HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/16/1998, 1 - RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN counck
j acEnaa izEpojzt
CITY OF SAN . LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dire r O
Prepared By: Jeff Hook,Associate Planne
SUBJECT: RAILROAD DISTRICT PLAN
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution which: 1) approves the negative declaration
of environmental impact, as modified;2) approves the Railroad District Plan,as modified;and 3)
initiates rezoning to establish the Railroad Historic District.
DISCUSSION
Background At its June 2'hearing, the City Council reviewed the Railroad District Plan and
heard public testimony. After discussing the Plan, Council members conceptually approved the
plan and continued it to the June 16' Council hearing to allow time for compliance with public
hearing notice requirements. In supporting conceptual approval, Council members asked staff to
make a minor district boundary change and to revise the initial environmental study regarding
circulation improvements. As directed, the following changes have been incorporated
(underlined text added; strikeout text deleted):
1. The Railroad Historic District Boundary will be modified to include properties fronting
Broad Street between South and Alphonso Streets;
2. Initial Environmental Study, Page 9: Revise Item 2 to read "Install traffic signals at Upham
and/or possibly High Street; and
3. Initial Environmental Study, Page 10: Revise Item 4 to read "Consider installing i"
pedestrian bridge crossings at Fairview/Penny Lane and near Lawrence Drive, opposite
Sinsheimer Park.
The Draft Railroad District Plan and initial environmental study have been available for public
review and comment for two months. This is the sixtb publicly advertised hearing on the overall
plan. It has 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. The
mail notification list for this project contains 825 entries. The Plan is now ready for final
approval.
Advisory Body Recommendations. At its March 23'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 25d'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
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page 2
comments,primarily concerning traffic circulation and minor mapping amendments. On April
14,the PRC voted 7-0 to endorse the Plan; and on April 6",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 and citizen comments and proposed responses are
attached.
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:
1. A new Railroad Historic District by rezoning properties within the proposed district
. boundaries with an W overlay zone.
2. Continuous bikeways with open space and neighborhood linkages along both sides
of the railroad right-of-way.
3. Two new pedestrian crossings at Penny Lane and near Lawrence Drive.
4. Beautification along the railroad corridor through landscaping and code
enforcement.
5. Pedestrian improvements at Leff and Osos Streets.
6. Street Improvements along Santa Barbara, High, Roundhouse and Emily Streets,
including street paving/widening, curb, gutter and boardwalk, street trees, and street
lighting.
7. Relocated and rehabilitated historic freight warehouse.
8. Railroad "rolling stock" display area.
9. Railroad 'walk of history."
10.Expanded passenger loading and parking facilities.
11.Architectural guidelines.
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 "Summary of Recommended Changes and Responses to Comments on the Draft Railroad
District Plan" is attached. Based on Council's action at its last meeting, it is stafFs
understanding that the Council supports the staff-recommended changes listed in the "Response"
column. These changes will be incorporated into the final plan, complete with graphics, to be
printed and made available to the public.
/'e2
Council Agenda Report - Railroad District Plan
Page 3
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 IMPACT
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 funding as development occurs.
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 previously: Draft Railroad District Plan
Attachments:
-Draft Council Resolution
-Initial Environmental Study,ER 31-98
-Summary of comments and recommended changes
/-3
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,
8
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
WETMAS, 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, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
Council Resolution No. (1998 Series)
Page 2 j
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 Plana, 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 3198). 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 Environental 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 "RaRmad District.a
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 "Ha 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 Gawf, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Wffr . ity Attorney
J/L:RRDP.ccra
/-6
city of
San LUIS OBISp0
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, O, 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.
1-07
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. IF
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
Paae 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 s Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings
of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
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
Fq
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
preeared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and that an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the environment, and that (1)
certain "Potentially Significant Impacts' will be mitigated to less than significant levels with the
inclusion of miti ation measures, noted in the initial study, and (2) An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
�-9
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' lure 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 CEO.A 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.
