HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/03/1991, 1 - TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER STUDY 1��M���9�1IWIIIII�01l 111 "� MEF-3 DAT
Cl O San l S OBl SpO ` 3- - �i�'
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT M NUMBEfi:
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
PREPARED BY: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Harry Watson, Transit Manager
SUBJECT: Transit Transfer Center Study
CAO RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Review alternative locations for the development of a
permanent transit transfer center and select a site on the
corner of Santa Rosa and Monterey streets for further study
(site 7.A. ) .
2. Authorize staff to pursue grant funds through the Area
Coordinating Council to support a more detailed feasibility
study of this site.
DISCUSSION:
Background
During Fiscal Year 1990-91, the Council authorized the submittal
of a grant application for the completion of a Short-Range Transit
Plan (SRTP) . The SRTP was to consist of three separate phases:
A trolley evaluation; a transit transfer center evaluation; and a
Five-Year Operations Plan.
Staff successfully obtained a grant, and the consulting firm of
Nelson/Nygard was hired to complete the three phases of the SRTP.
Thus far, the City Council has reviewed and approved the trolley
evaluation component of the plan. This report focuses on the
second phase of the SRTP, "Transit Center Site Study" .
The current transit transfer location is on Osos Street, between
Palm and Mill streets. This location serves both the City and
Regional Transit systems. The location cannot truly be considered
a "transfer center" or "terminal" in the sense that it is
essentially an improvised location lacking facilities typically
included in true transfer centers (restrooms, public counter, a
manager's station, etc. ) .
While the current location serves both systems adequately at the
present time, the location is certainly not ideal. The current
location is limited in its current capacity, offers minimal
opportunity for future expansion, and creates safety conflicts with
existing automobile and pedestrian traffic in the area. For these
reasons, as a part of reviewing preliminary civic center expansion
ideas, the City Council directed staff to pursue the study of
alternative transit transfer center locations as a part of the
SRTP.
4101%11 p 1I1 city Of san-LUIS OBIspO
MM iman COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Criteria/Methodolocry for Site Evaluation
The Transit Transfer Center Study prepared by Nelson/Nygard
outlines in detail the criteria and methodology for reviewing
alternative transfer center locations. The criteria includes items
related to design, access and site needs.
In the design criteria phase of the study, it is stressed that the
center should be located at the natural intersection of several bus
routes, both SLO Transit's and the Regional System's, and should
be located within reasonable proximity to the City and County
government centers. Passenger area requirements should include
restrooms, passenger information services, and a potential driver
facility. A new center should also contain a staff booth and
counter area for the sale of bus passes (these facilities would
also serve as a location for monitoring and dispatching the
critical timed transfers of the various routes as they arrive at
the center) .
Key access requirements include that there be entrances and exits
located on more than one access road, and a separation of major
pedestrian and vehicle flows.
In order to evaluate the various alternative sites, preliminary
site selection criteria was divided by the consultant into four
major categories. Each major category and its sub-categories were
assigned points and weights, with the various sites rated against
this "scoreboard". The four major categories, and their respective
sub-categories, are outlined below:
1. Site Specific Issues (20 total points)
Size
• Physical conditions and environmental concerns
• Ownership
• Zoning
• Fiscal impact
2 . Traffic/Access Issues (34 total points possible)
• Access
• Traffic congestion
• Local traffic patterns
• Pedestrian access
• Off-site improvements
• Parking impact
3 . Neighborhood/Community Issues (31 total points possible)
• Land use compatibility I
• Activity center location I
• Relocation
�u� �H►IVIIIII�I� ���� city of san tins osispo
mom A
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
• Growth capacity
• Potential for joint development
4. Other Issues (15 total points possible)
• Growth capacity
• Joint development potential
Site Alternatives
The following eight sites were selected by staff and the consultant
for evaluation:
1. Osos Street between Mill and Palm (current Transfer Center
location)
2. Osos Street between Monterey and Higuera (currently public
parking lot; former "Court Street" site)
3. Morro and Pacific streets (currently post office parking lot)
4. Pacific between Morro and Osos streets (currently parking lot
for San Luis Medical Clinic)
5. Mid block between Palm and Monterey (currently monthly public
parking lot)
6. Mid block between Higuera and Marsh south of Nipomo Street
(potential future parking structure site)
7. Santa Rosa Street between Higuera and Monterey (currently
Shell Service Station; Downtown Physical Concept Plan
preliminary recommendation)
8. Higuera Street and Toro (currently Spring Toyota dealership) .
Site Evaluation
Detailed narrative discussion of the advantages and disadvantages
of the above eight sites is provided on pages 12-19, with an easy-
to-read summary table provided on page 20. Out of a possible 100
points, the top three sites were ranked as follows:
1. Site 7.A. : Santa Rosa Street between Higuera and Monterey
(score 87)
This site is approximately 50, 000 square feet and is currently
occupied by the Shell Service Station. Its major advantages
include its excellent size, shape, and location. It is across
the street from the Government Center and within three blocks I
of City Hall. It has access from three major streets. In
addition, it offers a potential tie-in to the Amtrak Station
which is located east on Santa Rosa Street. Another unique
���n�i�►►►�IIIIIIIIIIn111 city of San Lays osispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
advantage is its joint development potential, and its related
potential for grant funding assistance.
With respect to its joint development potential, this site has
been identified by the Downtown Physical Concept Plan
Committee as a possible location for a transit center, a
multi-story parking facility, and a private commercial
development. The inclusion of a parking facility is intended
to support the expansion of the County Government complex on
property recently acquired on the corner of Santa Rosa and
Monterey Streets (the "donut shop/bank" property) .
One significant disadvantage of this site is that it is
currently privately owned and, therefore, substantial
acquisition costs will be necessary. However, its joint
development potential brings to the project a number of
possible "partners" . Based on the Downtown Physical Concept
Plan Committee concept, contributions to the project could
come from SLO Transit, Regional Transit, the City, the County,
the City Parking Program, a private developer, and Proposition
116 grant funding.
Therefore, despite its development costs (preliminarily
estimated at nearly $2 . 5 million for only the Transfer Center
component) , the site was ranked as the first recommended
location. Staff believes it is an excellent option which
should be further studied, as discussed later in this report.
I
2. Site 2 : Osos Street between Monterey and Higuera (the former
Court Street site) (score 76)
This site offers approximately 14 , 000 square feet, or slightly
more than the one-third acre minimum recommended by the
consultant. The site has several advantages, including its
configuration, access, proximity to government offices, and i
its public ownership. Its major disadvantage is that, at this
time, it remains City policy to eventually encourage a retail
development on this site to help "anchor" the northwest
portion of the downtown. Therefore, designation of a Transfer
Center at this location would not be consistent with the
current view of the property's "highest and best use" .
This location could also be viewed as an intrusion into the
downtown core which would discourage pedestrian activity due
to the bus traffic.
3 . Site 7.B. : Hiciuera Street between Santa Rosa and Toro (score
73
This site is located just behind Site 7.A. and would require
combining two to three separate parcels. The major parcel is
I-�f
���H��bu�mIIIII�IIpn�u�q�1� city of San 1L.b- OBISpo
niis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
currently occupied by Spring Toyota, with the others housing
Dean Witter Financial Services and a parking lot. Combined,
these lots would provide over 30, 000 square feet of space.
The advantages of this site are similar to Site 7.A. , although
not as ideal in terms of access and circulation (a corner lot
is preferred) . The disadvantages of the site include the
complexity of assembling three parcels into one, the
possibility of relocation costs, and a steep grade change
between Monterey and Higuera Streets which could make through
bus movement problematic.
