HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/1998, 4 - RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN r
council
j, acEnaa izEpont
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Arnold Jonas,Community Development Due
Prepared By: Jeff Hook,Associate Plann
SUBJECT: RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution which: 1) approves the negative declaration
of environmental impact; 2) approves the Railroad District Plan, with or without changes as
appropriate; and 3) initiates rezoning to establish the Railroad Historic District.
DISCUSSION
Background Last year the City Council directed staff to prepare a plan for the historic Railroad
District. The Council's action was in response to 'citizens' suggestions that a plan was needed to
address several important issues: city and regional transportation, open space and historic
preservation, aesthetics and public safety, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and the need for
additional public parking. Council members wanted to ensure that planned public improvements
were properly coordinated. These include a public bikeway,the Jennifer Street pedestrian bridge,
The Multi-Modal Transfer Center and associated Amtrak parking, and .the rehabilitation of the
historic Railroad Water Tower.
The Draft Railroad District Plan and initial environmental study have been available for public
review and comment for six weeks. This is the fifth public hearing on the overall plan. It has
also been reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee(CHC),the Architectural Review
Commission(ARC),the Planning Commission(PC)and the Parks and Recreation Commission
(PRC). In addition to these hearings,two community workshops and an opinion survey were
conducted to include residents,businesses and property owners in the planning process.
Advisory Body Recommendations. At its March 23d meeting the CHC voted 7-0 to
recommend that the City Council adopt the Railroad District Plan,with suggested changes,and
to establish a Historic District. On March 25'the PC voted 5-0 (Commrs. Ewan and Jeffrey
absent)to endorse the Railroad District Plan and to forward the initial environmental study and
draft Plan to the City Council for approval, subject to consideration of the Commission's
comments,primarily concerning traffic circulation and minor mapping amendments. On April
1',the PRC voted 7-0 to endorse the Plan; and on April 6'h,the ARC voted 5-0(Commrs.
Rawson and Regier absent)to recommend City Council approval of the Plan and Historic
District A summary of advisory body comments and punch list of proposed changes to respond
to advisory body comments are attached.
What is the Railroad District Plan? The plan addresses historic preservation,
transportation, bikeways, land use, and aesthetics in a narrow corridor within and west of the
railroad right-of-way, from Johnson Avenue south to Orcutt Road. It includes policies and
1 .
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page 2
specific actions or improvements to enhance public areas and streets;expand bikeways; preserve,
restore and interpret historic sites and buildings; expand public parking; and build on the area's
unique architecture and history. Once adopted, the plan would guide public and private actions
within the proposed district boundaries.
Why Focus on the Railroad Area? Across the U.S., large and small communities are
reinvesting in railroad yards, depots, bridges and other rail facilities. Through enhanced federal
transportation fiords, cities like San Francisco, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Cape
May, New Jersey have invested over $117 million in projects which provide functional
transportation benefits, preserve historic resources, and enhance tourism. Particularly in the
West, where communities either prospered or declined depending on their proximity to the
railroad, "rail towns" like Sacramento and San Luis Obispo possess a rich railroad heritage
which can enhance tourism and community "sense of place." Next to cars and groceries, travel
and tourism lead the country in retail sales, according to a 1997 report by Tourism Works for
America. International and domestic tourism generated $452.5 billion in retail sales in 1996.
Historic sites are the top destination, with tourists shopping, dining, participating in outdoor
activities, and visiting museums and historical landmarks. Thus, San Luis Obispo's railroad
district can play an important role in enhancing tourism while revitalizing a key area of the City.
How The Plan Was Developed Community Development Department staff prepared"the
plan with input from other City departments and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
(SLOCOG). During early planning stages, staff held two public workshops and distributed
opinion surveys to solicit public comments and concerns and to identify key design and planning
issues. The draft architectural guidelines were referred to the Architectural Review Commission
and the Cultural Heritage Committee for early comments. The Plan was funded through a
SLOCOG-a mmisteredtransportationgrant.
Community Input. Public comments on the railroad district plan and architectural guidelines
were wide-ranging, but all supportive of the planning effort in general. Commentors addressed
the need for improved bikeways along the railroad, improved pedestrian access,preservation and
display of historic railroad features, street improvements, protection of residential areas or uses
from incompatible uses,and the need to improve the railroad area's appearance.
In a related action, a citizens' group formed in February to discuss the feasibility of a railroad
museum and other historic railroad displays, and to gauge community support for a railroad
museum. Over 50 citizens attended the organizational meeting. The"San Luis Obispo Railroad
Muse" group formed as an educational division of the non-profit Avila Valley Railway
Museum to help plan, promote and operate a railroad museum. Because of the concentration of
historic and railroad resources, the group recommends that a museum be located in the Railroad
Square area, possibly utilizing the historic Southern Pacific Freight Warehouse to display and
interpret artifacts from the City's railroad heritage.. It also recommends the phased installation of
railroad track in non-vital areas of the planned Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center and adjacent
railroad right-of-way for a railroad heritage `rolling stock" display. The recommendations of
41—;
, r '
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page 3
this organization were consistent with the public input staff received at the planning workshops
and through opinion surveys. The plan includes policies that will support the efforts of the group
to establish a museum or display facility.
Highlights of the Plan. The Plan is organized and formatted to be user friendly. Through its
text and graphics, it provides an understanding of the area's history and issues that lead to the
recommended policies and programs. It has three sections: 1) the Background/Issues section
which provides the framework for recommended policies and actions; 2) the Plan section which
includes an action summary; policies and programs; the physical plan which schematically
shows planned improvements in the District; and an implementation strategy; and 3) Historic
District architectural guidelines.
Highlights include
;i. A,new Railroad-HLstonc Di trio by:rezoningrproperties wtthu the proposed11
district'boundaries with an "H" overlay zone rl
2 1 ConptinC�uous bik�ew�ay�s�wlthlllopen sl%itd;,,ancl,lneighborhood linkages along'
rt both Stde8l oftlle{il allload , tP'�fii .��u�llv'j� dl� I CI r li4 P �y il^I,I,I LI Ili 11+„I;I. i.'
III r 5.
Fur rJ F I 1 u �
3 'Iwo new pedesinan crosstngs at ,ennylLaneland near Lawrence,Dnue Ir Ilrl
Ir f u. s n l 1 91191'1 1 1 Hyl 111 III II 1 1 III i
4`ly Bye� aut>fication 1 along the 11 railroad comdor through laridscap>r►g' and�c code'
UI III 1111!111 h11 V� ' dll'l IL I''I 111° `.I 1� 1 li'lul 1 U
191;': 1 ) 1 Il �' �'.I. 4 O i' )' 1 tl h J II dill
enforcement I,Y 9p 16 1111 I; ill
hi '!I L'� V 1. p I lull Ilfil III I I l i 'y.1Y III I Yr: lis 1 � L I P. d 1 111141 1
�� 1111114 Irl
tl I:I
5j l?edestnan tmprovementsyat ,11°teff and,lOsos Streets - hllrr'
s Iti`Street Improvements along 'Santa 1 Barbara, 'High, Roundhouse grid I,Erriily
1r 1 a . . LFI°I r4v,ll ,I r If 1f i 11 IC F r 1IF
a'I�'Streets; includ>rig ,stre'et;l�lllpaying/wtdeni g; III ; glltler and,llboaidwaltc;'
u' c 1 ,.+. z f d li * 1� �li 1Ill F1
street trees, an'c street inghting 1
y s rt 1fiYlu w 1r NI 11 y 1 q
i S 1
7 Relocated and rehabt7ttated'histone'frelght,warehOuse
r_ Ir .'J 1 Q'� 'PrP rl IAlu1�1'F s a1 I �"14 '. 41 11�'.I� 111� �o rl�l4F
Railroad "rolling S1Q-1 jq^r area
(� �7 ta.�.��� }�����,...�1y l 1 1!I1 III�+ryn. �1I IF1t t 1 I J111 r.
