Loading...
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