REVIEW/COMMENTS BY OTHER PARTIES
As a matter of routine, significant matters affecting the City's
transit system are reviewed by the City's Mass Transportation
Committee. With respect to this particular study, there have been
several other interested parties, including the Downtown Physical
Concept Plan Committee, the BIA, the Chamber of Commerce, the Area
Coordinating Council, and the Regional Transit Authority. Interest
by these parties primarily originated with the County Space Needs
Task Force chaired by Supervisor David Blakely. The task force
includes representatives from the County and the City
(Councilmember Roalman, Planning Commissionmember Kourakis, City
staff) , and most of the organizations noted above.
The consensus of the Task Force is that Site 7.A, recommended by
the Downtown Physical Concept Plan Committee, and further supported
by the Nelson/Nygard study, offers the best possible location for
a transit transfer center not only because of its "center merits",
but because of the possibility of a joint venture that achieves
additional goals as well. As mentioned previously, these other
goals include the possibility of co-locating a parking facility to
serve County office expansion downtown.
In any case, individual organizations represented on the task force
indicted that they wished to refer the study to their various j
bodies for an official position. Therefore, over the last few
weeks staff has reviewed the study with a number of interested
parties, with their comments summarized below:
Mass Transportation Committee (MTC) : The MTC received the Transfer
Center Study . at their May 1, 1991 meeting and accepted the
consultant's preliminary findings. Their comments have been
incorporated into the final document. The results of the
additional site (7A) being investigated by the consultant were not
known at that time. The MTC heard the additional site at their
August 14 meeting and agreed with Site 7.A as being the most
desirable.
City Parkins Committee: The item was heard at the August 14th
meeting. They agreed with Site 7 .A as the best of the sites
identified and added the benefits that it would lessen the County's
��� ����►ulllllllllpp°1°'9�UIU city of San LUIS OBISpo
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
impact on the Palm Street Parking Structure, would lessen the
number of vehicles in the downtown core, and that it is a long-
term solution to many City problems.
Downtown Physical Concept Plan Committee: At their March 27
meeting of the Downtown Physical Concept Plan Committee, the Santa
Rosa site was added to the list as a prospective site. The vendor
was asked to consider this site by the same criteria as the
previously identified sites. The Committee supports the site as
a priority location. They envision the Shell station as part of
the project.
Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber of Commerce staff endorses the
consultant's findings as outlined by the attached letter of
support.
Business Improvement Association: The Parking Committee of the BIA
confirms the study's findings. The Executive Committee heard the
item on August 15 and endorsed Site 7.A as their choice.
Planning Commission: The item was heard July 24th. The Planning
Commission did not have a quorum, so input was based on the
comments of three members. These members felt that sites 7A and
7B were too far east, that they would stretch the limits to which
riders would walk, and that crossing Santa Rosa was unsafe for
pedestrians and should not be encouraged. They were also concerned
about "stretching" the boundaries of the downtown. The Osos Street
(Court Street) site was preferable if it incorporated a park-like
setting. They added that the County office expansion location on
Monterey Street should also be considered as a transfer site along
with County office building development.
NEXT STEP: GRANT FUNDED FEASIBILITY STUDY
The feasibility (or project "do-ability") of site 7.A. for a joint
project needs to be studied in greater detail. Potential sources
of funding for such a feasibility study include UMTA Section 8
funds, Proposition 116 multi-model development funding and Transit
Capital Improvement Program funding (TCI) . A local San Luis Obispo
Area Coordinating Council deadline required that TCI applications
needed to be in by mid-August. Staff filed a preliminary
application in late July 1991, conditioned upon Council concurrence
with Site 7.A. Staff will pursue the other funding sources if we
are unsuccessful in obtaining TCI funding.
The TCI funds would be for FY 1992-93 . Funding is determined in
Sacramento and administered through the San Luis Obispo Area
Coordinating Council. The decision on who will be funded is made
this fiscal year for projects to be completed next fiscal year.
TCI requires a 50% local match ($12, 500 based on a $25, 000 study
budget) . We would envision SLO Transit and Regional Transit
sharing equally in the local match, and staff will make a formal
1-
'IIn�I��i�IVIIIII�U�I� I �� city of San LL.3 OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
request to the Regional Board upon Council approval of the staff
recommendation. Any future expenditures by Transit on a new site
would be seen as a cooperative financial effort between SLO Transit
and Regional Transit, as we both benefit equally.
It should also be noted that it may be necessary to accelerate this
study due to time constraints associated with County decisionmaking
on office space expansion at the Courthouse. Consequently, staff
is working with Coordinating Council staff to explore other grant
sources which would support the study this fiscal year.
The purpose of a feasibility study would be to determine if the
project can be done, what steps would be necessary to accomplish
the goal, identify costs in more detail and potential funding
sources, and provide a better evaluation of the potential multiple
uses of the project. The ultimate scope of the study will be
developed based on input from City and County agencies (such as
Transit and Parking in the City) , the Area Coordinating Council,
Regional Transit, and the County Space Needs Task Force on the
County level. The City Council will be asked to approve a final
workscope once grant funds are assured for the work.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transit Transfer Center Study
2. Chamber Correspondence
ttc.kh
i
I
_7
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
039 Cnor o Street • San Luis Oblsno. Cai,ir-)w a 93401
805) 543 1.323 0 r ;{ 13051 E,13-1255
uav-a E. Gann E.ec:;i:ve Manager
August 1, 1991
Harry Watson
Transit Manager
City of SLO
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Harry:
Thanks very much for soliciting the Chamber' s opinion on our
community' s Transit Center site. We are in support of the
proposed site on Santa Rosa between Monterey and Higuera
(currently the Shell station) . While we share the concerns
about pedestrian crossing of Santa Rosa, we feel there are
compelling reasons why the site is attractive and its
problems workable.
The location serves the downtown and government centers
without being obtrusive to those populations. it is
convenient to both the freeway and Amtrak and, being
located on a major artery, is a logical location relative to
our stated traffic and circulation desires.
We believe the crossing can be made both manageable and
attractive, and we are confident that you can work with the
current site owners in creating a solution that benefits
both the community_ as well as the individual business
owner/operator.
Lastly, as we proceed with our work on the county' s Clean
Air Program and especially the trip reduction program, we
view transit improvements as a cornerstone of the program.
We are especially eager to see the Transit Center project
get underway to help accommodate our public transit needs .
Please let me know if we can be of any assistance on this .
Best regards,
Dennis D. Law
President, Chamber of Commerce
ACCREDITED
^G CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
/_V
San Luis Obispo
Transit Center Site Selection
Nelson\Nygaard
July, 1991
/- 9
Nelson Nygaard
July 20 , 1991 CONSULTING ASSOCIATES
Mr. Harry Watson
Transit Manager
San Luis Obispo Transit
990 Palm Street .
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Dear Harry,
I am pleased to submit this revised draft of the San Luis Obispo
Transit Transfer Center Study. This version includes analysis of
two additional sites, as well as refining the evaluation of all
sites based on the written comments received from City staff . In
looking at the new sites, I have also spoken to the author of the
Downtown Physical Plan proposal to ensure that the needs of the
transit center can be accommodated at the proposed joint use
site.
I regret that the scope of this study does not allow for a formal
technical advisory committee and meetings with the City Engineer.
However, I hope he will find that his comments have been largely
addressed in this document.