9 Rai)roadl Wall\of_(Jl.7lo 1 �b''G' ry,�Vlll '�;T��k
Iw 14s y�LL id d p'µ1V°'11'4 d " 1 Irr a .F°p�II" `WIaE.i
-10 r,GXparid6d pa ` lad �alZd 1parlQng ll � v k 1 T '.lr a k 1 Y1 71L
} ar�. . 1 x *,tTl1'19. 'I 1'91u< � �' Lm.7u rfYr lLrl nK nwr llrml : ' Il [ 9 J JF u 'r a
1 '11111 :ll u�'1
11 rchitec tt�ral gtndeliiies ,1 N ,m 1 II 1111 lywa u, u s 9 i ;
171.-J.Y, i".!r �:-a,rn
A " "FvlilF bqn�+ JS I11�I1. � �i�r�.�
Implementation. In 1998,the City's railroad area is on the threshold of change. New public
projects are underway or planned which will renew portions of the old railroad yard, and
development trends suggest that private development interest is also increasing. This District
Plan will help coordinate and guide those changes. The Railroad District Plan would be adopted
by the City Council to carry out General Plan policies; and implemented through the capital
improvement program and the development review process. Once adopted,the plan would guide
public and private actions within the proposed district boundaries; the architectural guidelines
would be referenced in the City's architectural guidelines.
Unlike a general plan or specific plan, compliance with the Railroad District Plan is not a
requirement of state law. The Railroad District Plan is an area plan adopted by the City to
implement the City's General Plan It is the product of focused community discussion on the
Railroad District and how to best implement General Plan policies. The District Plan articulates
Y- 3
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page a
community preferences and desires, not legal requirements. As such, the Plan represents the
community's guidance to elected and appointed decision makers, property owners, developers
the public at large. The provisions of the Plan should be the prevailing factor in decisions which
bear upon issues the Plan addresses,unless it can be demonstrated that the community's interests
and the intent of the Plan's policies and programs can be better implemented by an alternative
course of action.
General Plan Policie& For many years,City policies and actions have underscored the need
to preserve unique or historic neighborhoods. For example, the General Plan Conservation
Element—adopted in 1973 —identified historic resource preservation as an important City goal.
In the 1980s, the City adopted a Historical Preservation Program which identified important
historic resources and tools to preserve them. During the mid-1980s,the City participated in the
restoration of the Park Hotel and the Southern Pacific Train Depot and parking area; and the
Railroad Water Tower. The Land Use Element(LUE), adopted in July 1996, says that"changes
or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the
original structure, and new buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites,
should reflect the form, spacing,and materials of nearby historic structures."
The LUE identifies the Osos/Santa Barbara Street corridor as one of several "Optional Use and
Special Design Areas" where renovation of streetscapes, landscaping, and building facades is
encouraged. The LUE states that in these areas the City should work with property owners to
"prepare area plans containing design guidelines and implementation programs." The Railroad
District Plan is intended to implement this policy. The Plan's architectural guidelines, policies
and programs would apply to that portion of the designated Optional Use and Special Design .
Area between Leff and South Streets.
Historic Dis&wL The Railroad District has lost several important historic resources in recent
years, and others are threatened due to neglect, weathering, vandalism, or demolition.
Historic character can also be affected by new development which is insensitive to the
District's architectural heritage and vernacular. The proposed Railroad District Plan would
promote historic preservation and education several ways:
1. The Railroad EgAoric District. Within this.district,'all properties would be rezoned with
an "H" historic overlay zone. New development would be reviewed for consistency with
the District Plan and the architectural guidelines. The City has four Historic Districts:
Chinatown, Downtown, Mill Street, and Old Town. The H zone identifies parcels, areas,
or structures that 1) are architecturally or historically important, and 2) may be eligible for
benefits offered through the City's Historical Preservation Program.
2. Railroad District policies and programs. New policies and programs are designed to
preserve and rehabilitate historic resources, improve public access to historic resources,
improve the appearance of an important city gateway, and promote educational and display
opportunities in the Railroad District. L t
t��
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page 5
3. Railroad District Architectural Guidelines. The new guidelines are specific enough to
provide a "menu" of architectural design ideas to incorporate into new development;
however flexible enough to allow new development which is not necessarily a "replica" of
an historic railroad building. The guidelines would help designers and property owners
anticipate City concerns and design a project which reflected the distinctive architectural
character of the railroad area.
The City already has architectural guidelines; however these are generalized so that they may
apply citywide. The proposed architectural guidelines, if adopted, would apply only to
development projects within the Railroad Historic District and would be used by citizens,
developers, designers, City advisory bodies, and the City Council to help retain the District's
unique character,while still allowing for orderly,attractive new development and remodeling.
When reviewing development projects within a historic district, the ARC and CHC typically
consider a project's environmental and architectural context, including prevailing architectural
scale, roof and building fors, materials, details, landscaping and other design elements. The
draft guidelines use sketches and brief descriptions to provide examples of appropriate "Railroad
Vernacular"architectural elements and ways to help integrate new development with the District.
Plan Changes. Through public hearings,property owner comments and staff review, staff has
prepared a summary list of comments and recommended changes or refinements to the draft plan.
That list is attached. Council members should review the list of recommended changes and add
to or modify the list as appropriate. Staff will then incorporate Council's final changes into the
finished plan,complete with graphics,to be printed and made available to the public.
CONCURRENCES
Community Development and Public Works staff coordinated planning efforts on the proposed
transportation and circulation improvements. Public Works supports approval of the Railroad
District Plan. Additional discussions will be needed between departments to work out design
details of projects shown conceptually in the plan.
FISCAL EMPACT
Adoption of the Plan would not result in any immediate fiscal impacts. The Plan recommends
several significant capital improvements, including bikeways, pedestrian bridges, historic
warehouse rehabilitation, corridor landscaping, and street improvements which, when
implemented, may require significant capital outlays. Additional design and engineering
studies will be required to determine these costs. Railroad capital projects would then be
considered by Council through the normal CIP review and budgeting process. Some or all of
the required funding for various capital improvements may be available from state or federal
grant sources, and staff intends to explore these grant sources. Some capital improvements
may be implemented through private finding as development occurs.
��S
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page 6
Adoption of the District Plan is expected to have several positive fiscal impacts. The Plan
includes measures which are likely to stimulate reinvestment in the District. To the degree that
the Plan encourages private investment in the District, the City will reap indirect fiscal benefits
due to enhanced property, retail sales and transient occupancy tax revenues.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Continue consideration of the Plan. There is no legally mandated deadline for City Council
action. The City Council may direct staff to modify the Plan as appropriate.
Transmitted separately: Draft Railroad District Plan
Attachments:
-Draft Council Resolution
-Initial Environmental Study,ER 31-98
-Summary of comments and recommended changes
-Planning Commission minutes
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee, Planning Commission, Parks and
Recreation Commission, and the Architectural Review Commission have held public hearings
on the Draft Railroad District Plan; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Draft Plan and considering public testimony, these
advisory bodies recommended that the City Council approve the Railroad District Plan,
including policies and programs regarding historic preservation, transportation and circulation,
land use, and aesthetics; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development has issued a negative
declaration of environmental impact, pursuant to provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and based on an initial environmental study (ER 31-98) which was
prepared and circulated for the required public review period; and
WHEREAS, in consideration of public testimony, advisory body recommendations,
staff analysis, and its own deliberations, the City Council has determined that the Railroad
District Plan is necessary to implement General Plan policies and programs designed to
preserve historic resources, encourage alternative transportation modes, establish architectural
guidelines and improvements for designated "Optional Use and Special Design Areas",
improve public access to parks and open space, improve the safety and appearance of streets
and public areas, and enhance the economic vitality of the City's-mixed-use Railroad District.
NOW, TTBERREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
a v/7
Council Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1. Findings.
