HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/03/1998, 2 - COUNCIL UPDATE ON MULTI-MODAL TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTERS AND AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD A DOWNTOWN TRANSFER SITE DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT council
j Agcnaa wpoin
C I TY OF SAN L U IS OBISPO
FROM: Michael McCluskey,Public Works Director
Prepared By: Harry Watson,Transit Manager
Al Cablay,Public Works Manag
SUBJECT: Council update on Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Centers and
authorization to award a Downtown Transfer Site Design
Service Contract
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive a report on the status of the Multi-Modal Transportation Center
(1VfMTC) and Downtown Transfer Site facilities and endorse the
concepts presented therein.
2. Award a contract to Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design to
prepare design and construction documents for the Downtown Transfer
Site in the amount of$46,000 plus a contingency of$4,000 for a total of
$50,000.
REPORT IN BRIEF
This project has a long history. Beginning in the early 1990's, the need for a better transit transfer
facility was identified and a series of reports were commissioned from two consultants who
specialize in transit facilities. As a result of these reports, significant time and effort was
unsuccessfiilly spent working to acquire an "off-street" site on Higuera Street north of Santa Rosa
Street. After it became apparent that no progress could be made at that site, an alternate site near
the Amtrak station was chosen to fulfill both the regional and local transit needs for a good transfer
site. Because of the importance of the downtown, both as a source of employee use and
visitor/shopper use direction was also given to create a downtown transfer site that would maintain
the viability and attractiveness of the downtown to transit users.
A study to determine impacts to the transit system of the dual site (railroad/downtown) facility
found that: a)the railroad site would be needed/desirable in the future;b)would have beneficial use
in the interim time-frame;but c)would have significant detrimental affects on system users and on-
time performance if the major transfer point were located at the railroad. As a result, the study
recommended that the major transfer site continue to be located downtown and the railroad site be
purchased and be primarily used in the shorter term for the Amtrak passenger parking and
SLORTA bus parking; although the site will have greater utility to the City in the years ahead when
the population and the transit system grows.
Staff developed three concept plans for the consultant's preferred downtown layout, submitted
those to Community Development and obtained a Negative Declaration} finding. The next steps are
to hire a firm to prepare working drawings of the project and then construct the facility. Although
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 2
the scope of the project for the railroad site has changed, the need to acquire and proceed to meet
Amtrak and SLORTA short-term and City longer-term needs.
Staff is pursuing property acquisition and planning the revised facility and site improvements for
this site.
At this time, the City Council is being asked to endorse the concept of the major transfer point in
the downtown and authorize a contract for design services to implement improvements to the
downtown facility.
DISCUSSION
Background
This report describes the current status of the transit center project; reviews what has happened
since this project was last brought to the Council in January 1997; and recommends a preferred
concept and implementation thereof. The MMTC/Amtrac site and Downtown Transfer site project
has involved multiple agencies: the City (as lead agency), San Luis Obispo Regional Transit
Authority (SLORTA), the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG), and the County.
Various other stakeholders such as affected property owners, transit advocates, bus drivers, Sierra
Club, ECOSLO, Air Pollution Control District, Business Improvement Association, Mass
Transportation Committee and concerned citizens were also consulted with during various stages of
the project.
The need for better transit transfer facilities was first identified in a Short Range Transit Plan(1991-
1996) prepared by Nelson/Nygaard which pointed out: a) the safety concerns of having buses on
both sides of the street next to City Hall, and b) the need for a safer and more efficient site with an
"off-street" facility preferred. Customers were commonly darting across the street, between buses,
to make connecting transfers at the existing site. An "off-street" facility would remove both buses
and customers from the local street system.
Nelson/Nygaard was then retained to perform a site selection study of both "on-street" and "off-
street" sites limited to the downtown core. All sites were ranked and,by process of elimination, it
was determined that there was not a single site that was both "off street" and could accommodate
the future needs (envisioned at that time) of both SLO Transit as well as CCAT (SLORTA's fixed
route service). An expanded facility next to City Hall ranked high,but was still an on-street facility
and it was then Council's preference to pursue an"off-street"site.