After careful consideration of the comments received on our
earlier analysis, as well as consideration of the new sites
proposed, I am confident that the needs of the City and both the
City and regional transit services can be well served at the
Santa Rosa and Higuera site. The corner location, size and
configuration of the parcel, as well as the joint use proposal
and site location make it an ideal choice.
Because no site acquisition is ever certain, we recommend
continuing to pursue several site options . It is my hope that
the permanent site can open within the next three to five years ,
to accommodate the growth recommended in the Short Range Plan.
In addition, the availability of Proposition 116 funding puts the
system in the unique position of being able to determine its own
destiny in this matter. With these things in mind, we recommend
taking an aggressive stand towards finding a permanent home.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Weinstein Nelson
Senior Partner
206 Missouri Street - San Francisco • CA 94107 • (415) 621-3270
SAN LUIS OBISPO
TRANSIT CENTER SITE SELECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction 1
Design Criteria 2
Site Criteria 6
Site Alternatives 12
Site Evaluation 21
Reconmendations 29
TABLE OF CHARTS AND FIGIIRES
Scorecard 7
Transit Center Site Alternatives 13
Summary Advantages and Disadvantages 20
Score Card Analysis 22
On-Site Costs 26
Overall Project Costs 27
San Luis Obispo Transit Transfer Center
Final Report
CHUTBR 1 - INTRODUCTION
SLO Transit has long been recognized as one of the leading transit
properties in California. Benefitting from a large university
community provided with free transit passes, per capita ridership
in San Luis Obispo is among the highest in the State. One of the
factors in the system' s efficiency is the "timed transfer" or
"pulse" scheduling of the system, which theoretically allows
passengers to transfer from one route to another with no time
penalty. Such a system maximizes mobility while minimizing the
cost of service.
A transit transfer point has been in place directly adjacent to
City Hall on Osos Street for many years. This site is also the
staging area for the County run Central Coast Area Transit service,
making convenient cross-street transfers between the two systems
possible. The site has the advantage of a central location with
excellent proximity to government centers as well as downtown.
Plans for either relocating or improving the current terminal have
been discussed for many years . The configuration of the current
terminal is somewhat limited, and is currently at capacity, with
four City vehicles and four County vehicles in place during peak
transfer times . There is no opportunity to incorporate other
carriers, such . as inter-city carriers, or the City' s downtown
trolley, which must currently stop across the street from the
terminal . System expansion, which is discussed in the Draft Short
Range Plan currently being prepared by Nelson\Nygaard, will not be
possible without substantial improvements at the current site.
An additional impetus for either improving or relocating the
terminal is pedestrian safety. With Osos Street serving as a major
through route from Highway 101 into downtown San Luis Obispo,
traffic volumes are significant. Passengers transferring from one
system to another often walk between buses and into the street
without looking carefully for cross-traffic. In three days of
casual observation, near miss auto-pedestrian accidents were
observed every day. Increasing volumes of pedestrian and vehicular
traffic will only make this situation more dire.
This report provides the basis for determining the viability of
improving or relocating the current transfer terminal . The limited
scope of this study allows only for differentiating between
alternate sites on basic physical and operational bases . More
detailed analysis of any candidate site will be required, including
detailed traffic engineering, environmental and economic analysis .
Although this study is undertaken as part of the City' s Short Range
Transit Plan, both City and County needs for a transfer terminal
are considered.
1
CHAPTER 2 - DESIGN CRITERIA
A transit transfer center provides a transit focal point for the
community, as well as providing increased mobility for all of the
region' s transit riders . The design criteria listed on the
following pages were developed with an emphasis on simplicity and
their ability to meet the functional needs of the center.
General Functional Criteria
1. Transit Center Patronage
The transit transfer facility will serve as a place for the bus
user to transfer from one route to another or from one system to
another with an occasional short waiting period.
The transit center should be located in proximity to other activity
centers and transit generators and should encourage "walk-in"
traffic. The primary Transfer Center should also be located at the
natural intersection of several lines, giving the greatest mobility
to the most riders . Sites which are closest to the physical City
center are preferable, as are locations within proximity to the
City and County government centers . Several secondary transfer
center sites are possible at locations with large transfer
patronage. An ideal secondary transfer site would be on the Cal
Poly campus .
Passengers are expected to access the center either by foot or by
public transportation. Private auto parking will not be
accommodated in the transfer center, and auto use will not be the
expected access mode.
2. Patronage Circulation
The sketch at right indicates
circulation characteristics
anticipated at the transit transfer
center. Pedestrians must be kept
out of the way of bus and auto
movement to ensure safety. LLIZJ=LN
Final circulation characteristics will
be based on the site selected.
3. Elderly and Handicapped Access
All public facilities must be
designed for full accessibility
for elderly and disabled patrons .
2
// 3
Transit Operations Requirements
1. SLO Transit Service
Up to six bays for SLO City Bus services should be provided.
Vehicles of up to 40' long will be accommodated in all bus bays .
If a central city site is selected, an additional bay will be
required to provide to accommodate the Old SLO Trolley service.
This allows for the maximum expansion of City bus service as
recommended in the Short Range Transit Plan.
2. CCAT Transit Service
Up to six bays for the County's transit services will also be
provided at the transfer site. This is an increase from the
current maximum of 4 buses in the center at one time. There are
no current plans to expand that service, and if a smaller site is
selected, it may be possible to expand service in a way that does
not expand the County's need for transit center space.
3. Other Operators
One taxi stand should be allocated, either on the site, or directly
adjacent to it.
4. Parking
The bus terminal facility will serve primarily passengers arriving
by public transportation or on foot. No provision will be made for
private automobile parking, however, it would be advantageous to
locate .the terminal in the vicinity of public parking, allowing
passengers to "park and ride" .
Passenger Area Requirements
No interior passenger waiting room space is anticipated at the
transfer facility. Interior spaces may be developed for passenger
amenities including restrooms, passenger information services , and
a potential driver facility.
The specific design for passenger amenities will not be completed
until a site is selected and a preliminary design is developed.
The following is intended to describe desireable functional
elements for the center.
1. Exterior Cover
Passenger waiting areas should result in a minimum footprint for
ease of maintenance. Covered waiting space for a minimum of 50 SLO
Transit passengers and 35 CCAT passengers should be provided.
3
-iy
The materials and design of the facility will be selected to
complement the architecture of the area.
2. Clearances
In all public areas, minimum overhead clearances shall be 10 ' above
finish floor. However, at localized critical points , clearance may
be reduced to not less than 91 . Minimum setback distance from curb
to nearest overhang shall be 310" .
3. Fare Collection
All fare collection is on the vehicle and is not a part of the
current center design. However, provisions for monthly pass sales
may be desireable if the site is located away from City Hall .
4. Bicycle Racks
Provisions for up to 20 bicycles will be incorporated into the
facility design. Bicycle spaces will be placed in a secure area
that does not obstruct pedestrian flow.
5. Public Restrooms
Men' s and women's restroom facilities are desirable. Facilities
will be handicapped accessible and will be adequate for both
passenger and driver use.
6. Public Telephones
A bank of public telephones will be incorporated into the center
design. Direct dial phones should be considered for direct access
to lodging and other transportation services for the area' s
visitors .
7. Signage
Signage is a critical element of the transit center design and
should receive special consideration. Routes should be assigned
to the same bay consistently, and signage should be provided
directing passengers to the appropriate location. with proper
signage, more than one route can utilize a bay at different times,
maximizing utilization of the facility.