1. The Railroad District Plan is in conformance with the General Plan and with the City's
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines intended to preserve historic resources and
areas.
2. The Railroad District Plan is an "Area Plan", intended to carry out policies and programs
of the General Plan and to guide public and private development, public improvements, and
capital improvement programming within the District as defined by the Plan.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination (ER 31-98). The City Council has considered
the environmental determination for the Railroad District Plan and hereby approves a negative
declaration of environmental impact, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. Plan Adoption. The Railroad District Plan is hereby adopted as an area plan
guiding public and private land use and improvements within the area identified in the Plan as
the "Railroad District."
SECTION 4. Implementation. To implement the Railroad District Plan, the City Council
hereby directs that:
A. The Community Development Director shall initiate rezoning of the Railroad
District to add a historic "H" overlay zone to properties within the District,
including architectural guidelines intended to preserve the District's unique
architectural character.
B. City Departments shall implement the Railroad District Plan through their design
and development of capital improvement programs, operating programs, and in
developing budgeting and grant requests.
- Council Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 3
Upon motion of _ —_ __ _._. __ , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _ - day of_: _ _ - __ ; 1998.
Mayor-Allen.Settle
ATTEST:
Bonnie Crdwf, City Clerk.
APPROVEDAS AS TO-FORM:
Kh
J rg - en, ity Attorney -—
MARRDP.mYes
=9
city of
san tins owpo
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
ER 31-98
1. Project Title: Railroad District Plan.
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: Railroad area (see vicinity map)
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
6. General Plan Designation: Medium-High Density Residential, General Retail, Services
and Manufacturing, Offices, and Public Facility.
7. Zoning: R-3, C-R-S-H, C-S, C-S-S, C-S-S-H, M, 0, and PF .
8. Description of the Project:
The Railroad District Plan carries out policies and programs of the General Plan for a
specific geographic area of the City — the railroad area and a portion of the Santa
Barbara/Osos Street corridor. It will be implemented by the City's various departments, in
cooperation with district property owners and the community. The plan will help guide
decision-making in the following key areas: 1) reviewing new public and private
development in the district; 2) long-range planning, including historic preservation,
transportation and circulation, open space and recreation; and land use issues; and 3)
capital improvement programming and City budgeting. The Plan will help coordinate the
design and construction of several planned capital projects in the area, including a public
bikeway, the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center and associated Amtrak parking, and
rehabilitation of the historic Railroad Water Tower.
Railroad District Plan,ER 31-98
Page 2
The plan recommends specific actions or improvements intended to enhance public areas and
streets; expand bikeways; install two additional pedestrian railroad crossings; preserve, restore
and interpret historic sites and buildings; expand public parking; encourage private investment;
beautify the railroad as a scenic corridor; and build on the area's unique architecture and
history. Once adopted, the plan would guide public and private actions within the proposed
district boundaries.
9. Project Entitlements Required:
• Plan Approval.
• "H° District Rezoning.
• Subsequent design approvals of individual plan features anticipated by the plan, such
as public area and street improvements, bikeways and trails, landscaping, and new
privately-funded development projects.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The proposed Railroad Historic District is an area
characterized by mixed retail-commercial, residential and service-commercial uses. Exhibit
A shows the boundaries of the proposed Railroad Historic District. It covers about one-half
square mile (1.3 square kilometers), and extends along the railroad right-of-way for a
distance of about 1.7 miles in roughly a north - south axis. The District includes the original
railroad yard, plus residential and commercial-zoned property on the west side of the
railroad right-of-way. It stretches from the Johnson Avenue underpass on the north to
Orcutt Road on the south. Houses, apartments, businesses, and warehouses fronting onto
Church Street, Santa Barbara/Osos Street, Roundhouse Avenue.and Emily Street are
within the district. Osos/Santa Barbara Street is an arterial street which links the railroad
with Downtown San Luis Obispo, the Civic Center, and State Highway 101.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None. However, because the plan includes several public
projects which are funded through a combination of local, state and federal funding, review
and input is being sought from several agencies:
• San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
• California Department of Transportation (CalTrans)
• California Transportation Commission
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
• Union Pacific Railroad
• Amtrak
• Public Utilities Commission
Railroad District Plan,ER 31-98
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 Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
X 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.
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. X
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
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
41 -/."Z
Railroad District Plan,ER 31-98
Page 4
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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.
S' ture Date'
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.
c,L -i3
Railroad District Plan,ER 31-98
Page 5
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 most of the Railroad District as "Services and
Manufacturing", intended for business services, wholesaling and retail sales of large
items, and light manufacturing. Railroad Square, the small area located at the south end
of Osos Street where it meets the railroad, is designated General Retail. Medium-Density
Residential abuts the commercial areas along Church, Osos-Santa Barbara, and Santa
Rosa Streets; and along most of the district's eastern boundary. Offices are located along
the district's northeastern edge, where French Hospital stands. Parkland Js designated
along the southeast boundary, near Sinsheimer Park. A small, City-owned "pocket park"
located at the corner of Santa Barbara and Osos Streets is designated general retail, and
sometimes referred to as "EI Triangulito Park." Figure 8 of the draft plan shows the
zoning designations in and adjacent to the district.
The railroad area is one of the City's most diverse neighborhoods, where light industrial,
retail, office, residential; recreation and transportation uses meet in a relatively compact
geographic area. This mix ofuses is both part of the district's attraction, as well as its
greatest challenge. The mix of uses can lead to compatibility issues. Yet, this historic
mix of uses has created an active, diverse neighborhood which has a discernible
"synergy" — an assembly of uses which complement one another and as a result, is more
than just the sum of its parts. The Railroad District Plan would maintain the area's mixed-
use character while including policies and improvements intended to compatibility
between-various land uses... Features intended to improve land use compatibility include: .
• architectural guidelines to integrate the design of new development with the area's
distinctive architectural character;
• parking and street improvements to accommodate a variety of transportation modes,
such as automobiles, bicycles, public transit, and pedestrians;
• expanded system of bikeways to improve circulation and public safety.
The Railroad District Plan is consistent with, and would help achieve General Plan goals,
policies and programs. For example, the plan would:
Issues and Supporting Informatiuo Sources Sources Pote. _y Potentially Less Than xo
ER 31-98 Significant Significant significant Impact
Page 6 Issues Unless Impact
g raitigawd
• 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.
• conserve architecturally and historically significant sites and buildings.
• maintain and improve scenic vistas along an important gateway to the City.
• encourage of mix of compatible land uses within a neighborhood setting, including
housing, retail- and service-commercial uses, offices and recreation/open space.
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 plan is based on the City's adopted General Plan. It includes policies and programs
designed to improve the appearance, function, and economic vitality of the railroad area,
including improved public parking, circulation and access. 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, osal;result;m:or se_ e_-tod p&tefitb3Hrn 'cts utvo '..
a)'; faultrupture? 6,7 X
b) `Setsmtc und'slakm " X
c) Setstntc ground cy"kiii Including-liquefaction? X
•.-. ii r r lir,
d1 'Selche, tsunami; or v.oicanid hazard? X
e) Lan`dslidesror muditows?
of X
f).....&Orion, change's.tn topography or'unstable solL X
t»ondmons from excavation, 9radtng, or fill?
g) Subatdence of
, the tand� X
o. .�.- 7 ,.
hj Expansive rolls? „ X
JJ: rUnt ue' eoI c or "cat eaturss? X
Conclusion: No significant impact. Areas within the plan 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.
Issues and Supporting Informatiu.. Sources Sources POtem. -- PO�O°�Y No
ER 31 98 significant significant significant Impact
issues unless Impact
Page 7 mitigated
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
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 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?
