Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2012 b1 downtown coordinated transit center study review commentcounci l accnca 1 epont C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O FROM : Jay D . Walter, Director of Public Work s Prepared By : John Webster, Transit Manage r Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Work s SUBJECT : DOWNTOWN COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUDY REVIEW AN D COMMEN T RECOMMENDATION S 1.Receive a status report regarding the final recommendations from the Downtow n Coordinated Transit Center study conducted by the San Luis Obispo Council O f Governments (SLOCOG). 2.Review staff conclusions regarding project alternatives and provide comments on an y issues that should be forwarded on to SLOCOG for consideration . 3.Direct staff to continue to work with SLOCOG and San Luis Obispo Regional Transi t Authority (SLORTA) to move the project forward soliciting grants for environmental revie w and other project development work . REPORT-IN-BRIE F On December 6, 2011 the Council received a presentation from the San Luis Obispo Council o f Governments (SLOCOG) regarding the status of the Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Stud y (DCTS) currently being completed for downtown San Luis Obispo . As part of that discussion , Council reviewed and commented on the draft work to date and asked staff to return when the stud y was near completion for further review and consideration . SLOCOG has recently released Technical Memorandum #8 — "Evaluation of Options" for the projec t and is circulating the documents for comment. Staff is reviewing the document and its conclusion s regarding the various alternatives proposed for the project . Due to its location, size and function each one of the alternatives has potential negative impacts to the surrounding environment . These impact s will be further identified, studied and mitigated (if possible) if the project moves on into the nex t stage — environmental review . Both SLOCOG and SLORTA staff have indicated support for moving the project forward to the nex t stage in project development . It is therefore incumbent on the City to review the project, comment o n the various alternatives and decide to what level the City will participate in the next stages of project processing. Determining the "Lead" agency for the review of the project's potential impact on th e April 17,201 2 Item Number B1 Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Page 2 environment will be important simply because any project coming forward will require significan t City oversight, permitting and possible construction assistance . DISCUSSIO N Backgroun d Attachment 1 contains SLOCOG Technical Memorandum #8 — "Evaluation of Options" for th e project . The document compares the eight alternatives that were developed after significant commen t from community stakeholders, transit patrons and transit providers . Four alternatives have bee n developed expanding the existing location of the Downtown Transit Center (DTC) near the City Hall and County Government Center . Four alternatives have been identified for the one block section o f Higuera Street east of Santa Rosa Street . SLOCOG will be presenting these findings to the Counci l at the April 17, 2012 City Council meeting . Approximately forty (40) qualitative criteria were developed by the project team for use i n comparing the various alternatives to each other . Issues such as site compatibility with adjacent properties, walk distances, relationship to existing transit services, impacts on traffic flow an d private property as well as right of way costs were just some of the comparisons made to determin e the most appropriate alternatives to move forward . Table A on Page 12 of the document (Attachmen t 1) contains the full description of the comparisons of the various alternatives along with a fina l ranking of them in relation to each other . Existing Downtown Transit Center Expansion Alternatives — Osos Stree t All four of the alternatives proposing to expand the current operations along Osos Street and Pal m Street rank below the alternatives developed for the Higuera Street area, primarily because Osos an d Palm streets would be very impacted in trying to accommodate up to 16 buses pulsing into and out o f downtown at the same time . Additionally, potential impacts to adjacent properties including Cit y Hall, the County Government Center and Courts building, and the Teass House are considerabl e when trying to accommodate the future operations of the transit center with so many vehicles an d riders . Although these four alternatives are the lowest cost alternatives (mostly due to the reduced need t o acquire right-of-way) City staff does not recommend that these alternatives move forward as projec t alternatives due to the potential significant impacts that could occur . Even if the long term DTC i s moved to another location, busses will still be able to utilize the current City Hall location and als o the SLORTA bus stops as pick up and drop off locations . Therefore transit access into the heart o f downtown will be able to be maintained even if the majority of transfers between the two system s would need to be undertaken in a different location . For these reasons, City staff recommends that Council not endorse any of these four alternatives as a preferred alternative to move forward in the project development process, but instead focus o n efforts in the Higuera Street area or some other location currently yet unidentified . Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Page 3 Higuera Street Alternative s The four alternatives located in the one block section of Higuera Street between Santa Rosa and Tor o Street each scored higher than any of the Osos Street expansion alternatives . Staff asks that Counci l review these alternatives to identify fatal flaws, if any, for feedback to SLOCOG staff working on th e project . Operational Concern s Alternatives 2 and 5 propose partial closures of Higuera Street to general traffic . These alternative s also institute vehicle restrictions/controls in locations that may not be readily apparent to driver s particularly coming from Santa Rosa Street . Staff believes that the actual operation and enforcemen t of the traffic restrictions would likely be difficult in making the street system safe and operational . Staff would recommend that these two alternatives only proceed if other alternatives along Higuer a Street are not possible . Alternative 3 proposes that the existing arterial connection of Higuera Street is maintained, an d possibly enhanced under this scenario . The major downside to this alternative is that there is a lack of ability to provide bus turn outs or saw-tooth bays and this will likely lead to operationa l difficulties for busses pulling in or out of the marked stops along Higuera Street . In general, this typ e of bus stop design is less efficient since it takes more longitudinal space to have busses operate and i f they must wait for an area to clear, they must do so in a through travel lane . Additionally, it is likel y that turn lanes will be necessary at the intersections of Santa Rosa and Toro and therefore the goal o f providing sixteen bus bays may not be achievable for this alternative . Finally, Alternative 6 received the highest qualitative ratings of all eight alternatives and appears t o be the least impactful of the alternatives considered . This alternative proposes a mixture of saw toot h and parallel bus bays to accommodate the bus traffic along Higuera Street . The alternative is flexibl e in maintaining Higuera Street as a one-way couplet with Marsh or converting Higuera to a two-wa y system if traffic operational reviews dictate such an approach . Right-of-Way Acquisitio n Significant property acquisition is necessary for all four Higuera Street alternatives . However , existing buildings on the north side of Higuera Street are minimal therefore demolitions an d relocation of existing businesses might be less difficult. Although the properties are considere d "clean" from a hazardous materials standpoint, there is always an unknown factor in acquirin g property that was previously contaminated . It is important to understand this risk exists for all of th e Higuera Street alternatives and could be an issue if materials are encountered during constructio n periods . Preferred Alternativ e Based upon the information provided in technical memos to date, City staff would consider Higuer a Street- Alternative #6 as the preferred alternative analyzed for the project if one should mov e forward for environmental review . Alternative #3 would rank slightly behind Alt . #6 due to its additional operational concerns that are introduced along Higuera Street due to the bus bay layouts . Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Page 4 Next Step s SLOCOG and SLORTA staff have indicated that they wish to move the project forward by solicitin g grant funding to accomplish the environmental review and project selection process for the project . City staff has already offered written support for submission of a $600,000 grant to the Federa l Transit Authority (FTA) for State of Good Repairs program to conduct the environmental review fo r the project . Local matching funds for the grant would likely come from regional transit funding and/or soft cost matches for the project . Discussions are currently underway as to what agency will act as lead in the environmental revie w (CEQA/NEPA) process . Public Resources Code §21067 indicates that the lead agency is "the publi c agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may hav e a significant effect upon the environment ." The City is a "Responsible Agency" under CEQA a s defined Public Resources Coded §21069 . While the City will have a role in the entitlements for th e project, SLORTA and SLOCOG are the primary agencies which will be carrying out the project . I t is likely that SLORTA will act as lead with assistance from SLOCOG and the City . The City will b e a Responsible Agency for the project since much of the discretionary approval process will fall unde r the City's purview as specified Public Resources Code §21002 .1 (d)t . Examples of thes e discretionary acts include : planning, building and encroachment permit processing ; architecture review and approval ; traffic operations and infrastructure design and approval ; an d flooding/wastewater permitting . Why would the City not act as "lead" for the project? Quite simply, this project was not anticipate d in the Financial Plan and reduced resources make it unlikely that the City would be able to absorb th e project within existing staff resources without significant delays to other projects or programs . Ther e would likely be greater efficiencies if the City was "lead" for the project since the City oversee s many of the processes . However, the City would only be able to accomplish this "lead" role b y augmenting current staff resources . A staffing augmentation is not being recommended at this time . If Council believes that the City should act as "lead" for this project then direction should be given as to priorities of other projects that may be less of a priority (and can be deferred) and direct staff t o return with a staff and cost proposal to process the project . FISCAL IMPAC T It is important to note that this is a very long term project that is just now beginning the advanc e development components including alternatives assessment, environmental review and preferre d d) In applying the policies of subdivisions (b) and (c) to individual projects, the responsibility of the lead agency shal l differ from that of a responsible agency . The lead agency shall be responsible for considering the effects, both individua l and collective, of all activities involved in a project . A responsible agency shall be responsible for considering only the effects of those activities involved in a project which it is required by law to carry out or approve . This subdivisio n applies only to decisions by a public agency to carry out or approve a project and does not otherwise affect the scope o f the comments that the public agency may wish to make pursuant to Section 21104 or 21153 . Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Page 5 project identification . Construction and property acquisition is not likely for many years unles s significant grant funding from the State or Federal government is received to accomplish the project . Property acquisition could be complicated due to potential hazardous materials and willingness o f property owners to sell their land . There are specific transit grant funding sources that would be idea l for use in each stage of the project process including acquisition and construction . As mentione d above, SLOCOG and SLORTA have already submitted a grant request for the environmental revie w phase of the project . It is likely that a large portion of the local match for this grant will come fro m regional funding sources ; however there may be a need to fund part from local funds . If this is th e case, staff will need to return to Council with recommendations or how to fund the local match an d what, if any, services may be affected to accomplish the match . Matching amounts vary depending upon the funding source but usually are in the 10-20% range . Based upon preliminary discussions with SLOCOG, an environmental impact report (EIR) may cos t $750,000 with as much as $150,000 needed for local match . This local match could come from a variety of funding sources some of which would directly affect SLO Transit if the City needed t o participate using its limited local funds . Even if regional funds are used for the match, there could b e some impacts to local services if other capital projects for either SLORTA or the City need to b e deferred to utilize funds for the local match . Each of the design and construction grants that could be used to fund parts of the project will requir e local matching funds to access as well . While it is always good to access "outside funding sources " to achieve these types of projects, staff has some concern that local matching requirements woul d compete with limited operational or capital funding that SLO Transit or SLORTA needs to maintai n existing services and programs . The overall project cost estimates are expensive and range from $5 .2 to $6 .9 million (Higuera Stree t alternatives). These estimates are likely low and it would not be surprising that the ultimate project i s much more expensive to complete and maintain . Assuming a modest 20% match for a typical grant , this would mean that approximately $1 million or more would needed from local and regiona l sources to complete the project . Staff will continue to work with SLORTA and SLOCOG to seek additional grant funding for the project and recommends the following guiding principles in seeking funds : •Local matching funds should come from regional or state transit funding sources befor e limited local funds should be used . •Limited transit operational funds should be used only as a last resort for capital matchin g purposes . •Regional, state or federal grant funds awarded for the project should not displace neede d capital replacement or project funds for SLORTA, SLO Transit or other county transi t provider . Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Page 6 • Long term operational costs should be shared and not reduce level of service for any transi t operator . The DCTC study forecasts that the annual operating costs for the facility could be in the range o f $100,000 depending upon the final design and hours of operations . City staff could not verify that cost for operations, but based upon our own experience with public restrooms and the vandalism tha t can occur with public facilities, it needs to be designed to take high impact types of use . Even if SLORTA or SLOCOG is the operator of the facility, it is likely that the City will incur a cos t since we will have buses stopping at this site . This would be an amount that is not currently in th e Transit budget, and would come from the same funds used to provide bus service . Again, if the Cit y moves forward into the next stage of project development, the issue of long term operational cost s (and participation amounts) will need to be studied further . ALTERNATIVE S 1.Do not endorse any of the project alternatives and recommend to SLOCOG not to pursue th e project.The concept of a consolidated transit center for downtown has been worked on a numbe r of times in the past . Inevitably, the conclusions of the projects have become controversial and have resulted in the projects being dropped or put on hold due to unresolved issues an d community concerns . If Council believes that the project is premature at this point and is to o controversial to pursue, we should make that decision as early in the process as possible to reduce waste of limited resources and public funding . Staff believes moving the project forward to the environmental review stage is prudent at thi s time as long as the project focusses on the alternatives near Higuera Street and maintains a n objective basis for drawing conclusion for consideration – including a no project alternative . Although environmental reviews have a "shelf life" developing more specific informatio n regarding, aesthetics, property impacts, traffic safety and operations as well as property costs wil l all help in defining the project and determine if a project is feasible at this location . 