S. Other Amenities
The center shall be well lit, and shadowed or hidden areas shall
be avoided. Other amenities will include public water fountains
and trash receptacles which will be plentiful and easily
identified.
4
9. Transit Information/Dispatch Center
A staffed booth and counter area is recommended for the transit
transfer center. This booth will serve several purposes . From
the passenger' s perspective this will be the place for transit
information. It may be possible to sell monthly passes at this
location in addition to dispensing information. From an operations
perspective, this location could serve as a line manager' s station.
The Short Range Transit Plan identified line management as a
critical problem on San Luis Obispo SLO Transit service. A line
manager would be responsible for supervising the "meets" of timed
transfer services, ensuring that all transfers were protected. For
this purpose, the information/dispatching center would be located
in a position that is visible to arriving and departing buses .
10. Other Storage
A janitors closet should be incorporated for all maintenance
equipment. Storage will also be provided for stocking transit
information, and secured storage will be provided for ticket sales
revenue, if sales activities are to take place on-site.
GENERAL ACCESS REQUIREIKENTS
In general, access to and within the facility should be designed
to create a smooth flowing vehicular traffic pattern during peak
hour conditions .
Given the constraints of operating in a downtown area, desireable
access features include:
Entrances and exits located on more than one access road.
Separation of major pedestrian and vehicle flows .
Special treatment of entrance/exits including channelized
acceleration-deceleration lanes , signal control and signage.
Crosswalks for pedestrians and consideration for all aspects
of pedestrian comfort and safety.
5
�V
CHAPTER 3 - SITE CRITERIA
This chapter provides preliminary site criteria for evaluating
alternative transit center sites . The preliminary site evaluation
criteria have been- divided into four categories :
Site Specific Issues
Traffic/Access Issues
Neighborhood Community Issues
Other Operational Issues
The specific issues involved in each of these four categories are
described on the following pages . Figure 1 provides a convenient
"score card" for evaluating alternative sites, using the criteria
described below. It should be noted that more detailed
evaluations, including environmental assessments, traffic studies,
etc. will be required before any site is developed.
Site Specific Issues
1. Size
The functional requirements described in Chapter 2 will require a
total site area of . 3 to .5 acres depending on the exact capacity
desired. Ideally, the site should be rectangular in shape. Given
the constraints of developing in a downtown area, smaller sites may
be considered. However, some amenities will be eliminated with a
smaller site. It may be possible for the transit center to share
amenities with another facility, such as City Hall.
2. Physical Conditions and Environmental Concerns
The site should be flat and minimally impeded by trees , utility
poles, street lights, etc. The site should not exhibit poor
geological conditions requiring significant importation of
engineered fill. Other physical conditions to consider are: flood
plain location and hazardous waste removal. A detailed
environmental evaluation must be completed as part of the site
acquisition phase, outside of the scope of this study.
3. Ownership
The site should preferably be a publicly owned parcel . While this
is not an overriding consideration, it will greatly affect cost and
implementation time, as well as ease. of implementation. If the
parcel is in private ownership, existing improvements which can be
re-used should be considered as an off-set to the cost of
acquisition.
6
l��
4. Zoning
Conflicts with zoning or alternative use proposals for the parcel
may delay or impede implementation. The transfer center use should
be in conformance with the City' s General Plan and zoning
regulations .5 . Fiscal Impact
5. Fiscal Impact
Consideration should be given to the fiscal impact of removing a
piece of property from the tax roll.
Traffic/Access Issues
While traffic and access issues are an important part of the
preliminary analysis, they do not replace a detailed traffic impact
study which will be required before any site is developed. The
criteria in this section are intended only to differentiate between
sites, not to quantify the impacts on any one site.
1. Access
Ideally, the site should occupy a corner location with good site
lines and two entrance/exit roads. Left turning bus movements are
to be avoided where possible by utilizing alternative street
access . For on-street operation, enough space should be provided
for independent bus movement in addition to safe pedestrian flows .
For on-street operation, special attention must be paid to safety,
avoiding conflict between modes .
2. Traffic Congestion
Peak period traffic congestion on access streets will significantly
impact the ability of buses to move in and out of the transfer
site. Prefer locations that are not dependent on intersections
that are already over capacity.
3. Local Traffic Patterns
Locally confusing or difficult traffic patterns can impact site
desirability. Prefer a site that is on a grid network, located on
streets that are straight and of reasonable width. Access off of
narrow streets may result in the loss of curb parking adjacent to
the facility, to accommodate turning movements .
7
4. Pedestrian Access
The transfer center will depend on pedestrian access for many local
bus passengers . The center should be located within 1/4 mile
walking access of as many pedestrian destinations as possible, with
special emphasis on the City and County government centers .
Pedestrian safety is a critical criteria, and conflicts between
pedestrians and vehicular traffic are to be avoided.
The ultimate design of the transfer site will include pedestrian
safety features needed to safely move people to/from the site.
5. Off-Site Improvements
Ideally, adjacent streets and utility systems should be sufficient
to handle inclusion of a transfer facility. However, consideration
should be given to the cost for improving the road network,
signalization or channelization of intersections, and the addition
of crosswalks and pedestrian signals .
6. Parking Impact
In a community where downtown parking is considered important, the
site should displace a minimum of parking places .
Neichborhood/Community Issues
1. Land Use Compatibility
Engine noises and diesel emissions will create significant impacts
on adjoining uses . Adjacent parcels should ideally be commercial,
non-residential uses . Non-compatible uses will create future
approval problems and potentially costly mitigation measures .
2. Activity Center Location
The more immediate connection to local destinations , the better
the transfer center can serve as both an end stop and a transfer
location.
3. Relocation
Temporary or permanent relocation of local businesses may result
in unforeseen costs and is therefore to be avoided.
8
�� 9
Other Issues
I. Growth Capacity
The site should not be so tightly planned that future growth and
expansion is not possible. .
2. Potential for Joint Development
Public/Private partnerships, public/public co-ventures have wide
acceptance as positive public policy. The Downtown Physical Plan
Committee is currently exploring options for expanding the County
Office complex that may afford the opportunity for such a co-
venture. Combining a transit terminal and public parking structure
may provide added value to both county and city agencies, while
providing a transit terminal in a convenient location.
In a fully developed downtown area, such as is being considered
here, it is unlikely that a site will be found that meets all of
the functional design criteria. A procedure must be developed for
determining the best site among a group of sites that offer
different advantages and constraints . The following chapters
outline such a procedure and make a recommendation for the future
transfer center location.
9
Figure 1
San Luis Obispo Transit Center Site Evaluation
Scorecard
ISSUE POINTS WEIGHT MAX TOTAL
Site Specific Issues
Size <,3 = 0 X 5 10
(.5 acres desirable) .3 - .5 = 1
Physical Conditions 0 - 1 (best) X 5 5
(flat, clear is best)
Ownership . public = 1 X 1 1
(public or easily available) private = 0
Zoning conforming = 1 X 2 2
(conforming w/ general plan) nonconforming = 0
Fiscal Impact no impact = 1 X 2 2
(no removal from tax roles) neg impact = 0
Subtotal 20
Traffic/Access Issues
Access 0 - 5 (best) X 2 10
(corner loc. , limit left turns
2 entrances, good site lines, geometry)
Congestion 0 - 4 (best) X 1 4
(easy flow. on main access and
adjacent intersections)
Local Traffic Patterns 0 - 2 (best) X 2 4
(grid, not confusing)
Pedestrian Access 0 - 2 (best) X 3 6
(ped. safety, near destinations)
Off-Site Improvements 0 - 2 (best) X 2 4
(0 = much improvement needed ie.-
signalization, crosswalks, etc.