Much of the proposed district is within the railroad right-of-way owned by Union Pacific
Railroad Company. The railroad right-of-way and some adjacent areas were used
extensively since the early . 1900s for various maintenance and industrial activities
associated with the railroad; consequently, soil contamination is a potential problem,
particularly in the former railroad maintenance yard near Roundhouse Avenue. 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, one of the projects anticipated in the Plan. 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
Issues and Supporting InformatiI., Sources Sources POML , Potentia➢y Less Than No
ER 31-98 significant significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 8 1 mitigated
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.
Most of the actions anticipated in the plan do not require extensive grading or excavation.
Where grading, excavation or other development activities may encounter soil
contamination, local and state code requires soils to be tested and any contamination to
be remediated prior to development.
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.odorsT X
The Plan will not cause significant air quality impacts. It.would accommodate existing
vehicle traffic while providing more convenient parking and railroad passenger loading
facilities. It would encourage walking, bicycling and the use of.public transportation by
providing improved bikeways, walkways, and transit facilities. One important
transportation feature of the Plan, the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center and Parking
Facility, was evaluated separately and granted a mitigated negative declaration (ER 52-
97). That initial study includes traffic and noise mitigation measures to address potential .
impacts resulting from expanded parking facilities and added vehicle trips on Santa
Barbara Street and is included here by reference.
Conclusion: No significant impact.
- --- -..... r
6 _TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION:VWould-titie.
osel:i[esuk rn
a) Increased'velvcle;,tnps or traffic congesnon� 3, 15,
16, 17, X
22,24
bV Hazards-tosafety from design features (e.g sharp'
ctuv�;or dangerous tntersectrons) or tncompatiblef uses ,;i, X
(e g farm egwpment})�
c) Inadequate emergency access orl:access to nearby i i,!
is IISMf.:
X
d) Insuff 'e'nt parinng capacity on-sX
e}.: Hazards or bameis for`pedestnans or brcydrstsO X
i s
': Confficts wrth`:adapted polectessupportng!alternative
transportation (e.g bus:tumewts;brcycle racks}? ,,', X
Rail, waterborne or atrarafficiim`acts (e. com"atibili i.
t7/ 17
Issues and Supporting InformatiL... Sources Sources Poteti_ .J potentially I Less Than No
ER 31-98 significant Significant significant Gnpact
Issues Impact
Page 9 Umitinless
with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? X
The Railroad District Plan promotes General Plan policies encouraging alternative
transportation, neighborhood traffic management, and improved "livability" of existing
arterial streets through redesign and improvement of street corridors (Circulation Element,
8.5). The Plan is intended to accommodate existing and anticipated traffic volumes as
envisioned in the General Plan. It would not increase traffic volumes, change the street
network, or create traffic hazards or obstructions. Specific actions recommended in the
plan include:
1 . Install pedestrian crosswalks at Leff and, Upham streets.
• Traffic volume makes it difficult for pedestrians to cross at these intersections
during peak traffic hours. Pedestrian improvements could include: pedestrian-
actuated traffic signal; stripped crosswalk with contrasting color and texture;
improved signage and street lighting.
2. Install traffic signals at Upham and possibly High Street.
• Conceptual plans for the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center show its main
entrance located at the intersection of Upham, Morro and Santa Barbara Street. A
traffic signal and street-type entrance to the MMTTC at this location would allow
cars, buses, bicyclists and pedestrians to enter the site from Santa Barbara Street.
In addition, the "platooning effect" resulting from signalization could help side
street turns onto Osos and Santa Barbara Street.
3. Widen Santa..Barbara Street.from Broad to Upham Streets to accommodate left tum
pockets.
• Santa Barbara Street is a 60-foot wide right-of-way, with two 10-foot parkways,
two 12-foot travel lanes, and two 4-foot bicycle lanes, and one 8-foot parking lane.
Motorists turning left into the Do-It Home Improvement Center and otherbusinesses
along Santa Barbara Street increase congestion and pose safety hazards. A six- to
eight-foot widening-along the.east side of Santa Barbara Street would allow left-turn
pockets and bus turnouts to improve traffic flow and reduce "bottlenecks." This
"widening" may be achieved by eliminating curbside parking along the west side of
Santa Barbara Street between Broad and Upham Streets, or by widening the street
right-of-way along the east side of Santa Barbara Street. Elimination of curbside .
parking could remove up to approximately 24 parking spaces. The loss of parking will
affect adjacent business and residences, but will be largely offset with the addition of
approximately 100 additional public parking spaces directly across Santa Barbara
Street, and not considered a significant impact. Traffic engineering design studies are
to be conducted for the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center to address alternative
designs to provide a left-tum only lane along Santa Barbara Street. If additional street
right-of-way is needed, further environmental study will be required to evaluate the
4/ wV
Issues and Supporting Informativ., Sources Sources Pote.. y Potentially I=Than No
ER 31-98 significant significant significant Impact
Page 10 Issues UnlessImpact
potential effects of specific street designs.
• 4. Install curb, gutter, boardwalk, and street trees along the east side of Santa Barbara
Street; High and Roundhouse streets east of Santa Barbara Street; and along Emily
Street between the railroad right-of-way and the south Street right-of-way.
• Sidewalk, curb and gutter are in poor condition, and in some areas, do not exist.
Frontage improvements are needed along the east side of Santa Barbara Street,
south of Upham Street and on side streets near the railroad yard. A wood
boardwalk should be used along Railroad Osos, Santa Barbara, High, Roundhouse,
and Emily streets to match the railroad-theme board walk already installed on Osos
and Santa Barbara.
• Install bikeways along both sides of the railroad tracks, between Johnson Avenue
and Orcutt Road.
• Install pedestrian bridge crossings at Fairview/Penny Lane and near Lawrence Drive,
opposite Sinsheimer Park.
With the exception of the Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center, specific design and
locations of the various transportation/circulation improvements have not been
developed. These features will require environmental review to address site-specific
environmental issues as part of the design and review process.
Conclusion: No significant impact. Additional environmental studies may be required
for specific transportation features identified in the Plan.
7:. BIOLOGICAL(RESOURCES:' Would-the oroOosal affect
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species orl,th1.
eir habitats
('including but not rimrted to plants; fish, trisects, 10, 11 X
arnmals.or birds)?- ` I
b} Locally designated species (e g heritage trees}7" X
c) Locally_ft0g+�n4aiertatural:.communmes (e'lg wk�IforesK,
coastal habitat 'etc )7 r 91 1! X
d) 1Nt:tland-habitat,{e g marsh, npanan,.an` vernal pool? -'
X
e) UVOdltfe ds ersaL,or Tru rairon corridors?. X
Most of the planning area:is urbanized and located on land formerly used as a railroad
yard. Some. areas include 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 area's
history of railroad use for. over 100 years. The plan includes landscaping which will
enhance the appearance and may improve habitat value of the railroad area. No
significant vegetation removal or modification is anticipated in the Plan.
Conclusion: The proposed project will not affect significant biological resources.
y a9
Issues and Supporting InformattL,., Sources Som Potcn- -j Potznaally ImsThan No
ER 31-98 Significant Sigtifirant Sip ficant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 11 mitizated
8- ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposa1:
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. Woald 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)- Possible1hterference.with.an emergency response plan X
ot.emergency evacuation plan?.
c) The creation of'`any health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d)- Exposure of source
people to existinges..of potential-: X:•
health hazards? ......
e) .Increased fire hazard.in areas with flammable brush; " '`:' X
grass or trees?
See Section 4 with regard to site contamination and recent field studies. Construction
activities for various plan actions may expose small amounts of soil contaminates. Based
on a recent Phase II assessment, these soil contaminates are at or below maximum
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: No significant impact.
70_NOISEt;Would`the: sal result m :Ii ,
a) Increase sirs exdstmg nose ievels� „ 1, 4,
ar
Al
9, 15 X
b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable,!`noise-levels:as X
defined by the.San Lws Qb�spo General Plan Nolse
=Etemerrt..