2.Choose one of the Osos Street locations as the likely project alternative.If the Council prefer s one of the Osos Street alternatives as a better layout for the Coordinated Downtown Transi t Center it should be identified now so that the project can be analyzed in the environmenta l review . Staff does not recommend any of the Osos Street alternatives due to the impacts of the sites wit h adjacent businesses and properties . Currently SLORTA pulses 5-6 buses at the downtown location . Expanded routes and increase d buses will exacerbate existing deficiencies in the area and could cause additional issues a t lacking infrastructure locations . Additionally, transit patron usage of surrounding building s including the County Government Center and City Hall has been problematic and need s resolution . Focusing the future transit center east of Santa Rosa allows the unique opportunity to Downtown Coordinated Transit Center Page 7 address all of the transit issues in one location and Master Plan for a designated transit locatio n that could minimize problems and promote local and regional systems . ATTACHMENT S 1.SLOCOG Technical Memorandum #8 — "Evaluation of Options " 2.State of Good Repair Letter of Suppor t AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE 1 . SLOCOG Technical Memos 1-8 T :\Council Agenda Reports\2012\2012-04-17\Downtown Transit Center Study (Walter-Webster)\CAR DTC Study (Walter-Webster)v4 .doc .docx SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S This Technical Memorandum evaluates the conceptual design alternatives for a future Downtown Transi t Center in San Luis Obispo, California, as introduced in `Technical Memorandum 5 : Transit Center Options".Th e new transit center is necessary to accommodate present and future needs for the local and regional transi t services . Since downtown is the major hub for both services, the San Luis Obispo Council of Government s (SLOCOG) is conducting a study that focuses its search on two downtown site locations . The first site is a new location along Higuera Street, between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets . The second site is an upgrade o f the current location on Osos Street, to enhance safety, efficiency and the convenience of transfers . Multipl e site concepts at each of the locations were developed based on the existing and future programmed need s outlined in "Technical Memo 2 : Transit Center Capacity Projections",focusing on four alternatives at each locatio n that are evaluated as part of the study . The majority of the concepts accommodate the future route deman d for San Luis Obispo Transit (SLO Transit) and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) b y providing space for 16 bus bays (7 for SLO Transit, 8 for RTA, and I for other services), as well as provid e desired passenger amenities and up to 5,200 sf of space for a transit center building . The alternatives ar e shown in Appendix A . With input from the Project Study Team and participants in the first community meeting,`Technical Memorandum 4 : Evaluation Criteria"presents the evaluation standards for the design concepts and candidat e sites . The range of potential alternatives requires an assessment that uses a comprehensive set of criteria that can be considered as a whole to determine the recommended site and concept . Each site and concept i s assessed in seven categories : Site Characteristic s Transportation Servic e Socio-Economi c Cos t Environmenta l Policy/Planning Integratio n Other The results are summarized in the following technical memorandum, including an evaluation matrix shown i n Table A . The results and recommendations for the top ranked sites/concepts have been presented to th e City Mass Transportation Committee, a Community Workshop, and the San Luis Obispo Plannin g gig DOKKE N !?i N F:Kitt N1 .TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 1 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-8 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y Commission . Upcoming presentations will be made to the SLOCOG Board, the RTA Board and the Sa n Luis Obispo City Council . EVALUATION OF OPTION S Site Characteristics •Size — The options are being evaluated to determine whether they can accommodate the transit demand over a 25-year period -- which requires the provision of 16 bus bays and up to 5,200 squar e feet (sf) of space for a transit center building . The eight options being analyzed range in size fro m 1 .0 acres to 1 .6 acres . Higuera Alternatives 3 and 6 and Osos Alternative I are the only concepts tha t provide the entire square footage building program in a single building (Alternative 2 provides this i n two buildings). Most of the other concepts are within approximately 600 sf of meeting the standard . •Compatibility — The alternatives should be consistent with General Plan land use and zonin g designations . The Osos Street site is bordered mostly by government facilities . Osos Stree t Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 use government properties to build the transit building currently zoned a s Government-Office . The parcel used for the transit building in Osos Street Alternative 3 i s designated as Office for 1-5 units . Although the current transit transfer site is located at Osos Street , significant concerns have been raised by adjacent property owners, tenants and County staf f regarding the expansion of transit operations at this location . The Higuera Street site uses parcel s designated for Auto Dealer and Services, except for the small remainder piece of Lot 13 which i s zoned as Office for 1-5 Units . The 1-Iiguera Street parcels are currently underutilized and the transi t center at this location appears that it would be a beneficial and compatible use with the surroundin g properties . •Number of bus bays — All eight design alternatives meet the existing and future route demand fo r SLO Transit and RTA by providing 16 bus bays at the downtown transit center facility . •Number of fully independent bus bays — A fully independent bus bay allows the bus to make ingres s or egress movement regardless of the presence of buses in the neighboring bus bay to be empty , thereby minimizing unnecessary delays . A total of three alternatives (Higuera Street Alternatives 2, 5 , and 6) have 16 fully independent bus bays . Osos Street Alternatives 2-4 have 14 and Osos Stree t Alternative 1 has 12 fully independent bus bays . Higuera Street Alternative 3 has the least full y independent bus bays with 8 . •Maximum walk distance between buses — A key measufe of the convenience provided to transferrin g passengers is the maximum walking distance between bus bays within the center. The design concepts for the Higuera Street site centralize the bus bay locations to avoid extended walkin g DOKKE N u NC ; N It N It I N n 2 MARCH 5,2012 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S .B1-9 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y distances for transfers . Higuera Street Alternative 5 has the shortest maximum walking distanc e between bus bays of 480 feet (ft). Higuera Street Alternative 2 has the longest of the Higuera Stree t design concepts of 535 ft . The bus bay locations at Osos Street are spaced much further apart , ranging from 700 feet (Osos Street Alternatives 2 and 3) to 940 feet (Osos Street Alternative 4). •Pedestrian/Vehicle conflicts with center — All of the Osos Street alternatives require that transi t riders cross both Osos and Palm Street to transfer between SLO Transit and RTA buses . Higuera