HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1996, 6 - MULTI MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER city Of San 1U1S OBISPO 6
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT rrEm NV:
FROM: Michael McCluskey imm
Prepared by: Harry Watson
SUBJECT: Multi Modal Transit Transfer Center
CAO RECOMIMMIiDATION:
1. Discontinue pursuing the former Toyota property.
2. Add and pursue a newly identified Amtrak Station
location to the list of desirable Transfer Center sites.
RVMRT IN RRiFF
The need for a Multi Modal Center was identified in the Short Range Transit Plan in 1991.
A Multi Modal site Selection Study (1993) reviewed 12 downtown sites recommending four
for further study. Focused site studies were then conducted on two of the locations to
determine if they met long term transit needs for the downtown area. At this time it appears
that the four sites are no longer viable options for various reasons.
Grant funding was secured in the amount of $1,016,000 and could be at risk of being lost
should there be no progress to develop the project on a suitable location. Because of recent
operational changes by the partners, SLO Transit and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit there
is an opportunity to allow for a facility to be located outside of the downtown core or at a
smaller site in the downtown.
In an effort to present as many reasonable options to the City Council as possible, four
alternatives are presented for the City Council's consideration (see Exhibit A) which include
a new site near the existing Railroad Station. This available site is large enough for transit's
long term growth, and has the potential of securing substantial additional funding
(approximately $1,382,000). Staff is proposing that together with this site, a satellite facility
at Monterey Street be made a part of this Multi Modal Center Project.
DISCUSSION
Bacimmund•
The need for a Multi Modal (MM) Center was identified in the Short Range Transit Plan
adopted by the City Council in 1991. Two multi-modal siting studies have been done, with
the first starting in July 1991. The consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard studied eight possible
multi modal sites. In November 1993, twelve sites were studied by. Wilbur Smith Associates
and of those twelve, four were recommended for further study. The four recommended
consist of two off-street sites and two on-street sites.
The off-street sites were the former Mitsubishi Dealership on Monterey Street owned by Mr.
Kimball, and the former Toyota Dealership on Higuera owned by Mr. Clinton. The two on-
street sites were Palm Street between Santa Rosa Street and Osos and Monterey Street
6-i
�����►�i►�IIIIIII�I� QQIII city of San tins OBISp0
Nij% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Multi Modal
Page Two
between Santa Rosa Street and Osos. Both of these sites included the possibility of being
linked into Osos should the transit system indicate the need.
The Mitsubishi site became unavailable when the County purchased the site for an office
expansion. The Palm Street site is not being seriously considered since the County strongly
opposed the use of this site due to access and building air quality concerns. The current Osos
Street site was discouraged since it is deemed less than desirable.
The Toyota Site
The City Council and SLORTA Board directed staff to pursue the Toyota site in September
1994 after the Mitsubishi site sale. An appraisal was conducted to determine the property's
value and was appraised at $1,300,000 if environmentally clean. The property owner, Mr.
Clinton has stated his asking price is $1,650,000 "firm" and is offered in "as is" condition.
A geotechnical investigation shows ground contamination at various locations on the subject
property.
An initial soils investigation was conducted by the pioperty owner's consultant. Hydrocarbon
contamination was discovered at three locations on the property. Subsequent investigation has
also identified heavy metal contamination at no less than two locations on the property. At
the present time, the property owner has chosen to use a natural bio-remediation clean up
process for the hydrocarbons which may take up to three years. To remediate, the Regional
State Water Quality Board has indicated to Fire Department staff that it will not allow the use
of this method and to date no remediation plan or time frame has been proposed to
rehabilitate the site.
San Luis Obispo Fire Department staff estimated the costs of clean up to range from $200,000
to $300,000 and the State's Clean Up Fund could pick up $100,000 or more of this cost. This
estimate includes processing 250/300 cubic yards of soil at.$45 per cubic yard (hydrocarbons)
at one site, and 1500 cubic yards at $100 per cubic yard (metals) at another site. Added to
these costs may be "de-watering" costs at $20,000 to $30,000 and monitoring wells at $7500.
Since September of 1994 staff has pursued negotiations on this property. After two years of
such work, staff was directed by the City Council to again negotiate for six more months. The
property owner was again contacted to ascertain what actions had been taken on the ground
contamination clean up. Mr. Clinton had done nothing as he was applying for California
Super Funds to assist in the cost of the clean up. Mr. Clinton also remains firm on his asking
price for the property.