2 = fully improved)
Parking 0 - 2 (best) X 3 6
(0 = significant parking removed by center
1 = minimal parking removed by center
2 = no displacement)
Subtotal 34
10 /
1,21
San Luis Obispo Transit Center Site Evaluation
Scorecard (Cont'd)
ISSUE POINTS WEIGHT MAX TOTAL
Neighborhood/Community Issues
Land Use Compatibility 0 - 2 X 8 16
(0 = not compatible
1 = mixed, primarily compatible
2 = commercial , non-residential)
Activity Center Location 0 -2 (best) X 5 10
(near government center, downtown)
Relocation 0 - 1 X 5 5 -
Subtotal 31
Other Issues
Growth Capacity 0 - 1 X 5 5
(0 = no capacity, 1 = room to grow)
Joint Development Potential 0 - 2 X 5 10
(0 = no potential
1 = possible joint use site
2 = joint use proposed)
Subtotal 15
Total 100
11
do�-
CHAPTER 4 - SITE ALTERNATIVES
Identifying potential sites within the downtown area of San Luis
Obispo is challenging, because the City is heavily developed, with
few lots of any type available in the downtown area in the size
needed for the transfer facility.
The methodology used for evaluating these sites can be applied to
any other sites identified in the future. Figure 2 identifies the
seven sites analyzed in this chapter. The following presents a
description of each site and presents the advantages and
disadvantages of each. Figure 3 on page 20 summarizes the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.
Site 1 - Oeoa Street between Mill and Palm
This is the current transit transfer site, adjacent to City Hall .
At present, Osos Street carries a significant amount of traffic,
with the Community Development Department estimating approximately
10, 000 vehicles travelling Osos Street per day. For the
development of a permanent transfer site, it would be desireable
to close Osos street to through traffic. It is also assumed that
the alley between Palm and Mill Streets would be closed at Osos,
eliminating the outlet for that small through route. Other traffic
changes, such as access to parking lots and businesses fronting on
Osos would be handled in the design phase if this alternative is
chosen.
This option provides approximately 12,000 square feet of available
space, which is considerably less than the half acre desired by the
design program. Interior spaces, such as restrooms and an
information/dispatchers center would be difficult to place on the
site, although it may be possible to accommodate some joint uses
as part of the City Hall remodeling project.
Given a saw-tooth parking configuration, the site seems well suited
for up to 11 full sized buses, plus the SLO Trolley, but may not
accommodate the maximum of 12 full sized buses which is desireable
for a long term center. As an option, the Trolley could use Palm
Street, adjacent to the Osos Street site for its terminal .
The site's proximity to the government center is both an advantage
and disadvantage in this case. The location is ideal, providing
direct access to government buildings, while serving downtown
businesses reasonably well. The addition of trolley service
improves circulation to other parts of downtown San Luis Obispo.
12
/��3
N
N N N y
N C. _ 6J N 2
gnZ
V
3 i i S a6. 4 m
a
SANTA ROSA ST. Z
X Lid
V
I 2 J
vQ
OSOS ST. L LI
}J 1`I
~ � N
V= MORRO ST.
L.i1
-T Uj
CHORRO S.
V
C Q GARDEN ST. !�-{
V7 Q
�a C
BROAO ST.
NIPONIO ST. O
B=ACH ST.
O 40
o
Q
n
U
CARMEL ST. ^J c
I c
N
a
a1
7
c
o ' m �9 v7
c p m �,
r _ .0 .. m R=P
cc u7 mp
2
Um to
w. ° a °0m = E o
Fn-
.. c co o,
M cm
_.o. :. - .,,
�. 0 . a a 0
m es V
Z .m x cmr m m o.g m
ac o rn
m m as
pm Q. v
_ 4 Cis m m
CD rn 9 m em m
o_
w �q o AnC7 V a m Ua
J r (V 6 C 16 f0 A m
A significant drawback of this site is the on-street operation,
which adds noise and diesel emissions to the City Hall environment.
Should this become a permanent center, improvements to City Hall,
such as sealed windows and glazing with air conditioning may be
required, adding an element of additional energy use due to the
presence of the buses . The City Hall remodelling project provides
an opportunity to incorporate these design features into the
adjacent building.
The principle obstacle to developing a permanent transit center at
this site is the impact on local traffic. Osos Street is currently
a link to the 101 Freeway in the northbound direction. However,
the City's Long Range Traffic Plan considers eliminating that
freeway access as one alternative future circulation option.
Should the Santa Rosa Street/101 interchange be fully developed,
Osos Street ramps would be eliminated. It appears that CALTRANS
would be willing to cooperate if such a plan were endorsed by the
City. However, it should be noted that the Santa Rosa interchange
project is a very costly one, and not one that is likely to be
completed in the next 5 to 10 years, when the transit center should
be developed.
In addition to freeway access, Osos Street provides a cross town
connection to Mill Street, which provides access to the Cal Poly
campus. This connector is an important one, perhaps more
significant than its freeway access function. Closure of this
street would require a special study, using the City' s traffic
models . Loss of through traffic on Osos Street would eliminate an
important arterial access point for City and County offices , which
may not be well received by employees and visitors in the area .
There is little opportunity for joint use at this site due to the
on-street operation. However, it may be possible to add value to
the project by combining the transit terminal development with City
Hall remodelling. Some passenger amenities such as ticket sales
could be provided within the City Hall design, and City Hall
employees would benefit from excellent access to their site.
If the disadvantages of the site can be overcome, there are several
significant advantages to the site, in addition to its excellent
location. As a City street, Osos Street is already under public
control, and therefore site acquisition costs are minimal . There
would be no displacements of businesses or homes , and minimal
displacement of parking, which is currently limited to short term
parking meters . Since this is the existing transfer site, there
would be no new impacts associated with the addition of diesel
buses to the site. The closing of the street and development of
a true transit center can be seen as an improvement both for
transit patrons and for others who use the area .
14
Site 2 - Monterey and Osos Street
This site, located on the southeast corner of Monterey and Osos is
currently a daily use public parking lot. The site is a regular
rectangular lot with access from Monterey, Higuera and . Osos
Streets . The location of the lot is excellent, approximately one
block from government centers, and even closer to other downtown
attractions than the present site. At approximately 14 , 000 square
feet, it is slightly more than 1/3 of an acre, which could be
adequate given its regular configuration.
While this site has many advantages , its principal disadvantage is
that it may not be available for development. Although a private
development joint venture known as the Court Street project is no
longer planned for this location, some future retail "anchor"
development is still considered viable. Until this issue is
resolved, this site will not be available, but is included here as
an alternative, should economic conditions require rethinking the
proposed development.
If the site were to be available, it would be a good candidate for
a joint-use project of some type. One drawback to development on
this site for any new use would be the fact that the site is prone
to flooding. Narrow access streets are also a limiting factor,
although with access off of three streets, a circulation pattern
could be developed which would minimize this problem.
Site 3 - Morro and Pacific Streets
This site is currently the parking lot for the post office, and
was intended for extended pubic parking for the French Pavilion
Development. It offers a good layout for bus circulation, although
at 11, 400 square feet, it may not allow enough room for all of the
amenities in the proposed design program. Access to the site would
be provided on both Morro and Pacific Streets . The site is
approximately 5 blocks from City Hall, requiring a 10 minute walk
for government center users . The distance from the current
transfer site would involve significant rerouting of current
transit routes to accommodate the new location.
