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