Next, Wilbur Smith Associates was commissioned to do an expanded site selection study that
included new areas northerly of Santa Rosa Street. Both "on-street" and "off-street" sites were
studied and among those new "off-street" sites studied were the Shell Service Station, the former
Spring Toyota site and the former Kimball Motors site. Preliminary engineering layouts were
developed for all three locations, and eventually for the final top four sites (two "on-street" and two
"off-street'). Those top four sites were:
.g�Z
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 3
• The Spring Toyota site: on Higuera Street
• The gimbal[Motors site: on Monterey Street
• Palm Street. from Osos to Santa Rosa
• Osos Street from Mill to Palm and using a portion of Palm
The Council gave direction to pursue the Spring Toyota site because it was available and was a
preferred "off-street" site to the Kimball Motors site. Shortly thereafter the Kimball site was
purchased by the County, who also expressed their objection to the Palm site because of the
location of their air intake facilities. The consultant found the Shell site to be too small to
accommodate both transit systems,unless a multi-story parking and an underground transit facility
were developed. Staff did pursue the Toyota site for a number of months, until it became apparent
that property contamination and purchase price costs were far in excess of funding available.
Most"recent" Recommendation
At Council meetings of May 7, 1996, and June 4, 1996, direction was given to pursue a newly
identified"off-street" site near the Amtrak station(1940 Santa Barbara St.). Because of its distance
from downtown, staff was also directed to pursue a second "on-street" site next to City Hall on
Osos Street (Downtown Transfer site) to assure no loss of passenger service to the downtown. In
January 1997, direction was given to proceed with the two site project by obtaining preliminary
engineering concepts and environmental analysis for the MMTC/Amtrak site and sufficient
analysis to assure that service levels would remain high. Staff retained the firm of Nelson/Nygaard
to perform a route impact analysis of the impacts of moving the main transfer point out of the.
downtown and to the railroad site. The study was to include the ability to make on-time schedules
and to report on gains or losses in ridership.
The results of the Nelson-Nygaard study revealed a paradigm which had not been apparent to staff
and was further documented in the consultant's report that stated, "... shifting all transfer activity to
the MMTC/Amtrak site would impose an unacceptable impact on local transit riders within the
city..." However, the study also found: a) that the railroad site would be needed in future years as
the City grows, and b) it should be purchased now and used for a convenient bus stop and
additional Amtrak parking. The study also recommended that: a) the primary transfer point remain
downtown and b) that the location be kept on Osos Street between Mill and Palm. They provided
schematic plans of two variations for a Downtown site,but preferred the Osos Street site(City Hall
Option-Exhibit A). With the preferred plan, SLO-Transit buses will meet westerly of Palm Street.
SLORTA buses will decrease in the number meeting at any one time and will load/unload easterly
of Palm Street. SLORTA buses will park at the railroad site, instead of in front of the County
building and would discontinue commuting to their present parking location on Buckley Road.
Staff has reviewed the analysis with representatives of SLORTA, SLOCOG and the County and all
feel the recommendations of the analysis are valid and should be pursued. The preference for an
"off-street" site is noted and, with good long range planning, a site can be acquired now that will
function well in the future. It is appropriate at this time to acknowledge that an affordable,
available and usable "off-street" location in the downtown is not possible at this time. An "on-
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 4
street" location is available on Osos Street and will provide an efficient and safe transfer point for
the many transit patrons. The City and its partners should proceed ahead with the best possible
transit transfer location available. However, and in part depending on what happens on Osos Street
in the future, it should still be the City's long-term plan to have an appropriately located off-street
downtown transfer center.
Listed below are benefits that are projected to be derived from the dual transfer point system (two-
site project)and, as indicated, these changes would eliminate many of the problems that currently
exist at the Osos Street site.
Both Sites:
• Transit riders on both SLO Transit and CCAT could conveniently transfer within and between
systems;
• Two transit transfer locations will allow for additional transfer options and therefore be more
convenient for riders.
Downtown Transfer Site:
• There would be less confusion about where connecting buses are if they were all on the same
side of the street, and CCAT buses were all grouped together in the same location;
• Riders would no longer be darting in and out between buses into oncoming traffic, while trying
to cross the street to get to connecting buses;
• Customers transferring between systems would use crosswalks connecting the two systems,
• Fewer buses would be in front of the County building and would be there for shorter periods.