This site offers the advantage of compatible surrounding land uses ,
including the post office, and City Recreation offices . A
disadvantage of this site is that its access is via relatively
narrow side streets . It may be necessary to remove parking on the
curbs adjacent to this site to allow for safe movements into and
out of the facility. Loss of parking in this neighborhood may be
a significant impact. This site has also been identified by the
City as one that is subject to flooding.
15
�'02
Site 4 - Pacific between Morro and Osos Streets
This site is currently a parking lot for the San Luis Medical
Clinic. The lot also serves Grace Church on the weekends and
evenings when there are church events . A total of 15 , 000 square
feet of space are available on the site, which offers more
flexibility than Sites 1 - 3 . Based on two site visits , the lot
appears to be under utilized.
Adjacent land uses for this site are somewhat less appropriate than
Site 3, due to the proximity of the Church and medical clinic,
although both would benefit from good transit access . The site is
5 blocks from City Hall, again approximately a 10 minute walk.
Like Site 3, the site is hampered by access via relatively narrow
streets . Street parking may be lost to accommodate bus movements .
In addition, the site is an irregular shape, making it difficult
to fully utilize the 15, 000 square feet offered.
The distance from current transit routes would require significant
rerouting and scheduling to accommodate a new transit center on
this site. Like Site 3, this may add running time to a number of
routes, with a potential impact on vehicle requirements to this
site.
Another significant disadvantage of this site, is that the medical
clinic parking displaced by the potential transit center would
almost certainly have to be replaced, requiring more land
acquisition within the built up downtown area. Finally, this site
has been identified by the City as one subject to flooding, which
would have to be addressed in the transit center design.
Site 5 - Between Palm and Monterey Streets Near Niaomo
This site is currently a monthly public parking lot, with leased
parking. Approximately 50 spaces are currently on the site, which
totals 20, 980 square feet. The overall size of the site makes it
a prime candidate for transit center development.
The site configuration is problematic, because it is "flag shaped" ,
and would require buses to enter and exit on different streets .
The configuration further complicates transit center development
because it will be impossible to eliminate bus movements from the
residential area on Monterey. Adding significant diesel bus
traffic to this street would not be desireable. In addition,
street parking would need to be eliminated on adjacent curbs on
both Monterey and Palm Streets to allow for bus circulation.
16
This site has the disadvantage of being quite far from the
government center, requiring approximately a 6 block walk to City
Hall . Significant re-routing and scheduling would be required to
accommodate service to this site. The location is a good one for
a joint development project of some type, although none has been
suggested at this time.
Site 6 - Between Hicuera and Marsh Streets South of Nipomo Street
This is a privately owned parcel which is currently used as a
parking lot. It is known as the "Madonna Property" and has been
targeted by the City as a possible site for a future parking
garage.
The principal advantages of this site are its size ( 21, 230 ) and
configuration, which are well suited to the transit operation, as
well as to joint development potential . The adjacent uses are less
sensitive than some of the other potential sites , with the
exception of the historic Jack House which is adjacent to the site.
It would be necessary for the Jack House to be considered in site
design plans, so as to minimize disruption to this important
building.
The site is just outside of the core area of the current downtown .
Of the sites being considered, it is the furthest from the
government center, requiring approximately a 7 block walk to City
Hall. Significant rerouting would be required to accommodate this
site, and while City Hall would retain some direct access , it would
be less well served than with a more central transfer center. The
site is currently privately owned with several lease tenants which
could add relocation expenses to the cost of development,
especially if no joint use partner was established.
Sites 7A and 7B - Between Santa Rosa and Torro and between Hicuera
and Monterey
This area does not contain any publicly held or vacant parcels at
the present time, but has been included for several reasons .
First, a site has been identified by the Downtown Physical Plan
committee as a potential for a joint development Transit
Center/Parking facility supporting the expansion of the county
government center. This site, which is identified as 7A is located
at 1101 Monterey, on the corner of Santa Rosa and Monterey.
A second potential site in the area has also been identified. This
site would require combining parcels at 1144 Higuera and 1131
Monterey, and possibly at 1129 Monterey as well . The 1144 Higuera
site is the current Spring Toyota dealership, and is a potential
redevelopment site. With the concentration of auto dealers moving
to the Southern part of the City, it is possible that Spring Toyota
may wish to relocate making this parcel available.
17
Site 7A - Santa Rosa with Throuch Access to Monterey and Hiauera
This site has been identified by the Downtown Physical Plan
Committee as a potential joint use site, accommodating a transit
center and related amenities on the ground floor and a multi-story
parking facility above. The site is intended to support the
expansion of the County Office complex across the street.
The site is approximately 50, 000 square feet, which is adequate for
the transit center needs, and for some additional amenities as
required by the joint development. It may be possible to enlarge
the site by approximately 6000 square feet by including the parking
lot next store on Monterey Street, if additional space is required
for other functions .
This site has an excellent configuration, with access from three
major streets . It is currently occupied by a gas station, and it
may be possible to make use of existing site improvements .
However, the fact that the current use is a gas station may
increase the chances that hazardous waste will be found on the
site, complicating development.
The site' s location is among the best of the selected sites .
Although it is on the edge of downtown, it is less than 3 blocks
to City Hall, and other government center activities . A site in
this vicinity offers potential tie-in to the AMTRAK station which
is east on Santa Rosa Avenue.
One disadvantage to this site is that it will likely generate
additional pedestrian volumes crossing Santa Rosa. Improving
pedestrian safety and improving the walking environment in this
location will be key.
The obvious disadvantage to a site in this area is the cost of land
acquisition and the possible additional cost and complication of
moving viable tenants . However, with the possibility of
Proposition 116 funding for the transit center and a joint
development partnership for this site, it remains an excellent
option.
Site 7B - Hicnera Street Between Santa Rosa and Torro
This site is currently occupied by Spring Toyota . The Spring
Toyota site at 1144 Higuera offers approximately 16 , 500 square feet
of space. This site could potentially be combined with the
adjacent lot on Monterey Street, at 1131 Higuera and 1129 Higuera,
which currently house the Dean Witter Financial services building
and a parking lot . The combined total of these three lots would
provide over 30 , 000 square feet of space.
18
This combined lot is similar to 7A, although not as ideal in terms
of access and circulation. A corner lot offers the maximum
flexibility for circulation, and while this site offers through
street access to both Monterey and Higuera, it does not offer the
same flexibility as the corner lot next door.
Acquiring three parcels to assemble the size required for the
transit center will be a significant barrier to development. There
will be multiple tenants to relocate, unless Spring Toyota has
definite relocation plans of its own. In addition, there is a
grade change between Monterey and Higuera at this location, which
may make through movement problematic. This is not the case with
the corner lot described in 7A.
Like 7A, this site offers potential for a tie-in with service to
the AMTRAK station. It also benefits from excellent location and
proximity to the City and County Government Centers , and would
require only slight re-routing of existing transit routes . Also
like 7A, pedestrian volumes crossing Santa Rosa will likely result
in safety and aesthetic improvements to the intersections
surrounding this project.