X40
Railroad District Plan,ER 31-98
Page 5
1. LAND USE;AND:PLANNING Would the proposal: i
61 Conflict with.general plan designation or zonings 1,2,22 X
b)-'-Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies': X
adopted by agencies with junsdiction over,the project.
c) Be incompatible with ewsting'land"use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural-resourc_es or operations impact
to:sods of farmlands, or impacts from incompavble land_; X
uses?
e) Disrupt or Aivide _thephysical:,-`arrangement L of an
established cornrnunrcy :;(including a low income or X
minori cominuni Z.
The General Plan designates most of the Railroad District as "Services and
Manufacturing", intended for business services,gwholesaling 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 .is designated
along the southeast boundary, near Sinsheimer Park. A small, City-owned "pocket park"
located at the comer 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 of uses 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;
s 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 Informat Pources Sources Potu Pomatiauy less Thm >so
siph.._ a Significant Significant Impact
ER 31-98 Iss= Ili impau
Page 6 nlWrdtcd
• 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-.,:L POPULATION ANDMOUSING -.Would the ro osel
a) Cumulafrvely exceed official regional or local populaLon`, 1, 3, 5
p[olectioris� X
b) Induce substantial growth in an-area either directly or.:
indirectly Je g through projects in,an undeve{oped,area- X
or;major_infrastructure?
C) Dis lace.existin ho`usin es eciall"affordable sous
- in ? 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:rWould the ro osal result.in or ex ose peo le to Potential im cts invohrin
a) Faultrupture? 6,7 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? ' X
cy,S e-ismi c ground failure, inc{uding liquefactions X
d) ' Selche, tsunami, or volcanic haZard7 ��` X
e) Landslides or mudflows� X
g unstable sou{ X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or.
%
conditions from excavation, grading , or fill?
g) Subsidence of the lands " ' X
h!!!-_!EY � � � � .:
X
.Uni ue. eolo is or h sical features 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 Informal ources -Son= Pott potcatiany L=s ThanNo
ER 31-98 Sigru. at Significant Significant Impact
Page 7 Ism UnIms . Impact
mitigated
4 WATER.- 'Would.the'oibo6siai-tesuitiri'.'. -
a) Changes in 8 10
pl
--- ------
.-rate.and amount-of tuffidd.runoff? 22 X
L
p6sure of people or property to,water related hazards'
such as floodings x
c. Disdha'rge'Jmtd.-surface waters or otfi,e,r,alteration. o
surface water-quality e.g,:jemperaturcdissolved
X
0.
�,YYRRP R
h'ang-e-sin.the--amount of s ace.waterAnanyowater.,_',
body id x
yf
eY. .Changes in currents,or,-the course or direction;of Water.: x
�-7 I
J
movements
Ch-.en".se. i.nt.1h.eqL@nitty,of ground nI d
waters,, either
, through.
direct additions otWrthdtaWals, drthtougImtetception",
..
of an.aquifer by cuts or excavations or through: x
Y
substantial Toss of g.rouridwater rech6rge capability? --I
.g):,,. Aftered.cHrectiomor rate of flow of.groundwater?
r
h) Impacts to groundwater.quality? X X
qua
Substantial reduction.in.the amount of groundwater.;::_ x
otherwise available .forpu6lic water sUpplies? 7.
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 11
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:
0 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 Informa Sources Som= pate Potentially Less Thu No
ER 31-98 signImpact:
. _.c significant Signifi—at Impa
Page 8 Issuesness d Impact
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.
_S- AIR QUALITY:.would.the _ro osal: _
a) Violate any air-quality standard or`contnbute to an
n
ting or projected airqualrty v�olaUon (Compliance 1, 9, X
ews
with APCD Environmental.:Guidehnes)? 22
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) _Alter.airmovement, moisture, or;temerature, or;cause` X
any chan -e n:crimate�
d)" Create ob'ectionable odors 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.