With the exception of the planned Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center, none of the Plan's
recommended policies or programs are likely to cause significant noise impacts for
adjacent uses, since these features involve bikeways, trails, landscaping and other
Issues and Supporting Informatt. o Sources Sow= PoteL` •.f Potemdally L=Than I No
ER 31-98 significant significant significant Impact
hstm Page 12 mim�ted Impact
improvements not likely to generate or be impacted by noise. The Plan includes policies
intended to mitigate the effects of existing railroad noise on adjacent residences through
coordination with Union Pacific, possibly involving special railroad signage or operational
procedures for both freight and passenger trains.
Conclusion: No significant impact.
11.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result m a need.-for new or altered
overnment 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? X
The Plan 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. It will improve public access to essential services or facilities in the railroad
area, such as public transit, parking, and public parkland; and will allow citizens to cross
the railroad right-of-way safely at three locations, thus improving citywide circulation and
encouraging walking and bicycling.
Conclusion: No significant impact.
12. UTILITIES AND-.SERVIcg:sVsTEMS. Would the.:proposal:resukan-a need for new:systems or supplies;
ovsubstantW Alterations:to.the following u4iies:'.
-
:
a) Powenor naturahgas?:.. : 1, 7, X.
22
b)- Communications ..
systems X
c)..;•LocaLor regional water treatment or distn6utton `. X
,facllltteS?; A.
d) :'S seOc tanks 9.p X
e) Storm water dramage� X
) s658,wastedsposah X
: i X
Localor,r lonahwater, hes�,;i;
The plan 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 various planned programs or activities, however such changes will be
done in accordance with state law and will not change existing services.
Conclusion: No significant impact.
13:,AESTHETICS :'slAlould:ttie. 'ro � - ' _ - '
_a):. Affect-a.scenrc visla or scenic highX
ways ':' 2, 3,
Issues and Supporting Informati-�., Sources Sources pores- , P0 Liss than No
ER 31-98 Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 13 mitizated
18, 19
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? x
c) Create light orglare? X
The district is visually distinctive due to several positive factors: its open character; its
natural and man-made focal points; and its historic structures. It is also distinctive due to
several factors, generally considered to be unattractive or negatives: abandoned or poorly
maintained buildings, fences or sites; unsightly storage or equipment yards; trash and
weeds; graffiti; utility structures, overhead utility lines, and billboards; and homeless
encampments. The Plan will enhance the district's positive factors .through landscaping,
trash removal programs working with property owners and the community, various street
and public area improvements, and through the implementation of architectural guidelines.
It also includes policies and programs intended to improve and beautify the railroad
corridor through landscaping, trash removal, screening of outdoor storage, billboard
removal, and zoning and building code enforcement.
Conclusion: No significant impact.
14.'-CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would.ahe: ro osal ::.
X
:a).. Disturb.paleontological.resoun- 0 20, 21,
22,25
_b) Disturb archaeological resources?' . . "':. X
c) -..Affect historical.resources -- X
d) Have thepotential.to'cause-a physical.change-Which' x
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?; -
e)--Restrict existing:rel l-.off_.sacred:uses within the
x
potential im advarea? .
The Plan recommends a new Railroad Historic District to identify, recognize and protect
the area's significant cultural resources. It identifies 21 specific historic sites or buildings,
and includes policies and programs intended to preserve and restore these features, and to
enhance the community's understanding and appreciation of its railroad heritage. These
policies and programs cant' out the.intent of the Land Use and Conservation Elements of.
the General Plan. Key actions of the Plan include:
• development-of a railroad museum and/or display area, including the display of railroad
arolling stock";
• A "walk of history" in the area between the Railroad Depot and the former
Roundhouse to explain and interpret the City's railroad heritage;
• Rehabilitation of historic railroad structures, including .the former Southern Pacific
Freight Warehouse and the Railroad Water Tower; and
• Installation of wood sidewalks and special lighting standards within the public right-of-
way within District to preserve and reinforce its distinctive character.
4{-W7OIL
Issues and Supporting Informabuii Sources sources Pow. 4 Potentially Loss Than No
ER 31-98 significant significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless. Impact
Page 14 mill ted
Conclusion: No significant impact.
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
The project will not increase demand for recreation facilities nor affect existing
recreational opportunities. The plan includes facilities to enable safe and convenient
biking and walking in the Railroad District and Downtown, and to strengthen linkages
between residential neighborhoods and Sinsheimer Park.
Conclusion: No significant impact.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
project p -
a) Dues the ro'ect have the otenLal to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife. o ulation todrop below self-sustaining
levels; X
i p, .la. i
threatenao elimrnate a, .plant orarnmal community,
strict the.r ,
reduce.the number or re
ange of a rare,oc
endinaered'.plai t-or antmal dr eliminate importaFIV-
examples of.the major periods-of:.California history or:
None. It is intended to preserve cultural resources and .avoid effects to wildlife habitat or endangered
species.
b) 'Does,the project have the;potential o achieve sk6ft
term,.to the disadvantage of long term,'eiivironmental X
goals?_:-..
None. Short and long term goals are the same.
c) Does theyrojectl have Impacts that are tndivldually
Jliuted, but ctimulattvely con!stderabl®�; ('Cumulatively
considerable' means tha;theltncrernental effects offal X .
project are considerable when viewed in connection
watt►the;.effects<m the pastproj !acts;the effects`of E
other c&irreIM!projects,and the effectsloUprobable
I.1..: :future:: rO ectS)•L`- I,: '
None. The project will accommodate existing traffic and encourage alternative transportation. Specific
street improvements along Santa Barbara and Osos Streets,.such as frontage improvements and restriping of
traffic lanes are anticipated which will improve circulation and enhance traffic safety. If additional right-of -
way changes are required, such as right-of-way widening, that activity will be subject to subsequent
environmental review.
d? Does the':project have enSlronmeritaU effects which:wi1. tl
cause su)istarmal.adverse'effects:onlhuman beings, X
eilffier, ir
ddtly or,indrect :? .
There are no known environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on humans.
Issues and Supporting Information. iources Sources Potenn Pooratially Tan No
ER 31-98 significant significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 15 mitigated
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ.A process, one_ or.
more effects have.been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 150.63 (c) (3)
(D). In this.case a discussion should identify.the following.items:: . . ... _:..
a) Eerlieranailysis used. Identify earlier•anal ses:and state where they are:4vailable for review.. .
1) ER 52-97: An initial environmental study of the San Luis Obispo Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center,
1940 Santa Barbara Street, City of San Luis Obispo, 1998.
2) Report of Phase 11 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
an
such effects were addressed bynmigation measures,based onfhe earlier„ aysis:
None used.
c) Ngtigation measures For effects that•are-"Less than,Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe.
the mitigation.r_heasuresJ:which.were in¢orporated,or refined from the earlier document and.the extent to;
which:they.address site-s ific:conditions of the:, ro ect.
None used.
Authority Public Resources Code Sections 2:1083 and 21087
Reference:.Pubfic°Resources...C(ide S6Mions'21080 (c); 21080:1, 21080.3; 211082 1 21083, 21083 3;;
210931-:321W4,-21161-;--.lundstroti7v County of Mendoc0o,-.202.Ca1: App 3d 296.(1988); Leonofff v.
Montere :Board-of Supervisors,: 222 Cal..App. 3d.1337 (1:990)
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 D
19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM (N/A)
1. Mitigation Measure:
Monitoring Program:
2. Mitigation Measure:
Monitoring m:
3. Mitigation Measure:
Monitoring Pro ram•
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
r.
I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and:monitorin
g program outlined above.
NA - - - - - -- - --- - - - -- --
Applicant- - ------ _ - -_ _. -- - Date i
List of Exhibits.-
Exhibit
xhibits:Exhibit A= Proposed Railroad District boundaries
ih1L•RRDP.er
ALI
- S
•
giku.c�_..__-• .