Street Alternative 2 requires transit riders to cross Higuera Street to connect to 2 of the 16 bus bays . Higuera Street Alternative 3 converts Higuera Street to a two-way general traffic road and require s transit riders to cross Higuera Street to reach 7 of the 16 bus bays . Higuera Street Alternative 5 closes Higuera Street to general traffic, thereby minimizing potential conflicts with vehicles . Higuera Street Alternative 6 allows for all transfers to occur within the transit center without crossing genera l traffic. •Walking distance to major transit trip generators — The existing transit center facility is bordered b y City Hall, the County offices, and the Library . The Osos Street location is considered inside th e downtown region and allows for easy connections to downtown businesses and governmen t facilities . The Higuera Street site is located east of Santa Rosa Street, just outside of the downtow n region and provides easy connections to downtown businesses . Higuera Street transit users mus t walk approximately 1,500 ft to connect to City Hall, the Library, and County buildings . •Universal Access - Osos Street has a north-south grade of 2 .5 to 4 .5 percent, which could make wheelchair loading and unloading uncomfortable for the passenger and potentially hazardous . Additionally, there is approximately 18 feet of elevation change between the southernmost bus bay t o the northernmost bus bay on Osos Street which could add to the challenges faced by passengers wit h mobility limitations making transfers . The Higuera Street site is essentially flat, and would allow fo r safer and more comfortable access for those with mobility limitations . Transportation Service •Central to existing and future transit services — Both sites are located roughly one block from Sant a Rosa Street, one of the city's arterial roads, which provides good connections to the north and south . Osos Street and Toro Street (immediately adjacent to the Higuera Street site) both have directional access onto/off of US Highway 101 All alternatives were considered equal in this criteria . •Impact on transit operations — Although the I-Iiguera Street location would require adjustments t o existing transit routes, officials from SLO Transit and RTA have stated that impacts due to reroutin g will be minimal . Higuera Street Alternative 6 provides the best site plan for transit operations as i t DOKKE N ®I-:.. , ,;I Ii I N TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 3 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-10 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y centralizes the buses, minimizes conflicts with general traffic and provides 16 fully independent bu s bays . The Osos Street Alternatives spread transit services over a greater distance . Several alternative s do not provide independent bus bays for all stops, which would result in greater delays to transi t operation s •Capacity to accommodate other services — The locations should be logical to support othe r transportation services and be supported by sponsors of other transportation services . Othe r transportation services should support the two site locations since downtown is a major hub for th e region .Intercity bus services (such as Amtrak Thruway) are well accommodated at the San Lui s Obispo Train Station (and connected to downtown via SLO Transit routes). However, Greyhoun d services are not adequately served at the train station ; so future use of a new transit center b y Greyhound should be considered as one opportunity for the new facility . •Expandable —The Higuera Street location offers more opportunity for expansion due to its lowe r density surroundings . •Impact on traffic flow — The traffic flow at the Osos Street transit center site would remain relativel y unchanged . The impact of the Higuera Street location varies between alternatives . Higuera Stree t Alternative 2 would reduce the number of westbound general traffic lanes to one . This would continue to provide adequate capacity for westbound traffic (given the low existing volumes) bu t would reduce the number of westbound approach lanes at the Higuera/Santa Rosa intersection , which in turn would reduce level of service at this intersection . Alternative 3 would convert Higuera Street to two-way general traffic operation, again reducing the number of approach lanes at th e Higuera/Santa Rosa intersection . It would also require additional phases at this signal, which coul d further impact level of service . Alternative 5 would close the block of Higuera Street between Sant a Rosa and Toro Streets to general traffic except for ingress from Santa Rosa Street to the Bank o f America parking lot . This would cause traffic to shift (largely to Monterey Street), and could als o create confusion for drivers mistakenly turning onto Higuera that are not bound for the bank . Alternative 6 would allow two westbound lanes of general traffic on Higuera, and would have th e least impact on the operation of the Higuera/Santa Rosa intersection . •Impact on existing on-street public parking — The alternatives were ranked by the number of on - street parking spaces that were eliminated . Higuera Street Alternative 3 eliminates the most on-stree t parking spaces by eliminating parking on both sides of Higuera Street (26 spaces) and 4 spaces alon g Toro Street . Osos Street Alternative 1 eliminates the least number of on-street parking spaces (5 spaces). DOKKE N ®ErEI NEE It I NE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 4 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-11 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y Impact on existing off-street public parking —Osos Street Alternative 1 and Osos Street Alternativ e eliminates 39 and 17 spaces respectively in the City Hall parking . None of the other alternative s eliminate off-street public parking . Impact on existing private parking —All Higuera Street alternatives and Osos Street Alternative 3 take private property and the associated parking to complete the transit facility . Higuera Stree t Alternative 6 eliminates three parking spaces from the 1131 Monterey Street property . All other alternatives will have minimal impacts since the existing uses will no longer be present . Multimodal accommodation — All alternatives can provide accommodations for bicyclists an d pedestrians at the new transit center facilities . Higuera Street Alternatives 2, 3 and 6 and Osos Stree t Alternative 1 allow for potentially more accommodations such as a "bike kitchen" due to their larger building space. Osos Street Alternative 2 allocates the least amount of space size and, therefore, ma y not accommodate all the amenities the other sites could . There are no passenger vehicle or park an d ride accommodations available for any of the alternatives . Socio-Economic Impacts to private property — All of the Higuera Street alternatives require acquisition of privat e property . To date the owners of the subject properties have been receptive to considering th e acquisition or lease of their property . All Higuera Street alternatives would impact access to the Shell Station from Higuera Street . Higuera Street Alternatives 3 and 5 would impact access to the Bank o f America from Higuera Street . The owner 1144 Higuera Street (Porsche Dealership) was no t supportive of Higuera Street Alternative 3, which keeps their property in place but would constrai n the use . Osos Street Alternative 3 requires acquisition of 1008 Palm Street (Teals House) for the transi t center location . The owners of the Teass House have recently completed renovations and hav e indicated that they would not be willing participants in the project if this alternative were pursued . They also would not support replacing on-street parking with bus stops and increasing bus relate d activities adjacent to their property . Osos Street Alternative 2 places the transit center building on County property at the corner of Pal m Street and Osos Street . County representatives have stated that they would not support this use o f County property as it would restrict future use and impact the future botanical gardens project . County representatives have also indicated that they are in favor of moving the transit center site t o Higuera Street due to the noise, air and loitering impacts that they currently experience due t o gDOKKE N ti N t : N E R I N