19
i-3o
San Luis Obispo Transit Center Evaluation
Summary Advantages and Disadvantages
SITE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Osos Publicly owned * Requires major circ. changes
between Already identified * On-street operation
Mill & as transit center * May be disrupted
Palm * Minimal disruption during construction
to commute patterns * Complaints by
City Hall employees
* May not be large enough for fuel operation
'.. Monterey * Regular shape * May not be available
& Osos * Good access * Flooding Potential
* Proximity to
Govt. center
* Compatible land uses
* Publicly owned
I. Morro * Regular shape * Small
& * Mostly Compatible * Access via narrow street may loose curb parking
Pacific Land Uses * Requires significant re-routing of buses
* Publicly Owned * Distance from government centers
* Flooding Potential
. Pacific * Reasonable Size * Requires replacement parking for Med Center
between * Provides Good Transit * Irregular shape
Morro Access Medical Clinic *Requires significant re-routing of buses
& Osos *'Distance from government centers
* Flooding Potential
. Palm/ * Good size * Irregular shape
Monterey * Publicly owned * Adjacent residential land
N. of * Eliminates curb parking
Nipomo * Distance from government centers
* Requires significant re-routing of buses
. Higuera/ * Good size * Location
Marsh * Good configuration * Private ownership
S. of * Compatible land uses * Proximity to Jack House
Nipomo * Requires significant re-routing of buses
4 Santa Rosa/ * Excellent size/shape * Private Ownership
Higuera & * Excellent location * Possible relocation cost
Monterey * Corner lot/good access
* Joint use proposed
* Tie into Amrtrak
3 era/ * Excellent location * May require combining lots
za Rosa * Good access * Possible relocation cost
& Torro * Location * Private ownership
* Tie into Amtrak
I
20 / '3'
CHAPTER 5 - SITE E"LUATION
Evaluation of the eight site alternatives includes completion of
the Site Evaluation checklist, comparison of costs , and
consideration of a less objective "do-ability" factor, which may
be key to project implementation.
Site Evaluation Checklist
Figure 4 presents the Site Evaluation checklist for each of the
eight sites . Using the checklist, it is possible to measure the
relative strengths and weaknesses among the candidate sites . All
eight potential sites offer some attractive features and some
design challenges .
Three of the eight sites scored over 70 out of the 100 possible
points on the scorecard. They are:
Site 7A - Santa Rosa/Higuera and Monterey Rank 1
Site 2 - Monterey and Osos Street Rank 2
Site 7B - Higuera Between Santa Rosa and Torro Rank 3
The on-street Osos operation ranked fourth at 66 points . It would
have been a high contender except for traffic and circulation
problems which seems difficult to overcome. All three of the
ranked sites offer good locations, compatible land uses and
excellent access potential . The number one site, on the corner of
Santa Rosa and Higuera, ranked highest in part because of the
proposed joint use with the county. This site, as well as site 7B,
is a privately held site and other constraints may arise making
development of this site impossible. The second ranked site on
Monterey and Osos may also ultimately be unavailable as a
development is currently programmed for that location.
21
�-3�-
m O O N O N
O N O
l� 14 .�
3
0
O Ln O N p n >
'•i -i
U
.�i
Ln O Ln -•1 N O m .i
"•I A
Cq �
EEd' 1n Ln O N N
�l a
--4
fn14
O 1n -•I N N O
O -i U
•-i
C
� N Ln LL•1 O N O N
R -a U
O 1
� r•I O In --IN N O
-4 O
go O
A
Ctl
4-3
-a 4
m m o un '. N N o ro
N
+I m
-i
14 M A
m ro
4
'C to to -i •'{
N N
V 4 N DC x x x x ro N
ad
41 a
"4 m
ri O
V1 O -•I N 41 14 O 140 140 •.•I
E4 N II II It II II II II II II
m
14
vI A > EE as E
E
O rn p a s w w E. a +-+ N
m C C O O+ N
"'•I O O C N n•,a
a U U C
ON
� [ a s4
y �4 �
(a U14
0 .4
ra od 4 0
C -1 0 0
O •-I --4 yI 1-4 U
.,a
m ^" 4.J -6) >k W A C
E m •-I
m y
A C A >4 N U
H S•I U m ••i 040 Oto 0 14 to E a N
-� .4 a m E s4 p
U•-I Q) ro �= � 3 F-I w ro 4w -4 N
U O m -
mO-I-14 N O •� U >cc �
m N N >, U C C E m.0 A
rA --1 4 E
a 3 U 0 W ••I
U) j �
Cc7 4J 1-1 N N
(a 4J
a Ln 0 0
M y v t]a U C
/-3 3
Lp t0 d• rn N tf1
N
N tD m
i N
10
an M N rn C•
N
L n N m N O N
W
E d• e• a rn o o,
N �
rn t0 N N M N O Ln
.•a
N O -W d• t0 d• O c9
r-4 N
••a m d' C to O M Ln
N
a
a
E
O
E
o v d• to a• tc c
E
N r•4 N fn N r7
W
�J J•I J-I 4J J.7
m m to m m m
U2 (v
Z A A A A A A
�. �.
M
aLn C' N N N N
I 1 I I I I N
�4 a) )J
y U a)
O �' C
a) I A v
Q+ •O
m c -.•i U > A
�-+ O c II Ql E b
rn >
^i m s+ c -W a) m O
w a7 amt m 41 -W a) q - C a)
a) 41 U C -W m m E to •rl N
m + •.q U O ro -- m a) a) 4-1 3 x --
m m roa am a) q > cm ern+,
U O N m -- as c
m E O .SI N � 11 U � I r: 010 Q-4
a) Fb4
M --+ 0 rom wm � a) E > U > +INS
,4 CEN 44 cc 11O O citU
m O roc ro W - s4 roaro
m _ . .q c 4.) �4 O -4 , a c O+ U -4 r-1
CD m -W O C E U f4 >4 O E rn•r1 r-4 Q ra
U m U a) m -4 4J aJ •-1 •,.I ..•1 •4 c w CO m -W
U m 0 U a) 3 1+ 41 m a) m -W .I •.•1 E -14 O
4 N -( c G+ 0 -W m0 a) w 1 C (0 >4 xC -ab -W
\ U ra C r q c U c Oro w U N r-1 w M c A
U U 1.1 w O w a) O a) m w 0 •,a .i ra -.i •r1 O
.1 a) N v U a w O E -4 m w m E c
W w c c >, to D ra w
w s4 a) m -r-+ V Il c n 11 u
ua m O ro 10 s4 (D
C!) 1•I U N a) COO+ Gr O •� II O .i N
1-1 E•I .... .... m N .r
�- 3y
CG 1.0 O O t0 L O M
l+ 14 rl N '-1 1-
O O t0 O O to I�
l� .•i .i N 14 .ti r4 01
O
LO M t!'1 1n .1 �•
'•'I t0
In m In In ao Ln O u•1 M
to
W
E" d' m L o M o tc f u1 .4
!N I In
M m L Co O O O M
rl �
N 1.0 O Ln .•i O Ln Ln t0
O 14 O O O t0
i M t0
a
E
O
E
to o Ln �4 ull O U"l o
xr4 ^I M .i O
.-4
E
x m In Ln In In
x x x x x
W
3 Q
N
V] N i-1 '-1 r4 N
1-4 I I 1 1
O O O O O
a
N
I
O
3
O 14 3 0
N
r+ ro O
m a �
4-)
b+
to 4) 0 N
H � o u�i c - p
U O O f4 m H v1 N
+moi b -4 C ro C m II 1 0
E°) •� c oU m ^� � °o+
m co
o ro a >J
rl - 4 •.i 1.1
U � a 1 % ° aC -i rl 1• G irl . 1
41
b j E 04•U C r q �I •.i (aN
-WOVaUa O. C A
u )
c U m r0° +•+) 0 4 AJ
a
A c ) I > o
w � w °o ao • 0 moo+ +' CC O o a000 b�
> si to 41 r c c ar, fa
En tm II It 11 4 d. 0 � m 3 II G II II II 'oO O
4 C O .i
U2 x 0rgCN u v 5 z iJ i4 CD 0 0 ti N 4
E
Prosect "Do-Ability"
What is probably an overriding consideration in developing any
project of this magnitude is a "do-ability" factor. Projects which
are difficult to do, or which are exceptionally costly, have a
lower probability of being completed. Given the fact that plans
exist for a development on the Monterey/Osos parcel, it is less
likely that this site will be available for a transit center.