6.`TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:::Would the ro'osa) result in
a) `Increased vehicle:trips of traffic congestion? S 3, 15,
_ 16, 17, X
r a 22,24
q) Hazards to safety;from design features (e.g"sharp.
curves or;dangerous intersections) or incompatible usimi X
(e g farm-equipment)R ; r
c) Inadequatemergency access or access to near
e
u§es� X
d). Insufficient parking capacity on srte or off'srtXe7
Ji): Hazards or burner`s forpedestnans or bicyclists? X
) Conflicts
'with adopted policies suppq prialtemative
transportation (e g bus turnouts, btcycla racks) X
ail; watertiome:or.air traffic;im acts (e.a .comontibilitV
Issues and Supporting Information. -Sources Sources Potemta.., Potentially Less Than I No
ER 31-98 Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 9 mitigated
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/or 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 turn
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 other businesses
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-turn only lane along Santa Barbara Street. If additional street
right-of-way is needed, further environmental study will be required to evaluate the
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Poto..—ally Potentially Less Than No
ER 31-98 significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 10 mitigated
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.
• Consider installing 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 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?
4
X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration 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.
H10
Issues and Supporting Informat .ources Sources Pete— Potentially Less Than No
ER 31-98 Sigm. it Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 11 mitigated
8 'ENERGYAND'MINERAL RESOURCES:!,WoWd the ro osal
a) .Conflict wtth adopted energy conservation`plans? 12 X
b) Use nonr'enewable resources to a:w_ astefui.and X
tnefficientsnanne'r ^ 4 '
c) Result"in the loss of ava0abilrty of a knownmineral' ,
...resource-Amipv
would be of:future value to,-the region " X
and the.re'sidents'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...HA7ARDS. WoWd the roosal involve:
a). A risk of aedidental explosion or release.of hazardous
substances (including, but.not limited to :oil, pesticides,. 1, 6, 7 X
chemicals or'radiatian)� .
b) Possible interference with.an emergency response plan 's- X
or emergency evacuation.,plan. ._ .
c) The creation of any heahh hazard or potential health X
hazards ;_
d) .,Exposure:of people to existing sources of'potential'. X
Fiealiii hazards?
.'e)...:Increased fire hazard in areas with.flarrtmable brush, X
grass or trees. r -
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.
10. NOISE: Wouldahe ro osal iesultin
a}_ Increase;in ewsttng noisetevels? ", s 114,
FT
9, 15 X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels;as X
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise:
r 1
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 Informs Sources Sources Pote Po Mlint y LaaThan No
ER 31-88 Signa A Significant significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Page 12 mitigawd
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 in a need for new or altered
ovemment services in an of the fol owing areas- .:...,::::'
a)_"Fre protection7. - ; 1,3,6, X
7,22
41 Police protection` X
c) Sahools7:-: X
d1 Maintenance of public facilities,including roads A X
e) Other gOV76rnmental 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 SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new.systems or supplies, .
or substantial alterations to the followin uhTities:r'
a) Power or natural gas? 1, 7. X
22
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local.or regional_water treatment or distribution Is. X
facilities?
d) Sewer or:septic'tanks� X
e) Storm water drainages X
f) Solid waste disposal? x
) Local orseqional water sum lies? X
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.::Would`tfie `ro osal
a).. Affect a:scenic vista of scenic highway. 2, 3, X
Issues and Supporting Informat Jurces Sow= Poter Poaadally LA=Than No
ER 31-98 sign. . t significant Sivdficant Impact
ISSM Uniew Impact
Page 13 mitigated
18, 19
b) -Have d_emonstrable negative aesth_eUc effect? X
c) :create.ti hL or Flare? 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 the ro osal:: ::
_
a). Disturb:paleontological,resources7, 20, 21, X
22.25
b) .Mturb archaeologicalresourcesX
;).-Affect istonca .resources,::-: -: :
X
d). Have the potential to.causg a physical,
change Which.: .' X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses witl•iin the X
otential impact area
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 carry 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
"rolling 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.