MMTC/Amtrak Site:
• CCAT will save many miles of deadhead travel daily by storing buses at the Amtrak site, rather
than traveling out past the airport as they presently do. CCAT routes could potentially lay over
for several hours twice each weekday;
• The Amtrak project preserves the historic freight building. Eventually the building will be
restored either where it currently resides or, more likely, be relocated to a new site within the
project's boundary,when finding for the restoration and/or relocation has been secured;
• Additional Amtrak parking will ease the current level of parking demand at Railroad Square.
Thus the major difference between the past recommendation and this final staff recommendation is
that the major City transfer point is located downtown. Both sites are still needed and both sites
need necessary improvements. Staff has pursued the needed studies to determine if the railroad site
is available and environmentally acceptable for negotiation purposes. Likewise, the "project" for
each location has been developed and submitted to the City Community Development Department
for environmental review. The Downtown Transfer site project has been given a Negative
Declaration and more data is being required for the railroad site prior to a determination.
Next Steps
What are the next steps for each of the projects; when will those steps be implemented; who will
manage each project; and when will the community actually see results?
0
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 5
I. Downtown Transfer Site
1. Council endorses the concept of a future MMTC to be located at the Amtrak site(1940 Santa
Barbara St.) and a Downtown Transfer Site located adjacent to City Hall. Three proposed
layouts of the Downtown Transfer site are attached to this report(see Exhibits B, C and D.)
a. Included in the Downtown Transfer site are passenger facilities such as benches, planter
seating,kiosks,vending facilities,shelters and possibly rest rooms.
b. There will also be extensive planting, trees, and possibly terraced elevations between bus
stops.
2. Council authorizes Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS &E's) to be prepared by Wilbur
Smith.
3. The target date to issue bid documents: 6/1/98.
4. A target date for construction to begin: 11/1/98.
5. City Public Works-Transportation staff will manage the project.
6. The City's long-range plan would indicate the future desirability of an appropriately located
off-street downtown transfer center.
H. MMTC/Amtrak Site
1. Council reconfirms the concept of a future MMTC at the Amtrak site and a Downtown Transfer
Site on Osos Street adjacent to City Hall. A preferred conceptual layout based on an eventual
full-blown MMTC project has been established. (Exhibit E)
2. Complete required additional environmental data for Community Development: 1/98
3. Receive environmental finding from Community Development: 2/98
4. Apply for State obligation of Transit Capital Improvement(TCI) funding of$582,000: 3/98
5. Target date to bring to Council a contract for Plans, Specifications and Estimate's (PS&E's):
5/98.
6. Receive State obligation of Transit Capital Improvement(TCI) funding: 6/98
7. Complete property acquisition(both parcels): 4/99.
8. Target date for construction to be out for bid: 5/99.
7. City Public Works-Transportation staff will manage the project.
Contract with Wilbur Smith Associates
Staff is recommending the award of a contract to the firm of Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker
Design for preparation of PS &E's for the Downtown Transfer site in the amount of $50,000
including contingency. Attached is their proposal for this project. This contract is a "sole source"
award and is recommended due to Wilbur Smith Associates' recognized national expertise in transit
system design and a long history with this project.
Wilbur Smith has been the City's consultant on:
1. The Expanded Multi-modal Site Study(beyond Santa Rosa St.);
2. Preliminary Engineering for the Spring Toyota,Kimball and Shell locations;
3. Preliminary Site Designs for the MMTC/Amtrak site.
.S
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 6
The consultant is very familiar with the needs of both San Luis Obispo Transit and CCAT, and is
also familiar with both system's bus routes and directional flows. Added to their proposal is the
local firm of Rademakcr Design, who has been a part of the Stakeholders Group and provided
numerous drawings of possible downtown improvement schemes. Rademaker Design would bring
the knowledge acquired,via the Stakeholders meetings, as well as an intimate knowledge of design
issues in the downtown. SLOCOG contracted with Rademaker Design for more detailed site
designs on the present bus transfer location on Osos Street adjacent to the County Government
Center.