I
��uh���luullllll11111n�u►��lUll1 city of san LuIs OBISp0
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Multi Modal
Page Three
The environmental firm for the property owner, SECOR, was also contacted to
determine what actions had taken place on the remediation. The consultant related that some
further testing had been conducted resulting in a finding of additional contamination, and that
to their knowledge no remedial action had been initiated.
The Regional Water Quality Board (RWQB) was contacted and it is their position that the
site must be cleaned up. According to San Luis Obispo Fire Department staff, RWQB's
position includes the stipulation that the contamination must not be removed using the less
expensive Bio Remedial method and that monitoring wells will also be required as an addi-
tional condition for the clean up.
Thus after nearly two years of pursuing acquisition of the Toyota property, staff is no closer
to purchase than when first started. The future looks equally bleak for success. In addition
the funding identified, Proposition 116, requires that the partnership show positive action in
siting the facility or risk the loss of this funding source. SLOCOG has asked that a progress
report be presented to them at their meeting of May 8, 1996. SLOCOG has also indicated
that if no progress has been made they may re-program these funds to other jurisdictions in
the County. In conclusion, staff recommends that pursuit of the Toyota site be abandoned.
Where to from hese'
For the time being it appears that the Toyota site will be tied up for an undetermined amount
of time for soil clean up and maybe further protracted as a result of an asking price well over
the appraised value. It is reasonable at this juncture for the City Council to focus its effort on
seeking the very best long term decision for the City (100 years out) which requires the City
re-visit its options. Among the primary concerns are the visual and aesthetic appearance a
Multi Modal Center presents and its affect on the long term economic health of the
downtown. The Multi Modal Center must also work to enhance the transit operations of both
SLO Transit and SLORTA. If it is assumed the Toyota Site is unobtainable, new sites must
be found and prior sites re-examined.
Two sites identified.
Because the city realized that the funding for the site could not be held indefinitely, the firm
of Wilbur Smith & Associates was again retained, in November 1995, to perform a quick
"re-look" at their previous work reviewing the prior sites, all the while keeping in mind that
both SLORTA and SLO Transit were no longer in an expansionary mode. As a result, the
consultant recommended that the previously studied Monterey Street site, between Santa Rosa
and Osos, be used as a Multi Modal Center, given the smaller operating requirements of the
two systems. Additionally, in the course of this review, a new site, outside of the downtown
core area, was identified. This site has been identified as the Railroad property between High
���►� ����������inu�uil���� city of San tins OBISPO
l COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Multi Modal
Page Four
Street and the existing rail station parking lot (see attached map). It is currently available for
sale. Staff has discussed this proposed location with appropriate SLORTA and SLOCOG
staff as well a our service contractor and have received approval of this concept from
SLOCOG's Technical Transportation Advisory Committee.
Staff re-visited all of the issues of a Multi Modal Center to determine needs and location.
There have been several changes that affect both the size of the project and the viable
locations from a transit prospective. These changes which allow the new sites to be
considered are as follows:
1. The economic outlook in the near term (5 to 15 years) for transit is much more modest
than just 3 to 4 years ago. It now appears that both systems will remain if anything
"status quo", except minor operational changes to correct elasticity problems related to both
time and ridership.
2. The initial project concept also envisioned a need to stage a minimum 12 buses, plus a
Dial-A-Ride van, trolley and space for taxi's. Today, that need is more accurately defined
as no more than 10 buses utilizing a mixed use vehicle parking location. (Operationally, if
off set pulses were to be employed, an 8 bus site would meet the needs of the two
systems).
3. The Short Range Transit Plans of SLO Transit and SLORTA each propose route changes
which now allow for buses to operationally meet at a site outside an immediate downtown
location. The logical common points for most of SLO Transit routes and the majority of
SLORTA's routes are: a) the Downtown; b) Cal Poly; and c) the Amtrak station. There is not
sufficient room in Cal Poly's master plan to accommodate a Transit Transfer center, leaving
only the Railroad station as a possible site. The Railroad station area currently is served by all
of SLO Transit's and the majority of SLORTA's routes.