Should plans for this site fall through, it would be an excellent
location, and should be strongly considered.
Of the two remaining sites, both sites 7A and 7B would require land
acquisition from private sources . Proposition 1.16 , the Rail Bonds
Measure, will bring $10 million to San Luis Obispo County over the
next 20 years . While it is not practical to allocate all of this
source to a single project, the regional nature of the transfer
facility may encourage City/County cooperation. The County has
indicated a willingness to support the transfer project at Site 7A
because of the synergies with the planned County office expansion
program. However, it should be noted that even with Proposition
116 funds, additional sources may be required to relocate
businesses , purchase land, etc. .
Given the less objective "do-ability" concerns , Site 1 appears to
be the most- attractive option. However, it should be made clear
that this site has limitations that will have to be overcome before
the site can be considered acceptable. Working with the Department
of Public Works, the permanent transfer center would have to be one
element of an overall circulation plan for downtown San Luis
Obispo. It is not acceptable to continue operation of a through
street at that location, given the pedestrian volume at that site.
Cost RAnkinQ
Transit center development costs can be divided into three
categories :
Site Acquisition Costs
Off-site improvements such as traffic signals , sidewalk
improvements , etc .
On-site costs including site improvement and architectural
costs .
Site acquisition and off-site costs are specific to a particular
site. On-site improvements will vary depending on the specific
design developed for a given site, but for planning purposes , can
be considered the same over all sites . An estimate of on-site
improvement costs is presented on Figure 5 . This is an order of
magnitude estimate, which will be refined during conceptual design.
25
/-3G
A planning budget of $290, 000, excluding site acquisition and off-
site improvement costs is estimated for either of the off-street
operations . In reality, on-site costs will differ significantly
between sites due to soil conditions, flood plain, etc.- which are
outside the scope of this study.
Figure 5
On-Site Costs
Item Cost
I . Site Work
a. On-site basins and storm drains $20, 000
b. Utilities 10, 000
C. Site Lighting 10, 000
d. Sidewalk/Platforms ( $2 . 5/sq ft) 151000
e. Curb & Gutter 15 , 000
f . A/C Paving (buses ) @ 2 . 00/sq ft 10,000
g. Site Landscaping @ 3 . 00/sq ft 61-000
h. Site signage and Street Furnishing 5 ,000
Subtotal $91 , 000
II . Architectural
a . Out-door sheltered terminal area $150, 000
@ $50/ sq ft x 3000
Total $241,000
Contingency @20% 48, 200
Planninc Estimate $289.200
On-site costs for the Osos Street site, which is an already
improved, on-street operation, would be significantly lower than
either of the off-street operations , since the Osos Street site is
already partially improved. For Osos Street, on-site improvements
are expected to total approximately $250, 000 .
26
/-3 7
Site Acquisition
Downtown land in San Luis Obispo is valued at approximately
$40/square foot based on a Department of Public Works appraisal.
Figure 6 shows the overall costs for each of the three highest
ranking sites, including on-site costs, land acquisition and off-
site improvements . No acquisition cost is included for site 2
which is already publicly held.
Off-Site Improvements
Off-site improvements include traffic signalization,
channelization, or other changes required in circulation off site.
For sites 7A and 7B, off-site improvements would include improved
pedestrian access . The estimates for these improvements are very
rough, and are intended only for planning purposes . In the case
of a joint development, some cost sharing may be possible. These
costs are also shown on Figure 6 .
Figure 6
Overall Project Costs
Site 2 Site 7A Site 7B
Land Acquisition $ 0 $2, 000, 000 $1, 200 , 000
On-Site Improvements 290, 000 290, 000 290 , 000
Off-Site Improvements 50, 000 150, 000 150, 000
Total Costs $340, 000 $2, 440, 000 $1 , 640 , 000
Based on these estimates, the Monterey and Osos Street site would
be the lowest cost to develop, including minimal off-site work.
What is not included in this cost estimate, is the cost of
circulation changes . This assumes the site is available at all .
Although 7A is the highest cost site, it is also the best site
operationally. Through joint development and Proposition 116
funding, it may be possible to preserve this site for the region ' s
transit service.
27
/�38
Financinc Plan
Although transit center improvements have been discussed over the
past 15 years, the renewedinterest in this topic is combined with
a unique financing opportunity. Proposition 116, the Rail Bond
initiative, passed in 1990, will provide San Luis Obispo County
with $10 . 1 million in capital funding over the next 20 years.
While final criteria for spending these funds are still being
developed, it is clear that a transit capital facility, such as the
one being recommended here, would be fully fundable under the
measure.
Proposition 116 funding will be administered through the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) . Other projects which can be
funded through this means are rolling stock purchases, bicycle lane
construction, maintenance facility construction, and another
capital projects. The funds do not include any operating
assistance.
The transit center is an ideal project for Proposition 116 funding
because of its regional scope. Proposition 116 funds should become
available by the end of 1991. Although final regulations governing
the funding have not yet been developed, it appears that a capital
program will be required, and that this program may be coordinated
through the Regional Transportation Planning Authority, or SLOACC.
Given the level of funding expected in the region, it seems clear
that this project has an excellent chance of being funded.
If for some reason the City should decide not to apply 116 funding
to this project, there are several funding alternatives . The most
promising of these is Section 18 discretionary funding. This State
administered fund provides transit capital or operating assistance
on a competitive basis, and the transit center would qualify. It
is recommended however, that 116 funding be a priority for this
project.
28
/-39
CHAPTER 6 - RECOMMENDATIONS
Given °the system expansion plans presented in the Short Range
Transit Plan, it is apparent that the current on-street transfer
center at City Hall will not be adequate by the end of the five
year plan period. While this site could be made viable if auto
traffic can be eliminated and other traffic and access changes made
to the local street configuration, there is now a unique
opportunity to develop a permanent transit center that will
accommodate the needs of the system into the next century. The
recommended center will be an asset to the community as a whole and
can support other public policies, including improving air quality,
reducing VMT, and contributing to a joint development project.
Based on the site investigated for this report, it appears that
Site 7A at Santa Rosa and Higuera and Site 2 at Monterey and Osos
are operationally best suited for a transit center. If the
Downtown Physical Plan is pursued, site 7A would be an - excellent
location. Without that "value added" project, serious
consideration should be given the other high scoring sites .
The status of the Monterey/Osos site should be investigated to
determine whether the development planned for that site is still
viable. If that city owned parcel can be made available for the
transit center, it remains an excellent candidate site.
Finally, the availability of Proposition 116 funds puts the region
in the unique position of being able to think about its long range
needs . A visible transit transfer center which works well
operationally and functionally and adds to the aesthetics of
downtown will be an asset for years to come.
29