The proposal includes a value analysis of the previously submitted staff concepts, followed by
schematic design within 60 days from notice to proceed, and then final PS & E's. The proposal
cost for this project is $46,000, plus a contingency of $4,000, for a total of $50,000. (This
represents about a 17% design fee, which is appropriate for this size and type of project). This
allocation is a portion of the "Study and Design" costs listed under the Budgeted Expenses section
identified in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.
Nelson/Nygaard, a next logical choice for a qualified consultant, does not perform construction
plan preparation. Since few firms other than these two have ever responded to RFP's for bus
related projects in the City of San Luis Obispo, staff felt it prudent and justified to request sole
source approval as a means of keeping the project on schedule.
CONCURRENCES
The Mass Transportation Committee had discussed this new dual-transfer point concept
(Downtown Transfer and MMTC/Amtrak Sites) at its May 28, 1997 meeting and has endorsed it.
Various stakeholders included throughout the process have also had the opportunity to dialogue
about the dual transfer site system,including property owners and County personnel. After meeting
several times over the course of this past year, the stakeholders reached a consensus and mutually
agreed to recommend the dual-transfer point system and their related site improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted Revenue:
Local T DA Funds $ 27,000
State T C I Grant $ 582,000
State Prop 116 Grant $1,016,000
Federal STP Grant $ 500,000
Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Grants 600,000
Total Revenue $29725,000
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 7
Budgeted Expenses:
Land Acquisition $1,996,000
Study $ 452000
Design $ 84,000
Construction $ 590,000
Construction Management 10,000
Total Expenses $2,7259000
The Downtown Transfer site portion of the project, although a stand alone capital project, shares
the budget and expenditures with the MMTC/Amtrak site. The projected revenue and expense for
the two projects is shown above,with the expense portion, as staff's best estimate at this time.
Since the City already owns the land for the Downtown Transfer site, the only expenditures will be
for design, construction management and construction. Construction could run $300,000, with
design and contract administration of construction about $60,000, for an approximate total of
$360,000. The balance of the budget would be applied to the MMTC/Amtrak facility for land
acquisition, environmental work,review,design,management and construction.
It is important to point out that all grants are time sensitive. Both authorization for grants and
expenditure of the grant money must be completed within a fairly short time schedule. As such, it
is incumbent on the City to demonstrate to SLOCOG its commitment and progress in meeting these
deadlines. At some point,it may also be appropriate for Council to meet jointly with SLOCOG and
SLORTA to discuss this progress.
ALTERNATIVES
Downtown Transfer Site
At this point in the planning process, there is not a staff preference as to the layout of the
Downtown Transfer Site. Consequently as part of their contract, the consultant, Wilbur Smith
Associates, will conduct a Value Analysis of the three concepts and then make their
recommendation. Staff will in tum review their findings and have the following options:
1. Agree with the consultant's recommendation in its entirety and pursue the preparation of the
construction documents(PS &E's);or
2. Agree with the consultant's recommendation, with staff modifications, and then pursue the
preparation of construction documents(PS &E's); or
3. Disagree entirely with the consultant's finding and staff would then develop another
recommendation. Upon completing that task, staff would pursue the preparation of
construction documents(PS &E's).
Numbers 1 and 2 above are the most likely.
�7
Council Agenda Report-Transit Transfer Sites-Downtown and Amtrak
Page 8
MMTC/Amtrac Site
This project has already been studied by the consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates, and several
concepts were generated and have been reviewed by the stakeholders. As a result, once the property
is purchased from Union Pacific Railroad, the construction documents can be prepared. Therefore,
in staff's opinion no alternative is needed or recommended.
Attachments: Exhibit A-Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design proposal with
Fee Amendment
Exhibit B -Concept One/City Hall Option
Exhibit C- Concept Two/City Hall Option
Exhibit D-Concept Three/City Hall Option
Exhibit E-Future concept of MMTC/Amtrak Site
I:/CAR/Downtown Transfer Center V
e,�ee�m
`0h0vv�
• Y.'�
Wilbur 5'"I associates
221 Mcg Street; Suite 1200
San Francisca, CA 94105
Phone (415) 896-0670 • Fax: (415) 895-0195 v E-mail: rtilles@wilbvrsmith.com
To: Wayne Peterson :Prom: Dick Tilles
Firm: City of Son Luis Obispo Date: ' December 17, 1997
Fax: (805) 781-7198 Job NuMbe:e.: 044204 Pages: 1
Ret Downtown Transit Center
Dear Wayne:
I spoke again to Peter Martin withrespekt::o the Ctty►'s 30iD1000 budget for the Transit Center.