1 '
-s��,,'� .\�k%'°��e♦`'�"E �•aO'�"F �'�f yt�S�IeV'�``90
t0■a7 - \•',V • ,i �j� ,'S'�
• YL.•!.•i�dl fh;
V a
��1g■ MENPAM
II 'VVa,, A �' •�
�■a
i �� ter_ z...,TA mse •a ...... � t��j r�� � v� I� �\,�
OT
`N! est
s& .. �� � 1.}_ .� _. . 4'�'.• ''/tom,•»��A�•�
� 5 ='ia< i�a -' �`rxr!' 1 • r ♦a *7 �•�O� ,�A� �yY�l�y� 7��` . �4
oil ' �`�/ �"\sir ♦ mL'
���e � 4xii�� I, `S:'�..=�1� yy t�� �, t�aG�•-�b .jy���ri toei,
•ayl, . i�.S, ❑ � ri siii frJ� Ll►s �,•]�
•1.. Sti4� as �?a• 'vmrvmrm Swim
Swig. r7r.. Ifs/',�Iy 4>`j( �a") �• r! t�" �� .�J'.®.
' : �'�� 4 �:� �� �iL�f i•y'rl:�lkriil 7s.� �'��! lye�� 1� L .,6«`
VAIN
AL
ares 69,?plar.���_�1di��♦ .►+V to �L+\y Vii- .�� .�0
BiL1 e._le:. eau -�5 �_�. ♦ � . ';
V~Li .•ate.: w�'ri]PIJp L' i.7 u�k�.a V`�r�` `:�� J.
a71 gt%1nomI
'- —iaai� ea: rig.. .•0+�� �• `
. ■dl� 1i9� ♦ nn
. .■ailml
p■Ilr��y..n�e■�:t.
^44 i•��a� i�MF c.Fs'A1 ::' � i11/�LmV.®�
a 11111 Jk11
� ■I�1..(nIS �1„�..a;ll'. ke��w�ri vl,L,"J 6 717■d � .®�_ 9 \
���.a �'� �,� wr7k•�e[.7� �y�es��t_,�P. �&.�Ia$4aa�� ®' lalp
1' �ae�y�.�'"'�'��w•I Jln'+d na�r.�'�F�.&L':.1s��:,i�L���n� • � m� r.a+ teoaut � _
x� ,�� -fir ..1•
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1998
Page 11
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if the co pt plan has any relationship to our downtown
parking or a potential park and ride si tion.
Mr. Devencenzi stated a park and de may be incorporated at this location. This is more
aimed at trying to get Amtrak cu tomers out of the turnover area so businesses can be -
accessed by short-term parking/us
Steve Rarig, 1998 Santa Barbara St, istributed a handout depicting plans for his
property. He's been in the planning stag or commercial center for 6 years that will
have parking along Santa Barbara St. They ve a zero lot line plan for part of the
building. Exhibit B shows bus layover/parking 'nst his building and he's concerned
about his proposed second-story view, noise, bus o rs,pollution, and a landscape buffer.
He supports the idea of the relocated museum bu ding and would like to see master
planning between the City, his property,and the ad Square building.
Seeing no further speakers come forward,the lic comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Whittlegy moved recommend to the Cijy Council that the PmRosed
pMpgty Muisition conforms wAh the General Plan. The motion was seconded b
Commissioner Kourakis.
Commissioner Ashbaugh suggested ter plan process go forward between SLOCOG,
the City, and Mr. Rarig. .He believes arig should shift his proposed building to
allow for parking in the rear off Santa Barbara
AYES: Commissioners Whittlesey, Ko s, Ready, Ashbaugh, and Chairman
Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewanan effrey.
The motion carried 5-0. Commissio ers Ewan and Jeffrey refrained from participation
due to potential conflicts of interest.
6. Railroad District Master Plan: SP 158-97: Review of the public hearing draft of
the Railroad District Plan. The purposes of the plan are to (1) develop a community
consensus on an overall vision for the railroad area; (2) preserve the area's historic
character by establishing a historic district with architectural standards which would
guide new development; and (3) to coordinate public and private investment in the
district to help realize the community's vision;City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
`T -a
Planning Commission iviinutes
March 25, 1998
Page 12
Commissioners Ewan and Jeffrey refrained from participation due to potential conflicts
of interest.
Associate Planner Hook presented the staff report and recommended taking public
testimony, reviewing the draft initial environmental study and plan, and forwarding
comments/changes to the Council.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked the estimated cost for the decontamination of the
privately-owned property where the roundhouse used to be.
Associate Planner Hook didn't know the estimated cost. All proposed activities involve
minimal grading or excavation and would not disturb soil contaminants.
Commissioner Ashbaugh noted the Bishop St. extension is shown in the Circulation
Element and isn't mentioned in this plan.
Associate Planner Hook stated there is no approved design for the Bishop St. extension.
It is still part of the Circulation Element as a study item/possible project and has not been
funded/designed.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked about the possibility of the relocating water tower from
its current site onto the City's new ownership as part of the Walk of History. It's
presently across the tracks and inaccessible to the public.
Associate Planner Hook stated in 1985 the City spent $25,000 on seismic stabilization of
the water tower. The last phase of improvement is the architectural restoration. It's
funded,the contract is signed and construction is scheduled.
Chairman Senn asked if this plan has been presented to Union Pacific.
Associate Planner Hook replied yes,but he hasn't received any response.
Chairman Senn asked the effect on phases 2-5 if the City doesn't acquire this land.
Associate Planner Hook stated the two aspects of the plan that require City acquisition of
property are the bike ways and the two crossings. Other than these proposals, other
aspects of the plan be implemented without land requisitions. Pieces of the plan have
already been starting to be implemented. Some activities require Union Pacific
cooperation,but don't involve the entire plan. -
Chairman Senn is concerned about the H Overlay and potential bureaucratic issues
regarding the smaller businesses and older buildings in the area
Z
Planning Commission minutes
March 25, 1998
Page 13
Associate Planner Hook stated the City has four historic districts and development hasn't
stopped or changed in these areas. The H Overlay does allow the City to look at new
development in terms of how it adds/maintains the character that is desired. New
development would be required to be reviewed for its character compatibility through the .
Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission.
Commissioner Whittlesey noted the residential area on other side of the tracks has
historic character. She wonders if these features can be preserved and identified.
Associate Planner Hook stated the boundaries have been drawn to exclude the Ella St.
neighborhood because it was felt the railroad district plan was fust and foremost a plan
addressing a mixed commercial district. The issues raised were primarily related to the
Osos/Santa Barbara St corridor, Railroad Square, and the changes going on the railroad
right of way. The Ella St. neighborhood is built out, fairly stable, and staff doesn't see a
lot of change happening. The boundaries could have been expanded, but they were kept
as small as possible. If it were felt additional protection was needed for the
neighborhood, a separate district could be considered.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Pat Veesart, 1446 Morro St, feels this is a great plan and applauds the effort of staff.
Page 9 of the initial determination mentions improving livability of existing arterial
streets through redesign/improvement of street corridors. This sound great on paper, but
doesn't go far enough. He was concerned about the Santa Barbara/Osos St corridor with
the traffic the Multi Modal Transit Center will create. This area should be made more
bike/pedestrian friendly. He would like a signal at Upham St and a crosswalk at Islay St
He doesn't favor widening Santa Barbara St. and supports slowing the traffic flow. He
wonders if we should be including the neighborhood between Alphonso and Lawrence St.
The new bike/pedestrian bridge should be at the Bishop St connection, not at Lawrence
St or Penny Ln. He questions if the Bicycle Advisory Committee has looked at these
bridge locations.