r, 5 MARCH 5,2012 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-12 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y existing transit operations . City staff has expressed concern that Osos Street Alternatives 1 and 4 would have negative impacts on access to City hall by eliminating parking spaces in the lot . •Impacts to existing, future businesses — In general, businesses around the Higuera Street locatio n have been supportive of that location for the transit center . By bringing riders to .this location a positive impact on those adjacent businesses would likely be seen . The businesses required to b e acquired for the Higuera Street alternatives would obviously be impacted . Additionally, all Higuera Street Alternatives would impact access to the Shell Station from Higuera Street and Higuera Stree t Alternatives 3 and 5 would impact access to the Bank of America from Higuera Street . Vintage Properties, which owns the Teass House and the commercial building at 967 Osos Street, has echoe d the County's concerns over air, noise and loitering and indicated that they are negative impacts o n their businesses . •Economic development catalyst or benefits areas of blight - As noted in the `Technical Memorandum 3 : Historical Review",the first comment made during the first public workshop referenced the Higuer a Transit Center location being in "no man's land'. The response was that there is opportunity to buil d up the site with more retail locations to develop a more cohesive concept, linking it to downtown . This underutilized area would benefit from the redevelopment and could help encourage othe r adjacent property owners to redevelop . The Osos Street site is already built out and established wit h City, County and commercial properties, and would provide little economic opportunities . COSt •Total Right-of-Way acquisition cost — Due to the size of the project, a new transit center will requir e additional property . The Osos Street Alternatives 1, 2 & 4 would require the use of City and County property and for the purposes of this analysis it is assumed that this could be accomplished through a cooperative agreement . However, depending on the arrangement made between the agencies , additional acquisition costs may be required . All Higuera Street alternatives require the acquisition s of Lots 5 and 8 . In addition, Alternatives 2, 5, and 6 require Lot 9 and Alternative 6 requires a portion of Lot 13 . (See Appendix B for property owner exhibits). Below is the estimated cost o f property at an assumed rate of $50/sf for the Higuera Street parcels and $75/sf for the Teass Hous e parcel . Higu era Street Osos Stree t Alt #2 Alt #3 Alt #5 Alt #6 Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3 Alt #4 $1 .9 million $1 .1 million $1 .9 million $2 .0 million $o $0 $0 .7 5 million $0 aDOKKE N Ii N f ; I N Ii I N (; 6 MARCH 5,2012 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-1 3 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y •Total construction cost – A preliminary construction cost estimate of each alternative, excludin g property acquisition, is listed below . Higuera Street Osos Stree t Alt #2 Alt #3 Alt #5 Alt #6 Alt #1 Alt #2 Alt #3 Alt #4 $5 .0 million $4 .1 million $4 .9 million $4 .6 million $3 .8 million $3 .3 million $3 .8 million $3 .9 million The estimate includes soft costs such as environmental approval, design, right-of way support an d construction management . •Total maintenance and operations cost – With roughly equivalent sizes of the transit center buildin g and overall site "footprint", ongoing costs for building/grounds maintenance and utilities i s estimated to be $100,000 per year for all sites . This excludes any costs associated with staffing a public information/ticket sales desk within the transit center, which could potentially be addressed b y stationing existing staff in the facility . •Re-capture of existing investment – Approximately ten years ago, the City installed sawtooth bu s bays to the downtown facility on Osos Street. These existing facilities are incorporated in all fou r Osos Street Alternatives . Each Osos Street concept reuses all five existing sawtooth bus bays, excep t for Alternative 1 which salvages three . If the transit center moves to Higuera, the existing facilitie s may continue to be utilized as bus stops, but would not need to fully utilize all five bus bays . •Impact on sales/property tax – Although the development of a transit center at the Higuera Stree t location could provide an economic catalyst and increased sales tax as a result of that, removing th e commercial uses from acquired property would likely result in a reduction in sales and property taxes . Osos Street Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in property tax resulting from the acquisition o f the Teass House . Osos Street Alternatives 1, 2 & 4 would have minimal impact on sales or property taxes . Environmental •Aesthetics – Coordination with the City would need to take place to ensure aesthetics are consisten t with the City's goals and standards for either the Higuera Street or Osos Street alternatives . At th e Osos Street site, additional coordination with an architectural historian and the State Histori c Preservation Officer is anticipated to ensure aesthetic treatments are consistent with rehabilitatio n guidelines and are sensitive to the viewshed . Architectural and site design of the project presents th e opportunity to enhance the aesthetics for most alternatives . Osos Alternative 2 would likely be th e DOKKE N i .: N I N I:E R I N TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 7 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-1 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y most challenging to improve aesthetics due to the transit center building's close proximity to th e County building. •Air quality — Both project sites have residences within 500 ft . Both sites would require simila r analysis of local operational emissions . The Osos Street Alternatives would likely experience less o f a change from the existing condition because it currently operates as a bus transfer area . •Biological resources — As both sites are currently developed, the project would have minima l biological impacts and all alternatives are considered equal . •Cultural resources/Historic structures — While the records search did not identify known histori c resources at or near the Higuera Street site, further research through the San Luis Obispo Count y Assessor's Office indicate that two of the potentially affected buildings at the Higuera Site are 5 0 years old or older . Specifically, the car showroom at 1144 Higuera Street (Porsche dealership) wa s built in 1958 and the building at 1166 Higuera Street (corner of Higuera Street at Toro Street) wa s built in 1952 . Due to this, evaluation by an architectural historian would be necessary to determin e their eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (for CEQA compliance) an d National Register of Historic Places (for NEPA compliance). However, there is limited potential that these buildings would be deemed historic . Potential historic resources exist at the Osos Street site, consisting of the Teass House and th e County Government Courthouse Building . Further information on these properties has bee n requested from the Central Coast Information Center as of September 13, 2011 . Osos Street Alternatives 2 and 3 have potential to impact historic structures and an evaluation by an architectura l historian would be necessary to determine their eligibility for the California Register of Historica l Resources (for CEQA compliance) and National Register of Historic Places (for NEPA compliance). •Hazards and hazardous materials — Due to previous contamination, as outlined in "Technica l Memorandum #6 : Environmental Criteria"the Higuera Street alternatives would require coordinatio n with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department to determine the steps needed for re-developin g the 1166 Higuera Street property as part of the Transit Center . A Corrective Action Plan, date d August 23, 1995, was completed for 1144 and 1166 Higuera Street and shows that there is a n estimated 500 cubic yards of contaminated material remaining on 1166 Higuera Street that wil l require remediation . Confirmatory soil sampling, a Health and Safety Plan