Monterey Street Site:
This site was identified as not suited for the Transit Center when a larger program was
originally envisioned. With a reduced scope, the site was then re-studied and later
recc:atmended. The development of this site would create significant changes both to the
downtown traffic patterns; aesthetics of the famous Fremont Theater and probable
opposition from Buona Tavola Restaurant. From a strictly transit viewpoint, the site would be
permanently restricted to a fairly small transit system operation. While arguably, the best site
for a downtown solution, in a broader sense this site has limited appeal and a uncertain
project life span.
I
����►�►>I►►►IVIIIIIpI1 iI ����U MY Of san LUIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Multi Modal
Page Five
Railroad Site:
Siting a Multi Modal Center at the Railroad station provides a convenient location for
transfers between both routes and systems. It is important to point out that by moving a
transfer center out of the downtown in no way relieves the requirement that both systems
must continue to serve the downtown. The government center will always be an important
destination for both commuters, those using the government services, the library and of
course the hub shopping.
The Government Center, or close thereto, will continue as an informal transfer center much
like SLO Transit currently operates at South Street/Higuera and at Madonna Plaza
The Railroad site appears to mitigate all the negatives from the other options, with one
caveat: it is not in the downtown area. Since Osos Street leads directly into Hwy. 101 and the
Government Center on Monterey, and since most existing routes pass by the site, the primary
purpose of servicing the downtown can be fulfilled. This site is currently available and is
large enough to accommodate a fully functional Transit Center and will have the side benefit
of improving the area's appearance. Moving the transfer center out of the downtown in no
way relieves the requirement that both systems must continue to serve the downtown. The
Government Center will always be an important destination for both commuters, those using
the governments services, the library and of course shopping. As stated earlier the Govern-
ment Center, via Osos Street or Monterey Street stops,will continue as an informal transfer
center.
Conclusion
Of the four long term primary sites previously identified in the 1993 site study, only one
seems viable (use on-street Osos Street). It does nothing more than make permanent the
current arrangement. Taking no action will insure forever the loss of the Proposition 116
funding which, in tum, will make permanent the current arrangement The current
arrangement does not meet the intent of the Downtown Concept Plan, nor does it enhance the
attractiveness of the Government Center. Thus in order to move off Osos Street, the City
must take action to find and secure a new site,
Two Multi Modal sites have been identified: one on-street site, Monterey Street,and the other
an off-street site, Railroad station. Although the Downtown Concept Plan calls for the Transit
Center to be downtown, it is becoming rapidly apparent that achieving that goal any time
soon is not likely. The primary funding source is time sensitive and SLOCOG has asked for
substantive progress or face the loss of funding.
������� ►�111111111Pp°1u�►�IUIU city of San IwS OBISpo
Ni;!; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Multi Modal
Page Six
Regarding the Railroad site, existing Proposition 116 funding could be combined with existing
Amtrak improvement funding to make the railroad site a true multi-modal center (trains, bike
path, ped bridge, parking lot and taxis). Finally, this location would not take property off the
tax roles downtown. The Railroad site fulfills all criteria, except location in the downtown
area, and would make an excellent facility. The Monterey Street site could likewise be
developed nicely as a "secondary" downtown drop off site without disrupting traffic patterns.
Staff is recommending City Council direction to pursue the following:
* Preliminary investigation of the Amtrak station site by obtaining a property description and
an indication of the asking price from Southern Pacific. A preliminary investigation into
potential soils contamination (records search) will be conducted.
* Further research the cost of development of the Monterey Street site and firm up the
position of the County and the affected merchants to the development of the site.
FLSCAL EMP ACT-
The partnership of the City and SLORTA have previously applied and been approved for
$1,016,000 in Proposition 116 funds. If the rail connection is made with this project, Transit
Capital Improvement (TCI) funding of $582,000 (1995/96) may be available as well as
$800,000 ($300k 1995/96 and $500k 1996/97) in Surface Transportation Program (STP) for a
total available of $2,398,000. Should additional funding be necessary, TCI funding of
$240,000 (1997/98) is being programmed which would require a local match of $240,000.
Without appraisals, it is difficult to know acquisition costs of the Railroad site, however since
the site is relatively undeveloped, staff feels that the funding available should be sufficient to
implement Alternative #1 (Railroad/Monterey Facility).
Attachments: Exhibit A, Alternatives
Map of proposed site
b
I
EXHMIT A
Summary of Alternatives
Four alternatives are available for the project.