Based on this limit,we would estimate (ldtpbi:ial-;Mi unt'of$22,000:over and above our
schematic design fee for preparing Plans,!Specificitio as and Estimates for the Transit Center.
The total fee would be$46,000:
Regards,
cc:PCM
i.. .
Exhibit A
to -d 00S X :3 M TO N=1 Mws-HSM 6^i : 9 i aam 46-4i -oaa
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS• PLANNERS
221 MAIN STREET.SUrrE 1200•SAN FRANCS= CA 94106-1915• (4 15)996-06/0• SAX'0 IS)994-01 :5"
December 18, 1997
Mr. Harry Watson
Transit Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Downtown Transit Center Design Services
Dear Mr. Watson:
Wilbur Smith Associates is pleased to submit this proposal in association with Rademaker
Design to assist the City define and implement plans for an Improved passenger transfer
facility Downtown. This effort would build upon our previous planning efforts and would be
supported by Rademaker Design's familiarity with overall downtown urban design and planning
issuestobjectives.
Work Scope
A four step process Is proposed to complete the schematic design plan.
1. Value Analysis of Three Concepts;
2. Select Preferred Plan;
3. Development of Schematic Design; and
4. Develop Cost Estimates
9. Value AnaWs of Three Concepts
This initial task would be combined with the project kickoff meeting. It would Identify how the
Downtown Transit Center would function with respect to transit services and also with the
planned train station multimodal center. At the outset of the project WSA would review the
City's mapping on the project area and would obtain any available aerial photos. These
mapping tools would be employed to sketch out critical constraints and issues in advance of
the kickoff meeting In order to faaTitate discussion.
Following discussion at the kickoff meeting, several schematic alternative site plans would be
developed to evaluate functional alternatives for basing buses at the Osos Street site. These
alternatives might include: schemes for bending bus loading areas around onto Palm and Mm
Streets; and benefits of sawtooth versus tandem loading bays.
ACCRA GHANA• ALBANY. NY•ANAHF?A CA•ATIANTA GA•BALTIMORE MD-BANGKOK IHAILAND•CARACAS VENEZUELA•CHARLESM SC
COLUMBIA, SC • COLUMBUS. OH • DES MOINES. IA • FALLS CHURCH. VA • HONG KONG • HOUSION. TX • KUWAIT • KNOXVILLE. TN
LEXINGTON. KY • LONDON. ENGLAND • MILWAUKEE, WI • NEW HAVEN. CT • ORLANDO, FI. • PITTSBURGH. PA • RALFIGH. NC
RICHMOND,VA•ROSELI E IL •SAN FRANCISCO.CA•SAN JOSE CA •TALLAHASSEE.FL •TAMPA.FL•TORONTO.CANADA • WASHINGTON.DC
EMPLOYEE-OWNED COMPANY 1�GD I /
S/Z'd SETO 968 STC OOSIJNW i MUS bS14 WcWE:EO 46r 9T 03a (�1�
Mr. Harry Watson
December 16, 1997
Page 2
2. Select Preferred Plan
The strengths and weaknesses of the functional altemative site plans would be identified for
the City to select a preferred plan. As curb space Is known to be tight, it would be prudent at
this point for the city to test using traffic cones critical maneuvers with its present bus fleet to
ensure that minimum transit center dimensions are viable with the present fleet A brief memo
would be prepared highlighting the pros and cons for the alternatives to facilitate decision on
the preferred plan.
3. Development of Schematic Design
Following selection of the preferred plan, the final plan would be plotted onto the AutoCAD
base map, and a number of key project features would be defined. Rademaker Design would
define a conceptual streetscape plan including passenger shelter facilities. Rademaker Design
would provide additional sketches, photographs and other documentation to dearly describe
the related amenities associated with transit operation. These elements may include sheltered
bus stops, hardscape features, Information structures, etc. WSA would assess the benefit and
need for a traffic signal at 03os and Mill', identify potential ITS concepts for consideration and
work with Rademaker Design in defining a signage program.