for worker safety, a Work Plan fo r encountering contaminated soils, and remediation actions will be necessary for the Higuera Stree t DOKKE N N N G I N N I R I N (i 8 MARCH 5,2012 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-15 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y project site . It is estimated that the remediation efforts of the contaminated soil for the Higuer a Street site would cost between 525,000 and 550,000 to complete . •Hydrology/water quality — A new facility must avoid adding runoff that may exceed the capacity o f the existing drainage systems or provide additional sources of pollutants . A transit center requires a high amount of impervious pavement . However, the existing conditions may be similar to th e proposed conditions for all options since existing infrastructure being removed is paved areas an d buildings, with the exception of Osos Alternative 2 which utilizes the County building lawn for th e transit structure . Water quality treatment Best Management Practices (BMP's) will need to b e incorporated into the design for all alternatives . •Noise — Both project sites have nearby noise receptors . The Osos Street site would likely experienc e less of a change from the existing because it currently operates as a bus transfer area . Policy/Planning Integration •Consistency with adopted plans — The City of San Luis Obispo Access and Parking Managemen t Plan updated in July, 2002 discusses the importance of providing access to the downtown commercial core area . The plan also discusses the importance of various programs such as carpooling, vanpools, transit subsidies, and bicycle and pedestrian system developments to reduce th e demand for parking downtown. The SLO Transit 2009 Short Range Transit Plan(SLO Transi t SRTP) briefly touches on the benefits of developing a coordinated transit center . The 2010 Regional Transportation Plan-Preliminary Sustainable Communities Strategy (2010 RTP- PSCS) is a comprehensive plan guiding transportation policy for the region and make s recommendations concerning improvements to the existing transportation network of highways , transit, air and water, rail and bicycling . This document incorporates some of the requirements of th e Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375, enacted in 2008), which requires eac h of the 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in California to develop a Sustainabl e Communities Strategy (SCS) as a fourth element of the Regional Transportation Plan (to go alon g with the existing Policy, Action, and Financial elements). Securing a location for and developing a Coordinated Transit Center in San Luis Obispo would fulfill several of the strategies for satisfyin g several of the recommendations in the RI'P . While the San Luis Obispo RTA Short Range Transit Plan did not directly address the transfer center, it did address the difficulties with timing transfers in the current location due to inadequat e space for current and future growth and the difficulty for passengers transferring from RTA to SL O transit . While the preferred scenario does not expand the current routes or operations, scenario s DOKKE N I K I N TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 9 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-16 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y were presented that would require additional vehicles at the transfer center, including new an d additional express routes and splitting Route 12 into two bi-directional routes . All alternatives are considered equal in their consistency with adopted plans . •Impact on redevelopment — Due to the existing uses adjacent to the Osos Street site, all Osos Street alternatives will have limited impact on redevelopment . All of the Higuera Street alternatives hav e potential to spur redevelopment in the area due to the underutilized nature of surrounding parcels . •Neighborhood compatibility/adjacent uses —The current location at Osos Street is the center of a major activity hub that includes the Library, City Hall and County facility . These facilities bring a heavy demand of people who use these facilities on a daily basis . It is desirable to place a transi t center in the middle of a major hub . However, the location of the transit center proposed in Oso s Street Alternative 3 would not blend in with the neighboring properties on the same block . The buildings on this block are originally detached single family homes used currently as professiona l offices with a few upstairs apartments . Additionally, County staff has indicated that they are no t supportive of Osos Street Alternative 2 as they feel a transit center building adjacent to the Count y building would increase the negative impacts they currently experience from the existing transfe r point . Although the Higuera Street alternatives would introduce a new type of use at this site, it would b e compatible with most of the surrounding properties with the exception of the block east of Tor o which consists of professional offices that may have been originally designed as single family residences . Other •Phasing Potential — All Osos Street alternatives offer the opportunity to construct the stree t improvements prior to the transit center building . The Higuera Street alternatives would likely nee d to build the transit center structure in the first phase due to the lack of existing amenities at the site . For both sites, the number of bus bays could be phased, starting with 13 at initial construction an d only expanding up to 16 as additional routes and services warrant . As an example, under Higuer a Alternative 6 there would be no need to designate the two westernmost bus bays, which avoids th e need to limit access to the Shell station and provides an additional approach lane to th e I-Iiguera/Santa Rosa intersection in the near term . Similarly, under any of the Osos Stree t alternatives, several on street parking spaces could be maintained on the east side of Osos just nort h of Monterey Street in the near term . The potential benefits of phasing the number of bus bays i s DOKKE N N GI N E R I N TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 10 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-17 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y relatively high for Higuera Alternatives 2, 3 and 6, modest for the Osos Street alternatives, and lo w for Higuera Alternative 5 . • Inter-governmental coordination issues — Osos Street Alternativesl, 2 and 4 present the mos t intergovernmental coordination issues, as the transit center building would be constructed either o n County or City property and be used by multiple agencies, and staff members have expresse d concerns over these alternatives . -All alternatives would require coordination between SLO Transi t and RTA regarding funding and operational responsibilities at a new center . SUMMARY OF EVALUATIO N The evaluation matrix detailing rankings in every category is presented in Table A . As summarized below an d in Figure A, the alternative with the overall best score is Higuera Street Alternative 6 . This alternative had th e highest scores in the categories of Site Characteristics and Transportation Service, and tied for the highes t score in the categories of Socio-Economic, Policy/Planning Integration, and Other . All of the Higuera Stree t alternatives scored higher than all of the Osos Street alternatives . DOKKE N ®t:a TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 1 1 MARCH 5,2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-18 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUDY Table A Evaluation Matri x HIGUERA STREET Osos STREET CRITERIA ALT 2 ALT 3 1 ALT 5 ALT 6 ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 Site Characteristics Sipe Compatibl y Number of Bus Bays Number of Indep ,dent Bus Bay s Maxinum WA Distanc e PedestriarxNehicte Conflict win Cente r Walking Distance to Major Trip Generators Universal Access SUBTOTAL Transportation Servic e Central to Existng SLO Transit Service Central to Exstng RTA Transit Servic e Central to Future SLO Transit Service Central to Future RTA Transit Service Impact m SLO Transit Operations Impact on RTA Transit Operas in s Capacity to Aocon- nodate Other Service s Expandable Impact or Traffic Flow Impact on Existing On-street Public Parking Impact on Existing Off-street Pubic Parkin g Impact m Existing Prvate Partin g Mulornodal Accommodation •4 ~. r • r `44 4 i•• # • •i a`•)r 4 4 th,4,4 •r r41!r ►l M P rrP !j1 f i •i S44▪F •R 21 2S 29 20 1#T1 11 *i • • !