaminated soil may remain in place since future development plans for the site included capping the area containing the elevated levels of Pb. Conclusion: No significant impact. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance 1, 9, X with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 22 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State ozone and PMio (fine particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in diameter) air quality standards. State law Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant significant Impact Page 8 Issues Unless Impact 8 mitiRated requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PMio. The project's primary purpose is to provide improved facilities for rail, bicycle and bus passengers in a centralized location, thereby encouraging less-polluting forms of transportation than conventional automobile transportation. The facilities will not significantly increase bus or car traffic, but may shift some City and regional bus routes. An EIR prepared in 1984 for a similar facility, the Downtown Transit Terminal, evaluated air quality effects of a proposed public transit terminal in the Downtown Area. That EIR determined that the proposed terminal would not significantly affect air quality in terms of Carbon Monoxide, the primary pollutant of internal combustion engines. Since 1984, bus emissions have been significantly reduced in both local and regional buses by approximately 55 percent. This reduction in emissions was achieved through changed procedures, cleaner-burning fuels and improved engine technology. The number of buses, parking layout, stopover frequency and duration of bus stops assumed in the 1984 study are similar to or less intense than the "worst-case" MMTC scenario. Therefore, projected air quality effects are likely to be comparable to those identified in the previous EIR. Santa Barbara/Osos Street would serve as the primary transit route linking the MMTC with Downtown. A maximum of 76 buses now use the Santa Barbara/Osos Street corridor daily. With the proposed transit improvements, that number would increase to 139 buses daily, a 76 percent increase. Put in perspective, this is a relatively small increase in vehicle traffic and hence, in emissions. Traffic counts done in 1992 show an average daily traffic (ADT) of about 13,000 vehicles on the 1700 block of Santa Barbara Street, south of Osos Street. Adding 63 buses along this corridor represents an increase in vehicle traffic of less than one-half of one percent. Consequently, the project would have little or no effect on air quality since it would not significantly increase bus trips and would not cause Ozone or PMto to exceed State or local standards. Odor caused by brief idling of buses may be a nuisance at peak times, however buses are not permitted to idle for extended periods while loading and unloading passengers. City transit policies require bus drivers parked for more than one minute to turn off their engines to minimize emissions. The MMTC would border the Railroad Square Office Building along its north side; however bus waiting areas would be separated and downwind from office windows by at least 120 feet under all design alternatives. Conclusion: Less than significant impacts. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Uss Than No ER 52-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless impact Page 9 mitigated 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 3, 15, X 16, 17, 22,24 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses X (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? I I X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? X BACKGROUND Based on staff's preliminary review, it was determined that the project could have significant traffic and circulation impacts. Consequently, the City retained a consultant to evaluate the project's potential traffic impacts and develop mitigation measures, where appropriate. An expanded traffic study was prepared and is attached (Exhibit D). The study's findings and recommendations are incorporated into this initial study by reference The consultant analyzed three alternative project designs: Alternatives 2 and 3 from the original four alternatives developed by staff; and a new Alternative 5. Alternatives 1 and 4 were similar, but considered less preferable or feasible and were therefore not analyzed for traffic impacts. The alternative concept designs are shown in the attached study, and have these major differences: Alternative 2 - Freight warehouse relocated; one-way entrance driveway into the project at Upham and Santa Barbara Streets; Alternative 3 - Freight warehouse remains in original location; two-way project driveway at Upham and Santa Barbara Streets; and Alternative "5"- Similar to Alternative 2 except that the driveway at Upham/SB Streets would be one-way outbound, and a traffic signal would be installed at the High/SB Street intersection. TRAFFIC STUDY FINDINGS 1) The Upham/Morro/SB Street and High/SB Street intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) during AM and PM peak hours, excep� the eastbound High Street approach, where the level of service (LOS) drops to "D" during l /_ je� Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant significant lmpacc Pae 10 Issues unless Impact S mitigated the PM peak traffic volume hour. 2) The "worst case LOS" did not change from baseline LOS at any intersection due to the project (however, when approved area-wide project traffic is considered, LOS drops at the High/SB Street intersection from D to E with or without the MMTC project). 