Issues and Supporting Informat Sources some« Porn Potentiauy Less Than No
ER 31-98 sipi. .t SipiScmt signifieanc hap=
Page 14 Issues UnIMSinitigIMP=
Conclusion: No significant impact.
15..:RECREATION' lNould the'_ ro osal. =
a), Increase tt a demand for�neighborhood or regional parks y: X
or they recreational faci itieO. 1, 22
b) _Affect kx n recreational o ortunmes 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.
76:MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCES
a) Does the,project have the..potentiol 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;
X
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce-.the number or.restrict the.'range of a rare or:
... ... e .
}endangered plant oranimal or.eliminate important.=
examples of the:moor periods of California history or
prehistory?...-
None.
:histo }None. It is intended to preserve cultural resources and avoid effects to wildlife habitat or endangered
species.
b} Does the project have.the potential to.achieve,short-
term a disadvantage.'of:long-term, environmental X
to.th
Yoals�
None. Short and long term goals are the same.
c), ;.Does`tl epiojecthave impacts that are;individually
limited,-but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively,;.:
considerable means
OMAN 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
_future projectsV.
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 environmental effects which;will
cause substantial adverse if on human beings; X
..,e-itherdirect) or::indirectl ?
There are no known environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on humans.
/-91D
Issues and Supporting Informat aurces somas Pota Potentiauy Lew Than No
signinSignificant significant Impact
ER 31-98 lsma udew hapacE
Page 15 mitigated
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Farber'analysis" may be used where, pursuant to the:tiering, program'EIR,`o(:other CEnA process, one or.
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an-earlier EIR or.:Nege tive Declaration Sectron 15063 (c) '(3)
(D) In this"..:case a discussion:should`identify.the#ollowin ,items
:a)_Earlier 's used.'"lite' ' e-arriec anal ses"and state where the";are available for'rev�ew.
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 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
dad ate ed m an.earlier document pursuant applicable legal standards, and state whether= .
an � h+analyz
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 ahe extent to:
which the address sife-s edfic conditions of the ro ect.
None used.
_Authorit , Pub�Resources'Code Sections 21083 and 21087 y
Reference -Public Resources Code Sections 21080.(c),'21080.1, 210806:....3,.2'10821_ ;.21083,:-210-:83.3
21093,32.1094, 21151, Sundstrom v. County of Mendocmo,:r202 Cal`:App:;:3d 296 (1988), Zeonofff v-
Monrere 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, 4344,
49, 54-55.
4. C' 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:
MonRorin Pro ram•
2. Mitigation Measure:
Monitoring Program:
3. Mitigation Measure:
Monitoring Program:
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
I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above.
NA
Applicant Date
List of Exhibits:
4
Exhibit A- Proposed Railroad District boundaries
jh/L•RRDP.er
•
�p ' �,+6b�`",a;@», act a0 �•~ �` rr, �. _ ..,
� ��'�����-' •�•;��'��� +�!<� ,�.., yam'; ��� �� �
• i -i i Iii��� ��� � ���, ���V�•��i �A �� � ���I � f
� '��•. ` .��� \.� � +ice• � G�
1r. .gip �/, g c'�+�' ♦ • i■I� �n
• 1
{Y\• LI1�t1.:AGI tL ` �7 ..W + r '+a i
•��7iS:.�a�dt nor.' ��jy o.._�. ® 4�V���s1� VP��4_�'I■�
I- itis_ 7 i � is .��JL• � ^.!. `�,jrGy ). ��~I� `I~,! �\
�?'e f. ''' '� �c - ■ :_. a rare a i � �7.. \ •e-
� � irr.,1rO�. ��$ �s- i. �•���1j���� ' � fir. CjG�t�I� �a�� � ,�Q>
t-w.� 7f..�� , t'�' YiP �• � r�t��r� a.I� +Sr t•Y..�
s !qq+ its
•err.. �`��
r. J.r� liai r7rr f/i� '�
_ � f•�� L1r+r
•a
Ili+ : l tft�lJl ��
r sir: •,• Q7+r^OvrJ'.alv__J��J�►
:rrt� - tet. .�sa►®
L':.rte] ,,C-i.j�i '`:�� Y.9t beta 110111
sem.