• !i f a a a i • •i ` •• +err !!•t P P P 4.►••P P r r 4 !4 4,4 4,4 4, 4 4 4 !►•4 4 4 4,4 ;rr P P *•►•S i 4 0 S •• (IF , SUBTOTAL 42 41 AG 37 S9 40 •r4•a Socio-Economic Impacts to private property Impacts to existng_ Futcae businesses Economic development catalyst cr benefits areas of 'blight" s it 6SUBTOTAL Cost P ▪i 4, P s Total Right-of-Way Acquisition Cost P 4 P R 5 S `, 0 Total Construction Cost P 4 P 4,4 4 4 Total Maintenance and Operations Cost 'P P P P 'P Re-capture of Existing Investment 4 4 4,4.5 5 5 i Impact m saiesiproperty tax 4 4 4r 4 •r 4 • SUBTOTAL 12 14 12 13 17 17 15 17 ODOKKE N NtiINn;r:rt1Na TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : 12 MARCH 5, 2012 EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-1 9 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUDY Table A Evaluation Matrix HIGUERA STREET OSOS STREET: CRITERIA ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 5 ALT 6 ALT 1 I ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 Environmental Aesthetics 4.L 4 s .11 L r ► Air Quality tl .i.4 4.••• Biological Resources i i i Cultural Resources i l Hazards and Hazardous Materials M 1 1 !r>!• Hydrology ; Water Quaky ••••+11.•i Noise 1 1 L M 1 SUBTOTAL 21 21 21 22 23 13 21 23 Policy 7 Planning integratio n Consistency with Adopted Plans 4,4,4,4 4,4. Impact on Redevelopment !•*'' Neighborhood Compatibility 4 4 4 Other SUBTOTAL 10 10 10 10 8 7 7 8 Ease of phasing 4,4. Inter-governmental coordination issues •I I 4 SUBTOTAL 7 7 5 7 3 5 3 TOTAL 127 119 122 136 117 109 113 11 7RANK24315875 LEGEN D SYMBOL POINT SCALE DESCRIPTIO N •4 Highest /Best 3 High 2 Moderate I Averag e 1 Lo w 0 Lowest !Poo r DOKKE N ni N t i I N N K It I N N 13 MARCH 5, 2012 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-2 0 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUDY Figure A Alternative Scoring 14 MARCH 5 .2012 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S 81-21 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y Appendix A Evaluated Alternative s TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-2 2 DOKKE N ® L .N c;l li L. 1 ri 1 N 1 . MARCH 5, 2012 NOTES : 1.USES LOTS 5, 8 & 9 . APPROXIMATELY ~ 20 'PIECE OF SHELL STATION PARCE L ALSO NEEDED FOR SHELTER . 2.MAINTAINS 1 LANE WB GENERAL TRAFFIC ON HIDUERA ST, ALONG WITH ACCESS T O BANK OF AMERICA LOT . ACCESS TO SHELL STATION FROM HIGUERA WOULD BE ELIMINATED . 3.PROVIDES EB BUS ONLY ACCESS FROM SANTA ROSA TO THE TRANSIT CENTER DRIVEWAY . 4.ELIMINATES 5 SPACES OF ON STREET PARKING ALONG SOUTH SIDE AND 11 SPACE S ALONG NORTH SIDE OF HIGUERA BETWEEN SANTA ROSA AND TORO ST AND 4 SPACES ALON G WEST SIDE OF TORO, NORTH OF HIGUERA ST . DIAGONAL PARKING ALONG HIGUER A EAST OF TORO ST ADDS ONE SPACE . 5.GRADE ON TORO ST IS TOO STEEP FOR AN ADA -COMPLIANT BUS BAY . 6.PROVIDES 16 BUS BAYS (ACHIEVES FUTURE PROGRAM), ALL FULLY INDEPENDENT . 7.AREAS ARE TOO SMALL TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE 5,200 SF BUILDING PROGRAM IN ON E BUILDING ON A SINGLE LEVEL, BUT SPACE AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE THIS IN 2 BUILDINGS . 8.BUSES CAN ENTER OFF OF SANTA ROSA ST AS WELL AS TORO ST, WITH MOS T (10 OF 16 BAYS) EXITING ONTO SANTA ROSA ST . 9.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 535 '. 10.HIGUERA ST/SANTA ROSA ST INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND LANE REOUIREMENT S TO BE DETERMINED AFTER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . ARCH ELEMENT ~~~~^~^^~ ~~~~.. ^.~~'.. ~~~~ -~----~^ BEI S RREL .TER .. BANK O F AMERICA msoTu,w*=x CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE A AUGUST 11, 201 1 HIGUERA ST ALT *2 ~+~I DO NOT lENTER, NOTES : 1.USES LOTS 5 & 8 . 2.PROVIDES 2-WAY GENERAL TRAFFIC ON HIGUERA ST ALONG WITH 1 ACCES SDRIVEWAY TO BANK OF AMERICA LOT . ACCESS TO SHELL STATION AND PORSCH EDEALERSHIP COULD BE MAINTAINED . 3.ELIMINATES 26 SPACES OF ON STREET PARKING ALONG HIGUERA BETWEE N SANTA ROSA AND TORO ST AND 4 SPACES ALONG WEST SIDE OF TORO, NORT H OF HIGUERA ST . 4.GRADE ON TORO ST IS TOO STEEP FOR AN ADA -COMPLIANT BUS BAY .5.PROVIDES 16 BUS BAYS (ACHIEVES FUTURE PROGRAM), BUT ONLY 8 ALLO WFULLY INDEPENDENT OPERATION . 6.AREA AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE 5,200 SF BUILDING PROGRAM I NONE BUILDING ON A SINGLE LEVEL . 7.BUSES CAN ENTER OFF OF SANTA ROSA ST AS WELL AS TORO ST . 8.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 530 '.9.HIGUERA ST/SANTA ROSA ST INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND LAN E REQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AFTER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS .PARRTRA NS ARCH ENTR YELEMENT N.K O Fz*~x ~7~ y -.~E E C A SECTION A-A CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE A AUGUST 11, 201 1 HIGUERA ST ALT *3 ( IN FEET ) 1"=50'M 11X1 7 NOTES ' 1.USES LOTS 5 8 & 9 . RIGHT TURN EGRESS FROM SHELL STATION COULD BE MAINTAINED . 2.CLOSES HIGUERA ST TO GENERAL TRAFFIC EXCEPT BANK OF AMERICA ACCESS . 3.ELIMINATES 26 SPACES OF ON STREET PARKING ALONG HIGUERA BETWEEN SANTA ROS A AND TORO ST AND 4 SPACES ALONG WEST SIDE OF TORO, NORTH OF HIGUERA ST . DIAGONAL PARKING ALONG HIGUERA EAST OF TORO ST ADDS ONE SPACE . 4.GRADE ON TORO ST IS TOO STEEP FOR AN ADA-COMPLIANT BUS BAY . 5.PROVIDES 16 BUS BAYS (ACHIEVES FUTURE PROGRAM), ALL FULLY INDEPENDENT . 6.AREAS ARE TOO SMALL TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE 5,200 SF BUILDING PROGRAM I N ONE BUILDING ON A SINGLE LEVEL . TWO BUILDINGS COULD PROVIDE 4,900 SF . OPPORTUNITY FOR BUILDING SPACE IN NORTHEAST CORNER . 7.BUSES CAN ENTER OFF OF SANTA ROSA ST AS WELL AS TORO ST . 8.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 48 0 9.HIGUERA ST/SANTA ROSA ST INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND LANE REQUIREMENT S TO BE DETERMINED AFTER TRAFFIC ANALYSIS . SHELTER I r:IANTfPA !.;ii i BAN KACCES SONL Y BAN KACCES SONLY NOTHRUSTREET SECTION A-A PARATRANS NOTENTER DONOTENTER RIGHT TRANSI TONLYTURNONLY BANK O F AMERICA GRAPHIC SCAL E 25 0 25 50 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE A AUGUST 11, 201 1 HIGUERA ST ALT *5 DOKKE N E N B I N E E F I N O BANKACCESSONL Y ARC HENTRYELEMENT COVERED WALKWA Y 55"R,N B LANE PARKIN G LANE NOTES . 1.USES LOTS 5,8 & 9 AND 1580 SF OF LOT 13 (ELIMINATIN G3 PARKING SPACES).2.MAINTAINS 2 LANES OF WB TRAFFIC ON HIGUERA ST, ALONG WIT HACCESS TO BANK OF AMERICA LOT . ACCESS TO SHELL STATION FRO MHIGUERA ST WOULD BE ELIMINATED .3.MAINTAINS ON STREET PARKING ON SOUTH SIDE OF HIGUERA BETWEE NSANTA ROSA AND TORO ST BUT ELIMINATES 11 SPACES ON NORTH SIDE .ELIMINATES A WEST SI .4 . PROVIDES 4 16SPBU SACESBAYS N (ACHIEVES D EFUTURETOR OPROGRAM), ALL FULL YINDEPENDENT.5.AREA AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE 5,200 SF BUILDIN GPROGRAM IN ONE BUILDING ON A SINGLE LEVEL . ALLBUSOF HIGU E NEED FOR TANSITARIDERSNTTOTCROSDSESTREET TORATRANSFER TIN G 7.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 500 '.8.HIGUERA ST/SANTA ROSA ST INTERSECTION GEOMETRICS AND LAN EREQUIREMENTS TO BE DETERMINED AFTER TRAFFIC ANALYSI S IDEWALK BUS BAY -W8 LANE GRAPHIC SCAL E 25 0 25 50 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE ANOVEMBER 15, 201 1 HIGUERA ST ALT *6 DOKKE N E N G I N E E R I N G ,IK O F AP 'RIC A BUS SHELTER SECTION A-A ( IN FEET ) 1" = 50 '04 11X17 8 . NOTES ( 1.USES EXISTING CITY HALL PARKING LOT FOR TRANSIT CENTER . 9 SPACES PROVIDED THAT CAN BEUSED BY TRANSIT AND CITY STAFF . 2.SOUTHERNMOST 3 EXISTING SLO TRANSIT SAWTOOTH BAYS REMAIN UNCHANGED . 4. ELIMINATES LOADING AREA ALON G BUS BAYS (ACHIEVES FUTURE SIDE PALM ST . WHICH 12 ALLOW FULLY INDEPENDEN TOPERATION AND 4 ARE IN 2 PAIRS OF 2 BAYS THAT PRECLUDE INGRESS OR EGRESS WHEN BUS IS I NOTHER BAY (ALONG PALM ST AND MILL ST). 5.MAINTAINS ON STREET PARKING ON WEST SIDE OF OSOS ST BETWEEN MONTEREY AND PALM S TBUT ELIMINATES 5 SPACES ON EAST SIDE . 6.BUS BAYS ALONG 0505 ST EXCEED ADA CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM SLOPE .7, MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 830 FEET . SECTION A-A KLfO,.qA'pi®N GRAPHIC SCAL E 25 0 25 5 0 ( IN FEET ) 1 "=50'0 11X17 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE A AUGUST 11, 201 1 OSOS STREET ALTERNATIVE *1 ®DOKKE N E N D I N E E NY R / VARY'N IN GLANE 3 HU5 5At i SIDEWALK',.