3) The "worst case LOS" would drop from D to E under Alternative 3, although the actual approach delay at the Upham Street intersection to motorists would probably not be noticeable. Nevertheless, potential traffic safety concerns would increase at the Upham/SB Street intersection under Alternative 3 due to the increased number of conflicting turning movements due to the two-way driveway design which resulted in a complex, five-legged intersection. 4) The east side High Street at SB Street is substandard in curb radius, causing difficulty for busses entering High Street from northbound Santa Barbara Street. 5) Sight distance on Upham Street toward Morro Street is occasionally blocked by parked cars on Morro, just west of Santa Barbara Street. Also, sight distance from the Upham stop bar toward northbound Santa Barbara is poor due to the street grid angle, requiring motorists to stop beyond the stop bar to be able to safely enter the intersection. 6) A new "Alternative "5" was proposed and evaluated which is similar to Alternative 3 except that the cars could only exit from the project onto Santa Barbara Street at the Upham/SB Street driveway. This would minimize turning movements from Santa Barbara Street, with internal queueing of cars in the MMTC. 7) Traffic signals are not warranted at either study intersection under current volumes or under "baseline plus approved development" traffic volumes. Installation of a traffic signal, under alternatives 2 or 3, would, however, improve level of service at both study intersections to LOS A when the project-related traffic is considered. For Alternative 5, a traffic signal was assumed installed at the High Street/Santa Barbara Street intersection. . 8) The project will increase bike and pedestrian trips, making installation of continuous curb, gutter and sidewalk desirable along Santa Barbara and High Streets under all alternatives. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Appropriate mitigation depends on which design alternative is selected by the City: A. Mitigation measures recommended for all the alternatives. 1 . Widen High Street East to align with and match the High Street West street section Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52 97 significant significant significant Impact Page 11 Issues Unless Impact g mitigated to improve traffic flow; 2. Increase the corner radius of High Street East at Santa Barbara Street to ease transit bus turns in and out of this street. 3. Paint a red curb, post "no stopping" and stripe a right turn only lane at the Morro Street approach to Santa Barbara at Upham. 4. New sidewalk, curbs and street lighting installed along sections of Santa Barbara and High Streets within the project area. B. Mitigation measures recommended for Alternative 2, in addition to "A" above. 1 . Paint a left turn only pocket on southbound Santa Barbara Street at Upham. 2. Install a traffic signal at the five-leg Morro/Upham/SB intersection; or close Morro Street at Santa Barbara without installing a signal. C. Mitigation measures recommended for Alternative 3, in addition to "A": 1 . Paint a left turn pocket on southbound Santa Barbara Street at Upham. 2. Install a traffic signal at the Morro/Upham/SB intersection, with or without closure of Morro at Santa Barbara Street. D. Mitigation measures recommended for Alternative 5, in addition to "A": 1 . Restrict the MMTC driveway at Upham Street to right-turn in, right-turn out operation. Conclusion: With the above mitigation measures included, project impacts on transportation and circulation will be reduced to less than significant levels. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 10, 11 X animals or birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X �0 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Pae 12 Issues Unless Impact S mitigated The proposed MMTC site is located on land formerly used as a railroad yard. With the exception of the historic Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse, the site is essentially vacant and contains only sparse, ruderal vegetation with little or no habitat value according to Jeff Hook, a botanist and State Registered Landscape Architect with the City of San Luis Obispo. Most vegetation and habitat has been removed due to the site's history of railroad use for over 100 years. Conclusion: The proposed project will not affect significant biological resources. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 12 X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region X and the residents of the State? The proposed project would not conflict with the Energy Element or other adopted energy conservation plans, nor would it cause wasteful use of non-renewable resources and deplete any known minerals. Conclusion: No significant impact. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, 1, 6, 7 X chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X . rass or trees? See Section 4 with regard to site contamination and recent field studies. Construction activities may expose small amounts of soil contaminates. Based on a recent Phase II assessment, these soil contaminates are at or below maximum acceptable thresholds and are at shallow soil depths. They will either be removed and properly disposed of during construction or remediated in situ, as required by local and state standards. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? 1, 4, X 9, 15 l-o2l Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially LessTnan No ER 52-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues uniess Page 13 mitigated Impact b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable" noise levels as X defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise , Element? Based on staff's preliminary review, it was determined that the project could cause noise impacts for adjacent uses. A noise consultant was retained to analyze the project, discuss site-specific factors and identify noise mitigation alternatives. The attached noise study by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (Exhibit E) is incorporated into this initial study. To evaluate noise impacts, the consultant conducted two 24-hour,. noise measurements plus several short-term measurements at residential uses adjoining the MMTC. NOISE STUDY FINDINGS 1) Residences along the east side of the railroad tracks are currently subject to a 24-hour day/night average noise level (DNL), also called Lan, of 62 decibels (dB) caused mainly by railroad activity. 