1. Railroad/Monterey Combination Facility - STAFF RECOMMENDA TION
A combination On-Street/Off-Street solution. By combining the previously identified
Monterey Street site with the newly identified Amtrak/Railroad Square site (see alternative
#2), an efficient operating bus transfer network can be developed as follows:
The main Multi Modal Transit Transfer Center Site would be located south of
the existing railroad station, near the existing old freight house, allowing
transfer from bicycling facilities at the City's railroad bike path, railroad
passengers from the Amtrak facility, pedestrians from the nearby neighborhood,
and regular bus patrons to occur. With expanded parking (a COG project),
there is the potential of park and ride for both transit systems.
A satellite to the major Multi Modal Site would be located on Monterey Street,
between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets. Routes of SLO Transit and SLORTA
would merge to pick up and drop off workers or shoppers to the downtown.
The street would receive significant upgrading, but would remain open to
traffic.
Staff believes this combination is doable and will provide all the necessary services for the
citizens of San Luis Obispo County. The Railroad property has been offered for sale and
staff is currently in very preliminary stages of discussion with the Railroad. Staff has not
done hazardous materials testing at the site, as that requires approval of the Railroad.
However, the site was never used to our knowledge for any hazardous processes. Thus it is
hoped that the City could purchase a clean site.
#1. Pros
The Railroad property is currently for sale and Monterey Street is owned by the City.
By linking the project with rail facilities, additional funding sources are made
available. By linking with rail, a third partner is created with the Council Of
Governments (COG) effort to expand the current Amtrak parking facilities. By linking
with rail, an established connection of transportation activity facilities is created.
Transit Transfer Center facilities are currently located at Amtrak stations in Encinitas„
Emeryville, Irvine and Oceanside to name a few. There would be minimal impact on
the adjoining neighborhoods by having the primary facility at the Railroad property.
The Monterey Street satellite facility would guarantee the downtown connection and
continued transit commitment to the downtown core. Currently under used and
unattractive property may be made a part of this project.
67
Exhibit A - Page Two
#1 Cons
Both the price and condition of the property at the Railroad are unknown.
Additional off site improvements would be necessary such as signal lights at
High and Upham Streets on Santa Barbara Street. A continuing maintenance
effort to maintain the new infrastructure would be required.
Because this is "Railroad" property, detailed and exhaustive research must be done to
assure both the City and SLOCOG that the site is free of contamination. Although the
site is located a significant distance from previous fueling facilities, the potential of
contamination is still an issue and cannot be ignored. .
Staff believes that both sites mentioned above can be combined into a efficient operating bus
transfer site.
2. Railroad Facility
This facility would be solely located at the Railroad site. All Regional and SLO-Transit
Routes would make productive use of the site as described in Alternative #1. Service to the
downtown will be provided via designated bus stops and no formal transfer point established.
#2. Pros
(Same as Alternative 41, with the exception that no formal satellite facility would
be located downtown, although service to the downtown would still be permitted by
multiple bus routes.)
#2. Cons
(Same as Alternative #1.)
3. Monterey Street Facility
A new facility (downtown) on Monterey Street between Santa Rosa and Osos Streets. This
alternative envisions the closing of the block to all traffic except buses. The street would
be redesigned, trees would be either moved or replaced, extensive landscaping installed
along with raised pedestrian islands. There would be extensive use of street furniture,
shelters and portable flower and shrubbery planters. This option can provide for 10 buses
which allows for a minimum of expansion over the existing levels of both systems.
9-9
Exhibit A - Page Three
#3. Pros
The City owns the land.
The Center remains in the downtown core and conforms to the spirit of the
DownTown Concept Plan.
The County has indicated it would support the Center at this location.
The central focus of transit at the government center is maintained.
A safe transfer center can be engineered that effectively removes the perceived
need to cross a public street mid block.
The site is central to downtown destinations.
There are public relations benefits of keeping the transit focus downtown near
the frequent destination of many riders and its proximity to downtown
shopping.
#3. Cons
Traffic circulation to the core is limited by the loss of a cross street.
Direct vehicular access to those businesses fronting onto the project is
eliminated (a modified version could maintain limited access). This may result
in business's opposition to the transfer center at this location.