Brad Larose, 1998 Santa Barbara SL, Railroad Museum Chairman, stated the museum is
a nonprofit educational organization composed of local volunteers. The intent of the
museum is to establish an operating museum within the historic railroad district on non-
vital areas of Multi Modal Transit Center. This would include restoration of the historic
freight/depot warehouse and would include historical railroad rolling stock which would
represent San Luis Obispo and Central Coast railroad history. This will provide for the
preservation of historic resources and will create opportunities for the historical education
of our citizens and children. The placement of this museum also greatly enhances the
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1998
Page 14
property value to the City. This will create a unique and substantial tourist attraction
which will keep tourists in the City for longer stays. The City has been moving forward
towards historic preservation for many years and the purchase of the railroad warehouse
and the preservation of the water tower are examples. Inclusion of a railroad history
museum would be then next logical step in continuing this preservation. The museum's
involvement would greatly enhance the City's and his organization's chances for
receiving grants for historic preservation. He asked for approval of the inclusion of the
San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum into the Railroad District Master Plan, included
would be conceptual approval of the track plan for the display of historic railroad rolling
stock. The Train Master's Residence is in the historic area as well.
Commissioner Ashbaugh asked if Union Pacific has been approached with this proposal.
Mr. Larose stated the museum felt City approval would greatly enhance their approach to
the railroad. They will have to work with the railroad in their first phase in leasing a
small strip of land. Support of the City and inclusion in this district would greatly
increase the likelihood of a positive action with Union Pacific. He described the area
desired for the proposed rolling stock.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if City funding will be requested for/by the museum.
Mr. Larose stated none has been asked for.
Bill Piper, 1544 Tanglewood St., is a museum member and a member of the City's
Promotional Coordinating Committee. There's a promotion currently running aimed at
encouraging tourists to come to town via Amtrak. Beautifying the railroad district would
help this committee's efforts. Inclusion of the museum in the district would increase
tourism by at least 10%.
Arnold Volny, 600 Oak Ridge Dr., stated tragic in the area is terrible and Santa Barbara
St cannot handle the traffic now. Signalization is needed at High St. Traffic will
increase as the area develops and train travel increases.
Commissioner Ashbaugh suggested a traffic roundabout at S. Broad and Santa Barbara
Steve Devencenzi, SLOCOG staff, encouraged a continuance to allow this item to go the
ARC and CHC for comment SLOCOG hopes to be recognized in the plan for their
funding. Comments regarding circulation deserve addressing and opportunity to work
with adjacent property owners to blend the Multi Modal Transit Center would be
welcomed. City staff did a great job with this concept He encouraged moving forward,
but asked for more time for review/comment He noted the idea of moving the water
tower is not financially feasible.
Planning Commission minutes
March 25, 1998
Page 15
Commissioner Ready asked for comment on the museum's conceptual plan and Mr.
Rarig's plans.
Mr. Devencenzi feels SLOCOG can work with them, but there are site circulation issues.
The museum has always been perceived as an appropriate use. He suggests including
Emily St. in the district. He noted the centerline of High St. divides the northern and
southern divisions of Union Pacific and two offices have to be dealt with for approvals.
Community Development Director Jonas noted SLOCOG will be indicated as a funding
contributor in the preparation of this document. He reminded the Commission that these
are concepts and many issues will have to be looked at from a variety of aspects to make
this work. The goal is to get a plan in place that provides direction and guidance for all
involved.
Devin Gallagher, 5662 S.W. Redtop, Corvallis, OR, has been a resident and is owner of
property in the railroad neighborhood. He believes the plan in general is excellent. This
area was once the focus of the community and it's now before us for rehabilitation. The
City needs to look at reconnecting all the Links in the area and putting it back together as
a corridor. There's opportunity to reduce transportation/congestion by reestablishing
residential street links. This is the only level route through town for bikes and will be an
important long-term aspect. Increased parking and congestion needs to be addressed.
The Ella St. neighborhood is historic and should be included in the district.
George Garcia, 775 Garden St., Railroad Square business owner, asked if these will be
guidelines or actual standards for redevelopment
Long Range Manager Mandeville stated these are guidelines and, if approved, will apply
to any new development and will be used and interpreted by the Architectural Review
Commission.
Mr. Garcia complimented staff on the report. He feels Amtrak's Coast Starlight should
be included in the plan. Increased signage should be included to welcomeldirect tourists
to the downtown area Traffic on Santa Barbara needs to be addressed and a crosswalk
should be located on Church St. A traffic roundabout may be beneficial at Upham and
incorporated with the Multi Modal Transit Center.
John Caitlin, 1140 Iris St., feels the Ella St.. neighborhood should be included in the
overlay. Traffic circulation is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Hank Harbors, 1150 Laurel Ln., will be developing 70,000 s.f. of office space and adding
parking for 350 cars on his property which may help alleviate some of the congestion.
He suggests a bike path from Sinsheimer Park. He has a 600' spur on this property and
Planning Commission Nurlutes
March 25, 1998
Page 16
would be willing to work with the railroad museum if they can't square things up with
Union Pacific.
John Marchetti, 1176 Seaward, railroad fan, stated during his employment he was
involved with a preliminary study regarding connecting Bishop and South St. with an
underpass. This would alleviate much of the traffic.
Astrid Gallager, 6080 La Vita CL, Arroyo Grande, feels this is a wonderful plan and
urged the Commission to move forward.
The public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Kourakis supports the concept as it stands and complimented staff on their
in-house report. Details can be handled later when plans become more specific. She
noted public comment has indicated that district boundaries are not large enough. She
concurs that the boundary should be expanded, but should be a part of a separate plan.
More of this kind of area planning is needed throughout the City.
Commissioner Whittlesey feels the boundary needs to be expanded, but the residential
area can be addressed/included in a separate plan. She complimented staff on the of
their quality in-house report. Santa Barbara St. needs to be addressed with regard to
traffic and safety issues.
Commissioner Ready shares concerns regarding the district boundaries relative to the
adjoining neighborhood, but feels this may be better addressed through a separate plan.
He has major traffic concerns. The railroad museum, and Architectural Review
Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee views should be included
Commissioner Ashbaugh shares enthusiasm for this plan. He feels a sense of urgency
because we have lost several historic facilities in this area over the last few years. He
noted a major new restaurant came in with an architectural style that has no relationship
to the railroad-style that should be encouraged. He recommended additions to Figure 14
to (1) incorporate the railroad museum plan, (2) examine the possibility of a connection
between Emily St. and Victoria St., (3) reference the Bishop St. connection, (4) reference
the Bishop St. Connection on Fig. 12, (5) reference the historical railroad importance of
the Iris/George/Ella St. neighborhood, (6) include Mr. Harbor's railroad spur, and (7)
include a summary table listing each proposal on Fig. 21. He would like priorities
established Circulation and bicycle concerns need to be addressed He asked that this
plan be reviewed by the Bicycle Advisory Committee before it goes to Council. He
suggested referencing the possibility of using redevelopment area financing. Design
guidelines need to reference buildings focusing on Santa Barbara St. with parking in the
� ;3z
Planning Commission Minutes -
March 25, 1998
Page 17
rear. He suggested adding more conceptual illustrations to include the proposed Walk of
History. He would like to see sections of Santa Barbara St. with a turning lane and a bike
way/railroad relationship. He suggested the possibility of a roundabout South St. and
Broad.
Chairman Senn feels this a great undertaking by the City. He feels the boundaries should
expanded to include a portion of residential component, but it may be best dealt with as a
separate approach. He's uncomfortable with.what may be architectural guidelines. There
needs to be more input from the people who may be affected, specifically the smaller
businesses along Victoria, etc. Traffic has to be addressed and he feels a roundabout may
make sense. He's concerned about the Ella/Bishop St. crossing and believes it may help
alleviate area traffic and hoping the Railroad Plan will bring about action at this
intersection by the City.
Commissioner Ashbaugh feels adoption of this plan will be a fundamental part of
pursuing grant funds for historical restoration and will give the City more leverage in
dealing with architectural considerations.
Commissioner Ready moved to forward the plan to the City Council with the
Commission's comments/recommendations for its adoption, subiect to concerns raised
associated with circulation and boundaries. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Kourakis.