2) Residences and businesses on the along the west side of Santa Barbara Street (opposite the SP Freight Warehouse) and near the southeast corner of Morro and Upham streets are currently subject to DNLs of 69 dB and 71 dB, respectively. 3) Railroad Square, an office building adjoining the MMTC site to the north, would be subject to noise levels similar to adjacent houses at its SB street facade, and subject to a DNL at its south facade (facing the project) of 67 dB due to traffic noise and railroad noise. 4) Cumulative noise effects of existing conditions plus project-related noise would not be significant. The 24-hour average day/night noise level to adjacent residences and businesses would increase approximately 1 dB due to the project. DISCUSSION Residences adjacent to the MMTC site are already exposed to noise levels above 50 - 60 dB, Ldp, the range deemed "acceptable" in Figure 1 of the City's Noise Element. Along Santa Barbara Street, residences are exposed to noise levels which are approaching or at times, exceeding 70 dB, Ldn, the "unacceptable" noise threshold for residences. Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dB (Ldn). However rear yards of these residences, where most noise-sensitive outdoor activities occur, are exposed to noise levels of 10 to 15 dB less due to extra distance and acoustical shielding from the house. The study concludes that noise from the project alone would not generate a DNL over the 60 dB limit in residential outdoor activity areas, nor generate noise levels exceeding the �2 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant Significant Impact Pae 14 Issues unless Impact 8 mitigated 45 dB indoor noise limit. It also concludes that the project-generated noise alone will not exceed acceptable interior noise levels for the Railroad Square office building. Therefore, project-generated noise increases will not result in a significant noise impact. This applies to all project alternatives. Noise Element policies provide, however, that the City consider mitigation measures when existing noise levels significantly impact existing noise-sensitive land uses in the project area, or where cumulative increases in noise levels resulting from existing plus new. development significantly impact existing noise-sensitive land uses, e.g. Residences and offices. Although in this instance project-generated noise alone is considered less than significant, when existing levels are considered, city policies require noise mitigation to reduce overall cumulative noise impacts to adjoining uses. For residences along the west side of Santa Barbara Street and along the east side of the railroad tracks, the Noise Element projects an average noise level at future buildout of 65 dB, Ldn. Hence, for the project to meet city policies and standards, it should include measures to reduce cumulative noise levels so that existing plus project-related DNL approximates future buildout noise levels. When designing and/or approving new development of noise-generating uses, the Noise Element specifies various mitigation approaches, in descending order of desirability: Indoor Noise Exposure.Mitigation 1 . Locate noise-producing activities so that project features, such as buildings, shield neighboring noise-sensitive uses. 2. Limit operating times of noise-producing uses. 3. Provide noise-blocking features such as sound attenuation walls. Outdoor Noise Exposure Mitigation 1 . Provide distance between noise source and recipient. 2. Provide distance plus planted earth berms. 3. Combine sound walls with planted earth berms and distance. 4. Provide earth berms combined with sound walls. 5. Provide sound walls only. 6. Integrate buildings and sound walls to create a continuous noise barrier. Existing noise exposure to residences along Santa Barbara Street is primarily from bus and automobile traffic on Santa Barbara Street; hence, on-site project mitigation, such as noise walls or barriers would be relatively ineffective in reducing existing noise levels. Moreover, due to potential aesthetic impacts along the railroad -- an important visual gateway to the City — and to residents and businesses along Santa Barbara Street, continuous noise walls would not be a preferred approach. However because of the elevation difference between the railroad yard/proposed parking area and adjacent residences across Santa Barbara Street (residences are approximately 6 - 8 feet lower), a l-�3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than xo ER 52-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 15 Issues Unless Impact miti ted 3 - 4 foot tall, landscaped earth berm along the west edge of the upper parking area would help reduce bus and automobile noise. or continuous sound barriers would not be a preferred approach. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 1 . Provide a landscaped earth berm along the west edge of the upper parking area to deflect automobile and bus noise away from Santa Barbara Street residences. 