The potential of creating an "attractive nuisance" exists which could promote
loitering by providing a more convenient and attractive facility centrally located
to the downtown. The proposed facility would be more inviting then the two
existing on street facilities.
Additional turning movements, time delays and "wrong direction" orientation
for exit of the buses is created for both transit systems.
4. Maintain Status Quo with Osos Street Facility
Maintain the existing transit transfer locations with SLO Transit on Osos between Mill and
Palm on both sides of the street. Regional Transit's transfer location is on Osos between
Palm and Monterey on the east side of the street.
,6- 9
Exhibit A - Page Four
#4. Pros
There is no additional expenditure necessary. With the City's having moved
Regional Transit one block south on Osos, there has been a reduction in the numbers
of unsafe pedestrian crossings between buses mid block (although they
still do occur).
#4 Cons
There continues to be unsafe pedestrian street crossings from between buses
mid block.
SLO Transit continues to have transfers between it's routes separated by a
vehicular street.
The physical separation between SLO Transit and Regional Transit makes it
quite difficult for the frail and disabled to traverse between the two systems. It
also causes delays while both systems wait for those transferring to get between
the two locations (occasionally resulting in a missed connection when buses
leave before the transfer can be made because the driver didn't know there was
a transfer coming).
Significant current funding would be lost.
8ftm/h./mtn!
6 is
'- 4PAILROAD SITE
9
Zz
` J
Ez-
- -
�. -0� � •e,aAz-BIS_�•`�: - __ __ - -_ __ = Z -
•a\yt� N •° r r = = = r ==== = i?
DIC, AUTO SALES LOT —
._A
w r
0 19 O$'ID UP3r0.ST SNOT m ;•.•�' ;,* E'• r r r r r r r r
qzl a F7 CN)
-, G
r r =
AVTO 0• .k i ♦ r r r r r i♦ r r
SHOP r = i r = =i ♦ '
_ r r r Y ♦i r r
\~ A53-85•ARC85.61XS !92(e A 9. (G�' N75'7H ♦ ! + i ♦ ' '
lV ❑ AI16>SS o r r i ♦ ♦ r r r r r
t` r ♦ r ♦ " r r. r
APT. PXVTOfa❑
ti a �., a� , ♦ r ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ r
� � � UCc4 PJ � a <~ ' i i ♦ ' r r ♦ ' ii
a3 n
-I 1 � ti y G d ,ate,•.:' r ♦ r ♦
� Al J vj':' .:;,�- . . ♦ . ♦ ♦ . ♦♦
w e-
&Asti
� r� AI+a•B3
i � CARPET
4
UPHOLSTERY � t:-fi•�:�' O A��'..� i i � ♦♦ 'r
Y,y
.� SQ -1954 .y A" w .. _ ♦♦�♦ % ,♦
T PA C ;'�5y`e
ROOFING
(pNT0.ACTOR C r-�D '• I ♦ I r
� r
R Q � HARDWARE
g p mP� ARGT7 33 Ees9-11 ,K
J �m M5 H5-145 M ARC-11-139
L:Acit-zo7
m - « ARC91-9SMI c• ':�w '`i
794
HIGH STREET
.
7G5 gRco -soC ♦ r:.. .S VlOsi � v ` Q .--ry� ..: .�
Q O � � � � N V, a.C.4AvE ♦ _
ER 14 ov � i-
�� a9z-a9 FW,,ORSoRs
AC. rs l7r��
F
N
N } r y. N
FN M N C < . V N O
7 v .� g u N ti O x
< < o < < N
3 d 9L. s = d d m
MCC
SANTA ROSA ST. Z
W
ZCL
J \ J
Osos ST. \ W
3 �
J F{
MORRO ST.
LLI
LLJZ
CHORRO ST. O V
Z GARDEN ST. F-I
o< C/1
N
N_Q
L
8ROAO ST.-T
F..
r
NIP0%10 ST. �.^0
8 EACH ST. O
to
o
a
CARMEL ST. �� o
N
a
! � O
m a yy c
3 C ts
- N
. 00 loo
LU
Con
uj
ULu
Cc
@m m
� -
cm
w
a ._..Co 0'p' m .m
ag c .m rd m 'pg ao v m
�
:�. ..m IIs
= a
us
LU a.. m 0 C
J — N pj 7..'..ui fD A m