� ��ixL•�.r'.i itl_ E� ��i �
6►. _F.v�aheI,�r_ ir28iri era,=;�����98��,
�- cry. r•J ...
!.[a®C �.qua�..:r�L n �r� - �•�
Nil
TO
019,11 I'm I
r. _Gad
Go
,nEC9�_ �'ri6,111
9�. 1 r:�p,,tJl pub fah n ■ t �
rr. .•.i.S.:�.r1 i_e.M/+l�Ll!_� 4-�i1�SL-jai ,���9' i ::�!a ��;�0....,�r. p ®e�0
r
MEMaWMNF: ���a.�b �o::dam °��' �.'! ,ry� I l �
Se"iy5 L+11�
Y MEW
in
�''''�510.
May 20, 1998
city of san Luis 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 23cd,March 25*,April 1¢, and April 6"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 2'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
Citizens
1 Devin Gallagher • Show future bikeway connection To be included in the final plan.
to Cal Poly under"opportunities
and constraints"
" • Show typical cross-section of "
RR bikeway
" • Show Terrace Hill bikeway/trail "
links to RR bikeway
" • City should consider historic Not included in plan,see 911
district status for Ella Street
neighborhood
• Show pedestrian access at Henry To be included in thefinal plan
St.and the railroad
" • Include standard fence design "
detail,e.g."safety fencing"
" • Discuss options for remediating Outside of the scope of the Min
soil contamination
2 Astrid Gallagher • Clarify that both the P.C.R.R. To be included in thehnal plan
and S.P.R.R.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 MA fC
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 guidelines 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 include4 near train station
in RR area and MMIC
" • Include pedestrian crossing on Pedestrian crossings planned at
OsoslSanta Barbara,possibly at Leff/Osos and Upham/Santa Barbara
Church St. Sts.
9 John Marchetti • Show possible Bishop Street To be included in the Trac section
extension of the final plan
City Advisory Bodies
10 Cultural Heritage • Reference Secretary of the To be included in the Architectural
Committee Interior's standards in the Guidelines
Architectural Guidelines
11 Planning Commission • Consider separate historic To considered by the CHC separately
district status for Ella Street at a later date
neighborhood
12 • Show the Santa Barbara Street Conceptual street design will be
design in the plan included in the final plan. Design
/-*t,so
I
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 rhe plan Redevelopment
financing feasibility will be
addressed separately
16 " • Address MMTC site To be considered separately with
development on Santa Barbara detailed design of MMTCfacility
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 Trac 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 Funding for RRDP projects will 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.
Other Agencies
22 Cal Trans-Pat Merrill • Proposed bikeway plans may not Bikeway plans are conceptual,
meet minimum setbacks from precise locations require further
RR tracks;review bikeway plan study and coordination with the
with Union Pacific. railroad
23 • Train layover facility needs No screening proposed in the plan
protective screening
24 SLOCOG-Steve • Revise freight warehouse Rendering to be revised
Devinchenzi rendering to show relationship to
MMTC accurately
25 • Work with adjacent property Coordination with adjacent property
owners to coordinate MMTC owners has begun
access
City Staff
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 Roundhuse
maintenance problems also recommended if these streets
redevelop with new uses which
expand the architectural character
found in Railroad Square
29 • Clarify useldesign of staging To be included in the final plan
area at south end of bikeway
30 " Limit railroad"rolling stock" Rolling stock spur track
storage area to Emily Street recommended to link MMTC 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;if parking lot not
passenger loading area in available to City, alternattve
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 final plan
and graphic clarifications to
improve plan
jhlL =Pcomments
_&