2. Limit hours of operation of public transit operations at the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center to the hours between 7 am and 10 pm, hours considered less critical for noise- sensitive uses. 3. Offer to provide standard, dual glazed windows and/or insulation/repair for windows facing the MMTC site, to owners of "noise-sensitive uses" listed in Table 1 of the Noise Element (Exhibit F), located along Santa Barbara, Morro and Upham Streets and wholly or partially within the 65 dB noise contour as shown on Figure 5 of the Noise Element, as determined necessary by the Community Development Director to meet noise standards. Properties which appear eligible include: 1841 and 1845 Morro Street; and 1880, 1921, 1929, 1957, 1965, and 1977 Santa Barbara Street. 4. Locate primary bus parking and passenger loading areas at least 100 feet away from noise sensitive residential uses along Santa Barbara Street. Conclusion: With the above mitigation measures, project noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. 1.1. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fre protection? 1,3,6, X 7,22 b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? F X The proposed project will not increase the demand for public services, such as police protection, schools, maintenance of roads or other public facilities, or for other governmental services. They are intended to meet existing public transit needs and to accommodate a modest increase in public transit use which would occur with or without this project. Conclusion: No significant impact. I Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 16 miti ted 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 1, 7, x 22 b) Communications systems? x c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution x facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? x e) Storm water drainage? x f) Solid waste disposal? X ) Local or regional water supplies? x The project will not increase population, use of or demand for public utilities or service systems, nor will it significantly alter those systems. Some utility relocation may be required for the MMTC, however this will not change existing services. Conclusion: No significant impact. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 2, 3, x 18, 19 b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x c) Create light orglare? x The project will comply with City architectural review guidelines and with the Railroad District Master Plan (being prepared, with adoption expected in early 1998). It will be designed to be compatible with the architectural and pedestrian-oriented character of Railroad Square and the historic Railroad District. Additional site lighting may be required for passenger safety and security; however it will be designed to minimize glare and excessive illumination, as required by the City's Zoning Regulations, and be consistent with historic architectural themes in the railroad district. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? 20, 21, x 22,25 b) Disturb archaeological resources? x c) Affect historical resources? x d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which x would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the x potential impact area? Archaeological Resources The City's Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines require that an archaeological /0?5� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No 2-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 5 Page 2- Issues Unless Impact S mitigated resource inventory (ARI) be prepared when the Community Development Director determines that a project is likely to disturb surface materials, and when the project site is vacant or essentially so and is one acre or larger in size. The MMTC site meets these criteria. An archaeological and historical study was prepared by Bertrando and Bertrando, Research Consultants, to evaluate the site's prehistoric and historic significance. According to the study, no remains or evidence of remains were observed during the survey. The nearest prehistoric sites are located along San Luis Obispo Creek to the north and south of the site. Consequently, no further archaeological studies are warranted or recommended. Historic Resources Background The Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse, located at 1940 Santa Barbara Street, has been identified as a significant historical resource. It is one of San Luis Obispo County's oldest remaining railroad buildings. The warehouse is listed on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, and is one of the six structures in the former Southern Pacific railroad yard determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register. Based on staff's preliminary review of the project, it was determined that a historic evaluation and impact assessment study was needed to address this building. Subsequently, the City retained Bertrando and Bertrando, historical consultants. Their attached, January 1998 study discusses the warehouse's historic significance, identifies potential impacts, and recommends mitigation measures to preserve the historic warehouse. That study is attached and incorporated into this initial study by reference. Discussion Each alternative MMTC layout shows the warehouse to remain (and to be relocated on- site in three of the alternatives), with new transit uses to comprise about one-fourth of the building's floor area. Plans suggest, but do not clearly indicate, that the building will be restored to meet current building codes and meet the City's historic preservation goals. The warehouse, although apparently structurally sound, could be damaged during relocation; and benign neglect by developing public facilities around the warehouse without restoring it would be inconsistent with City, state, and federal historic preservation policies. Sections 6.6.1 and 6.6.2 of the Land Use Element state that historical resources should be identified, preserved and where possible, restored; and that historical buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in . outward appearance unless necessary to remove a threat to public health and safety and other means of doing so are infeasible. Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant significant Impact Issues unless Impact Page 18 mitigated Study Findings The Bertrando and Bertrando study evaluates each of the four original alternatives site layouts and concludes that: 1) Each alternative would have potentially adverse effects on the historic warehouse building by isolating the warehouse from, or by altering the character of the property's historic setting; or by introducing new visual, audible or atmospheric elements that are not in character with the historic property or its setting. 2) Alternative 3 would have the least impact on the historic warehouse, since it retains the warehouse in its existing location and project access roadway would not come between the warehouse and the railroad tracks, thereby minimizing isolation of the warehouse from its original historic context. The other alternatives were less desirable because they involved relocation of the warehouse closer to Santa Barbara Street. 3) While impacts would occur with each the alternatives, the consultant believes the impacts of all alternatives can be minimized to less than significant levels by preserving the warehouse building and including following mitigation in the project design. Recommended Mitigation Measures a) The historic warehouse shall be retained on site; b) As part of the project, the City shall stabilize and preserve the historic warehouseto provide protect it from weathering, vandalism, decay, fire, and structural failure; c) As funding and development opportunities allow, the City shall rehabilitate the historic warehouse to preserve its original architectural character, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. d) The warehouse shall be fully documented (drawings, photographs, and written history) prior to moving or rehabilitating the building; e) Archaeological and architectural information and materials shall be salvaged during project construction and monitoring, and artifacts properly catalogued and displayed or archived; f) The project design should protect and enhance the site's historic character through architectural detailing, site elements and interpretive displays. Conclusion: With the above mitigation measures included, the project's impact on historic resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks- X or other recreational facilities? 1, 22 b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lass Than No ER 52-97 significant significant significant Impact Page 19 Issues Unless Impact mitigated The project will not increase demand for recreation facilities nor affect existing recreational opportunities. The project will include bicycle lanes, bicycle parking and bikeway linkages to the planned Jennifer Street Bridge to enable safe and convenient biking and walking in the Railroad District and Downtown. The project will improve recreational opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians wishing to travel from the City of San Luis Obispo to nearby communities and recreation areas. Conclusion: No significant impact. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or. wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, X 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? With regard to the mandatory finding of significance for historic impact, the project may affect an historic railroad warehouse building, one of the last remaining structures from the City's early railroad history. The City's railroads in general, and this warehouse, in particularly, played important roles in San Luis Obispo's growth and development as an economic hub of the County and region. The building's loss, either through demolition or neglect, would conflict with General Plan policies and result in a significant loss of the City's cultural heritage and a remnant of an important period in state and local history. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X goals? None. Short and long term goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X 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) Traffic impacts, when considered with local and regional traffic growth, may be cumulatively considerable. An environmental impact report addressing traffic impacts is needed to address this issue. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X either dire tly or indirectly? I T7 I There are no known environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on humans. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 1) San Luis Obispo Downtown Transit Terminal; Draft Environmental Impact Report, MOW Associates, 1984. 2) Report of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center Property, 1940 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, California; Kleinfelder, Inc., 1996. 3) Historic Architectural Survey Report: San Luis Obispo Southern Pacific Railroad Historic District; California Department of Transportation (Bob Pavlik), 1994. 4) Environmental Impact Report - Land Use and Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. None used. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. None used. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element, July 1996, pages 23-24, 47-51, 72-74. 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 21, 1997, pages 48 and 52-60. 3. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November 1994, pages 6-9, 11-16, 17-26, 43-44, 49, 54-55. 4. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996, pages 2-8, 13-19. 