(YJNTV 6UILDIV ;TAINS NOTES : 1.USES LAWN AREA ON NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY BUILDING FOR TRANSIT CENTER . ASSUMING 20 'SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS APPROXIMATELY 3,700 SF OF FLOOR AREA CAN BE PROVIDE DON ONE FLOOR . BREEZEWAY PROVIDED AT LOCATION OF EXISTING WALKWAY .(SUB OPTION WOULD BE TOPROVIDE SOME OR ALL OF THE TRANSIT CENTER SPACE WITHIN THE EXISTING LIBRARY BUILDING). 2.ALL EXISTING SLO TRANSIT SAWTOOTH BAYS REMAIN UNCHANGED .3.ELIMINATES LOADING AREA ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF PALM STREET NORTH OF COUNTY BUILDING .4.ELIMINATES POST BOX DROPOFF AREA AND 1 PARKING SPACE ON NORTH SIDE OF PALM ST I NFRONT OF CITY HALL .5.ELIMINATES 6 ON STREET PARKING SPACES ON WEST SIDE OF OSOS ST AND 5 SPACES ON EAST SID ESOUTH OF PALM ST . DEPENDING ON ARTIC . LOCATION SELECTED, BETWEEN 2 AND 4 ADDITIONAL PARKIN GSPACES WILL BE ELIMINATED .6.PROVIDES 16 BUS BAYS (ACHIEVES FUTURE PROGRAM), OF WHICH 14 ALLOW FULLY INDEPENDEN T OPERATION AND 2 ARE IN A PAIR OF BAYS THAT PRECLUDE INGRESS AND EGRESS WHEN BUS IS I NOTHER BAY (ALONG PALM ST). 7.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 700 FEET . SECTION A-A ALTERNATE ARTIC BUS STOP LOCATION S .14 GRAPHIC SCAL E 25 0 25 50 ( IN FEET ) 1"= 50 '011X17 DOKKE N N v,N E E R 1 N n CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE A AUGUST 11, 201 1 OSOS STREET ALTERNATIVE *2 >IJf.w r.v,AFKiNG SB LANE 8 ' IDEWAL11 -COUNTY SUILOIN E/ STOIH SNA LANE 6US PAY NOTES : 1.USES PARCEL AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF OSOS ST AND PALM ST . 2.ALL EXISTING SLO TRANSIT SAWTOOTH BAYS REMAIN UNCHANGED . 3.ELIMINATES LOAD I 4. BUS BAYS ON OSOSNGSTAREXCEED NA DG A OCRITER IDAE FOR MA XXIMUMR SLOP E NORTH OF COUNTY BUILDING . 5.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 700 FEET .6.PROVIDES 16 BUS BAYS (ACHIEVES FUTURE PROGRAM), OF WHICH 14 ALLOW FULLY INDEPENDEN T A OPERATEN2ONGAPALINS T) PAIR OF BAYS THAT PRECLUDE INGRESS AND EGRESS WHEN BUS IS I N Y 7. ELIMINATES 5 ON STREET PARKING SPACES ON EAST SIDE OF OSOS ST AND 4 SPACES ON PALM S TEAST OF OSOS ST . SECTION A-A GRAPHIC SCAL E 25 0 25 5 0 ( IN FEET ) 1"N 50 'm 11X17 DOKKE N®E N 0 1 N E E N 1 N 0 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE AAUGUST 11, 201 1 OSOS STREET ALTERNATIVE *3 NOTES . I .USES EXISTING CITY HALL PARKING LOT FOR TRANSIT CENTER . 31 SPACES PROVIDED THAT CAN B EUSED BY TRANSIT AND CITY STAFF .2 . THE 5 EXISTING SLO TRANSIT SAWTOOTH BAYS REMAIN UNCHANGED . 4.PROVIDES 56LOADINGBUS BAYS (ACHIEVES SOUTHFUTURESIDEPOGRAM),WHICH 14 ST .ALLOW FULLY INDEPENDEN TOPERATION AND 2 ARE IN A PAIR OF 2 BAYS THAT PRECLUDEW INGRESS OR EGRESS WHEN BUS IS I NOTHER BAY (ALONG PALM ST).5.MAINTAINS ON STREET PARKING ON WEST SIDE OF OSOS ST BETWEEN MONTEREY AND PALM S TBUT ELIMINATES 5 SPACES ON EAST SIDE . ELIMINATES 4 SPACES ON SOUTH SIDE OF MILL ST.6.BUS BAYS ALONG OSOS ST EXCEED ADA CRITERIA FOR MAXIMUM SLOPE .7.MAXIMUM WALK DISTANCE BETWEEN BUS BAYS IS 940 FEET . BUILDING DA LRK I N SB LANE NB LANE BUS BAN IDEWA LANE 50'R w rCOUNiY BUILDING STT FIR S A1 . GRAPHIC SCAL E 25 0 25 50 10 0 (IN FEET ) 1 "= 60 '(M 11X17 DOKKE N E N 0 I N E E W I N U CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTE R PROJECT STUDY ARE A NOVEMBER 15, 201 1 OSOS STREET ALTERNATIVE *4 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT S COORDINATED TRANSIT CENTER STUD Y Appendix B Property Ownership Exhibit s TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #8 : EVALUATION OF OPTION S B1-3 1 L N C: I N L i X E .N i.DOKKE N MARCH 5, 2012 APN PROPERTY OWNER ADDRES S 1 002-327-004 AT&T COMMUNICATIONS INC NO ADDRESS ON RECOR D 2 002-327-003 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO 872 MORRO STREE T 3 002-321-003 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 888 MORRO STREE T 4 002-323-021 DENNIS J AHERN 860 OSOS STREE T 5 002-323-022 MICHAEL W BREEN 864 OSOS STREE T 002-323-003 FIDUCIARY PROPERTIES INC 870 OSOS STREE T 7 002-323-004 VILLA PROPERTIES 1023 MILL STREE T 8 002-323-005 BEECHAM RENTALS LLC 1037 MILL STREE T 9 002-323-023 SLO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT 1041 MILL STREE T 10 002-323-007 MARK BOSWELL 1045 MILL STREET 11 002-323-008 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1051 MILL STREE T 12 002-323-024 SLO COUNTY PENSION TRUST 857 SANTA ROSA STREE T 13 002-323-026 LLOLAINE ROSS 865 SANTA ROSA STREE T 14 002-323-027 ROBERT & SALLIE WEATHERFORD 871 SANTA ROSA STREE T 15 002-323-012 VINTAGE PROPERTIES 1008 PALM STREE T 16 002-323-013 GEORGE B ONEILL 1014 PALM STREE T 17 002-323-014 DON A ERNST 1020 PALM STREE T 18 002-323-031 PALM STREET LAND CO 1026 PALM STREE T 19 002-323-020 PALM STREET ENTERPRISE 1042 PALM STREE T 20 002-323-018 GAY/LESBIAN ALLIANCE OF CC 1060 PALM STREE T 21 002-323-019 JEAN B SEITZ 1066 PALM STREE T 22 002-323-025 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1070 PALM STREE T 23 002-322-037 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NO ADDRESS ON RECORD 24 002-322-025 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 995 PALM STREE T 25 002-322-030 VINTAGE PROPERTIES NO ADDRESS ON RECORD 26 002-322-029 VINTAGE PROPERTIES II NO ADDRESS ON RECORD 27 002-322-033 SAN LUIS OBISPO COURT ST 980 MORRO STREE T 28 002-322-035 CP 962 MONTEREY LLC 962 MONTEREY STREE T 29 002-322-031 ANN L TARTAGLIA 068 MONTEREY STREE T 30 002-322-027 VINTAGE PROPERTIES II 967 OSOS STREE T 31 002-324-010 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1050 MONTEREY STREE T 32 002-324-012 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1068 MONTEREY STREET B1-3 3 city of San Iuiso&isp o Public Works Department •919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-321 8 March l0201 2 Mr. Geoff Straw Executive Directo r San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority 1 79 Cross Street San Luis Obispo, California 9340 1 Subject : State of Good Repair Grant $0 .6 Million Request by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) toward Environmental Phase of a Proposed New Downtown Sa n Luis Obispo Transit Cente r Dear Mr. Straw , This letter confirms the active role played by the City of San Luis Obispo in tandem wit h your agency and the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments throughout the 2011/1 2 Coordinated Transit Center Study . We concur that more funding in Federal Transi t Administration (FTA) dollars are needed for the environmental studies of a proposed, new transit center in downtown San Luis Obispo under the 2012 State of Good Repai r program . Such a new facility would replace the 30-year old site off Osos Street (between Mill an d Monterey), where capacity is lacking for regional buses and to handle the growt h projected on your RTA regional network and our local municipal system . While a successful renovation of that facility took place in 2002, such improvements were onl y done on the City side of the transfer site (between Mill and Palm). The outcome of the Coordinated Transit Center Study will determine which alternativ e site is chosen, and this grant funding represents a real opportunity for a functional , conveniently located and efficient facility, which could act as a central hub for al l regional and City buses combined . As conceptualized, this new facility would have u p to a total of 16 bus bays and a 5,200 sq .ft . transit building offering essential passenge r amenities : •Restrooms set aside for drivers and separate restrooms dedicated to the ridin g public ; •A drivers' break room ; •An indoor waiting area ; and •A consolidated fare and customer information outlet . rrl The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities .CV J Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410 .B1- The environmental review of this proposed transit center project is an excellent fit for th e discretionary Bus and Bus-related Facilities program as recognized by the Financia l Analysis under the Coordinated Transit Center Study . Such a capital investment is vita l to the health of the region . We believe in the long-term this grant will directly benefi t both local and regional transit patrons and the community at large in the central coas t region . Walter c Works Director ty of San Luis Obispo ember of the Technical Transportation Advisory Committee-SLOCOG Page intentionally lef t blank .