AYES: Commissioners Ready, Kourakis, Whittlesey, Ashbaugh, and Chairman
Senn
NOES: None
REFRAIN: Commissioners Ewan and Jeffrey
The motion carried 5-0. Commissioners Ewan and Jeffrey refrained from participation
due to potential conflicts of interest.
COMMENT AND DISCUSS N:
7. Staff:
A. Agenda Forecast:
Development Review Manag and presented the agenda forecasts for the
meetings of April 8, 1998 and April 22, 8.
May 20, 1998
city of san tuts osispo
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON
THE DRAFT RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN
The Railroad District Plan has benefited from extensive community input and review. Early in
the planning process,community workshops were held to help identify issu4es and opportunities.
Public Works and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments staff were asked to review and
comment on issues and conceptual plans. On March 17, 1998,the Draft Railroad District Plan
was distributed to citizens,property and business owners, City departments,and other public
agencies for a 30-day review and comment period. Advertised public hearings were held on
March 23`d,March 25'x,April 1't,and April a to allow city advisory commissions to review the
Plan and hear public testimony. At the hearings,the Draft Plan was endorsed by the Cultural
Heritage Committee,Architectural Review Commission,Planning Commission and the Parks
and Recreation Commission.
Below is a summary of comments received on the Draft and the proposed responses to those
comments. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to act on the Plan at its June 2nd hearing.
At that time,the City Council will consider the comments and give direction on changes or
additions to be included in the final plan document. Following Council action,the draft will be
revised accordingly and issued as the final Railroad District Plan.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN
No. Commentator Comment Response
. 91WIIIIiI.J�i�.JII_Ll;j jlilil,r iil'llJl lliltl dill n ii tai Vii.,
_ - .i ,,, '.II.�IIu�.Ill nll �I
1 Devin Gallagher • Show fixture bikeway connection To be included in the frrwl pkat
to Cal Poly under"opportunities
and constraine
" • Show typical cross-section of "
RR bilceway
" • Show Terrace Hill bilceway/trail "
links to RR bikeway
" • City should consider historic Not included in pkm;see#11
district status for Ella Street
neighborhood
" • Show pedestrian access at Henry To be included in the final pkm
St.and the railroad
" • Include standard fence design "
detail,e.g."safety fencing"
" • Discuss options for remediating Outside of the scope of the Plan
soil contamination
3�
2 Astrid Gallagher • Clarify that both the P.C.R.R. To be included in the final plan
and S.PYJL used the RR yard
concurrently
" • Include emergency call boxes
along the RR bikeways
" • Note that Secretary of the
Interior's Rehabilitation
standards should be used for
historic structures
" • Show traffic circulation "
connections immediately
adjacent to the district
" • Show the Bishop St.overpass
3 Ed Strobridge • Emphasize historic railroad "
preservation and display to
promote tourism
4 Steve Rarig • Provide landscaping along rear Will require change to Council-
of Rarig property in Multi- approved conceptual plan for the
Modal Transit Center MMTC
5 Pat Veesart • Install traffic signal at Upham Traffic signal location to be
and crosswalks at Islay;don't determined based on traffic study,6-
widen Santa Barbara St. Bike 8 ft.street widening recommended
Committee should review Bike Committee will review detailed
bikeways bikeway plans
6 Brad La Rose • Include railroad museum and These features are included
railroad display in plan
7 Arnold Volny • Suggests alternative vehicle MMIC shows vehicle access at
access to South St.from Emily Upham and High Sts.
St.for MMTC
" • Widen both sides of Santa Widening proposed only along
Barbara railroad side
8 George Garcia • Architectural Guidelines should The guidelimes are intended to be
be flexible flexible in their design and
implementation
" • Mention Coast Starlight train To be included in plan
service in plan
" • Include welcome signs and kiosk To be included, near train station
in RR area and MMIC
" • Include pedestrian crossing on Pedestrian crossings planned at
Osos/Santa Barbara,possibly at Le,J1Osos and Uphom/Santa Barbara
Church St. Sts.
9 John Marchetti • Show possible Bishop Street To be included in the Traffic section
extension of thefinalpian
l.r.a t
v'' YY
10 Cultural Heritage • Reference Secretary of the To be included in the Architectural
Committee Interior's standards in the Guidelines
Architecnual Guidelines
11 Playing Commission • Consider separate historic To considered by the CHC separately
district status for Ella Street at a later dame
neighborhood
12 • Show the Santa Barbara Street Conceptual street design will be
design in the plan included in the fowl plan. Design
details require further studies.
13 • Add the following to Fig. 14: To be included in final plan
railroad museum,possible street
connection between Emily and
Victoria Streets,possible Bishop
street connection(and on Fig.
12),historic significance of Ella
St Neighborhood,and
warehouse railroad spur near
south end of district
14 " • Include descriptive summary of
street design features,Figs.20
and 21
15 • Consider possibility of Financing strategies are outside the
redevelopment area financing scope of theplan. Redevelopment
financing feasibility will be
addressed separately
16 • Address MMTC site To be considered separately with
development on Santa Barbara detailed design ofMMTC facility
St with parking located toward
rear(or center)of lot
17 " • Include concept sketch of Walk To be included in the final plan
of History
18 • Show cross-sections of Santa
Barbara St and typical
bikeway/railroad relationship
19 • Solicit more public input on Five public hearings were held on
architectural guidelines, the draft guidelines. No additional
especially small businesses hearings are planned
20 • Consider the possibility of a Traffic roundabout was rejected due
traffic roundabout at to impacts on residences and historic
Upham/Morro/Santa Barbara resources
Sts.
21 Parks and Recreation • Funds for RRDP projects should Fundingfor RRDP projects wig be
Commission not shift funding away from addressed as part of the CIP/budget
approved park projects' process. Grant funds will be sought
for transportation and historic
restoration projects.
22 Cal Trans-Pat Merrill • Proposed bikeway plans may not Bikeway plans are conceptual,
meet minimum setbacks from precise locations require f ather
RR tracks;review bikeway plan study and coordination with the
with Union Pacific. railroad
23 • Tram layover facility needs No screening proposed in the plan
protective screening
24 SLOCOG-Steve • Revise freight warehouse Rendering to be revised
Devmchenzi rendering to show relationship to
MMTC accurately
25 • Work with adjacent property Coordination with adjacent property
owners to coordinate MMTC owners has begun
access
26 Public Works • Revise Leff/Osos crossing to To be included in final plan
eliminate decorative paving
bands and provide larger
continuous decorative paving
area
27 " • Suggest crosswalks on two legs 4-leg crosswalk recommended for
of Leff/Osos intersection aesthetic and safety reasons
28 " • Limit boardwalk to Santa Plan recommends boardwalk on
Barbara,Osos,and Railroad Santa Barbara, Osos,Railroad Ave.
Avenue due to possible and High Sts.;Emily and Rouna*use
maintenance problems also recommended if these streets
redevelop with new uses which
expand the architectural character
found in Railroad Square
29 • Clarify use/design of staging To be included in the feral plan
area at south end of bikeway
30 • Limit railroad"rolling stock" Rolling stock spur track
storage area to Emily Street recommended to link AAM with
primary display area in Emily St.
31 • Revise text to note that in some To be included in the final plan
areas it may not be possible to
install bikeways on both sides of
the RR tracks
32 " • Clarify that traffic signals at
Upham and High Sts.may be
warranted in the future
33 • Revise plan to show additional To be included,•ifparking lot not
passenger loading area in available to City, alternative
parking lot north of RR depot passenger loading to be shown
opposite depot on Railroad Ave.
34 " • Clarify implementation section To be included in the final plan
to note that the plan will be used
as a"resource document"for
preparing the City budget
35 " • Recommend numerous editorial To be included in the find plan
and graphic clarifications to ~
improve plan
jWL-MDPwmmwft
.37