5. Housing Element, September 1994, pages 12-26. See additional references, Exhibit C 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM 1. Mitigation Measure: Traffic mitigation measures listed under A, B, C, and D, page 11 (of the initial study), including various street improvements along Santa Barbara Street, High Street, and the MMTC project entrances, including restriping, frontage improvements, special traffic signage and controls, and new street lighting. Monitoring Program: Street improvements and traffic controls will be incorporated into the MMTC project design by City Public Works staff and shall be included in final project construction drawings to be approved by the City Council. 2. Mitigation Measure: Noise mitigation measure #1, page 15, requiring a landscaped earth berm along the west edge of the upper parking lot. Monitoring Program: The project shall include a landscape/grading plan showing the 3-4 ft. tall landscaped earth berm, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 3. Mitigation Measure: Noise mitigation measure #2, limiting hours of the public transit operations at the MMTC to the hours between 7 am and 10 pin to minimize impacts to noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the MMTC. -z9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 21 bsues unless Impact mitigated Monitoring Program: Operating hours shall be limited as specified and incorporated into procedural guidelines for both City and Regional transit programs and verified in writing by the City's Transit Manager. 4. Mitigation Measure: Noise mitigation measure f/3, offer to provide dual glazed windows and/or insulation and repair for windows facing the MMTC site, to owners of noise sensitive uses within the 65 dB contour in the Noise Element, as determined necessary by the Community Development Director to meet Noise Standards. Monitoring Program: The Community Development Director will notify owners of affected properties, verify need for improvements, and review plans and cost estimates. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for approving property owners' requests and authorizing reimbursement. 5. Mitigation Measure: Noise mitigation measure #4, primary bus parking areas shall be located at least 100 feet away from noise sensitive residential uses along Santa Barbara Street. Monitoring Program: Public Works staff shall verify the location of primary bus parking areas in construction drawings to comply with this measure. 6. Mitigation Measure: Historic mitigation measure a) the historic SP Freight Warehouse shall remain on site. Monitoring Program: In its review of project plans, the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission shall ensure that the project retains the historic warehouse on site and retains its contextual relationship to the railroad. 7. Mitigation Measure: Historic mitigation measure b) As part of the project, the City shall stabilize and preserve the warehouse to protect it from weathering, vandalism, decay, fire and structural failure. Monitoring Program: Public Works shall prepare and implement a warehouse stabilization and preservation plan, with the advise of the Cultural Heritage Committee and to the Community Development Director's approval. 8. Mitigation Measure: Historic mitigation measure c) As funding and development opportunities allow, the City shall rehabilitate the historic warehouse to preserve its original architectural character, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. Monitoring Program: The Public Works Director shall develop a rehabilitation strategy for City Council consideration, including public/private partnerships for adaptive reuse, grant funding, City general funding, and other measures leading to rehabilitation of the historic warehouse. 9. Mitigation Measure: Historic mitigation measured) the warehouse shall be fully documented with drawings, photographs, and written history prior to moving or rehabilitating the building. Monitoring Program: Public Works shall, with the assistance of Community Development Department staff and the advise of the Cultural Heritage Committee, provide the historic documentation prior to construction activities. 10. Mitigation Measure: Historic mitigation measure e) archaeological and architectural information and materials shall be salvaged during project construction and monitoring, and artifacts properly catalogued and displayed or archived. Monitoring Program: Public Works shall ensure that construction contracts and inspection procedures address this requirement and shall retain appropriate professionals to catalogue and display historic materials, with the advise of the Cultural Heritage Committee and to the approval of the Community Development Director. /-30 Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 52-97 significant significant significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 22 11. Mitigation Measure: Historic mitigation measure f)The project design should protect and enhance the site's historic character through architectural detailing,site elements,and interpretive displays. Monitoring Program: The Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Committee shall review project plans for compliance with this requirement. Mitigation measures are to be included in the project description, where applicable. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the project's final environmental determination and project approvals are granted hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above.. Applicant Date List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Multi-Modal Transit Center Site Map Exhibit B - Alternative Site Layouts, Multi-Modal Transit Center Exhibit C - Section 18, Source References (Continued) Exhibit D - Traffic Impact Study Exhibit E - Environmental Noise Study Exhibit F - Impact Assessment and Mitigation Proposal for the Historic Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse, San Luis Obispo, Ca. jh/L: MMTC4.ER /-3 I Ch Z � I Atn _ I �r \ • , l y I I Attachment 4 IM