4. Develop Cost Estimates
A preliminary construction cost estimate of the project would be prepared Including the
reconstruction of Osos Street We would confer with City staff regarding relevant local cost
experience In defining unit cost relationships.
Schedule and Fee
The proposed work would be completed within 60 days of notice to proceed. A fee of$24.100
is estimated for this work as detailed below.
Task WSA Rademaker Total
1 S.900 2,750 8,650
2 2,800 750 3,550
3 6,600 3 000 9,600
4 800 1,500 2.300
Total 5161100 $8,000 $24,100
A total of three trips to San Luis Obispo are included in this budget for WSA.
971012
S/Eed 96TO 968 STV OOSI0NbreU NHS USM W172:E0 L6, 91 :)3Q
Mr.Harry Watson
December 10, 1997
Page 3
Your signature below will indicate acceptance of this proposal, the attached General Terms of
Agreement and your authorization to proceed. Please sign both copies and return one to me
for our files. Please contact our Project Director, Peter Martin at 415-896-0670 if you have any
questions regarding this proposal.
Very truly yours,
WILBUR S ASSOC ES If City of San Luis Obispo
William E Hurrell, P.E.
Regional Vice President Signature
'WEH/PCM/pfh
044204
Enc. Idle Date
ca Pierre Rademaker
9710-12
�IZ
S/ *d 5610 96:8 STV OJSIJNtl*U NOS UW WdSz:60 L6. 9Z 03a
.:::: WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
V General Terms of Agreement
1. ?his document will serve as a Contract for the proposed professional services.
2. The proposal is valid for a period of 60 days, after which the Consultant reserves the
right to review and revise the estimated fee, time schedule, and other terms specified
herein.
3. This Contract is not assignable except with the prior written consent of the Consultant
and no assignment sha11 relieve the undersigned of any obligations under this Contract
4. The undersigned agrees to pay the consultant for work performed in accord with the
terms of this Contract, without regard to the success of the project.
5. payment of the Consultant is expressly not conditioned upon the undersigned receiving
any payment from third parties who are not a party to this Contract, such as other
property owners, developers, or funding agencies.
6. The individual executing this Contract, if acting on behalf of a partnership,
corporation, or funding agency, represents that he or she has the authority to do so.
7. Where public hearings/meetings are involved, a minimum of two weeks notice to the
Consultant is required for proper preparation, including appropriate graphics and other
visual aids.
S. Accounts rendered are due and payable upon receipt of'invoice.
9. Interest is presumed to be applicable to all unpaid accounts beginning 30 days after
receipt of the invoice, with interest calculated at the established prime rate by Chase
Manhattan National Bank, New York,N.Y.
10. In the event that the client defuilts in making payments pursuant to this contract, the
client shall be responsible for all of the Consultant's collection costs, including
reasonable attorney's fees.
October, 1997
/3
avvs
S/S'd S6TO 968 Sib OaSIWkd NHS HSM WdSZ:EO L6, 9T Ma
I �
i
CONCEPT ONE BULB OUT
I L L S T SEATING WALL
-- - - - -------- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - -- --
- - -------- --
l --
SHELTER
I
G Ci
I I i
RESTROOMS
I VENDING AREA
[Ells
=J_EW!:=7
i
L.Li
o
I
li
li
I.
I � -
\�
PALM ST .
X+H(IBIT B
CONCEPT TWO BULB OUT:��
M I L. L ST . SEATING WALL
- - - - -- - ---- -- -- - -- -- -- - - - - - - - -- :=- --------- -
_i
=- --
FULL-LENGTH
SHELTER
ALL CONCRETEl i I I { i -,
--"'.-TEXTURE
ET -0-
RESTROOMS
v
P C c 7T i Bell L
co
O
Cly
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . Iii
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2
ij
PALM ST .
SHELTER CONCEPT
EXH I flT CC
I
:
CONCEPT THREE BULB OUTS
MILL ST .
------- - -- - - - -- ---
® i
I I
a ;�A
I I .
PO-ItI-- Deli 3
I sn
-I VENDING KIOSK;
_i _;
RESTROOMS
' i
! �.�
Ii
I I: II uw�E
I i� I I ILII �
i
=1 SHELTER I
I
f a II I. �
I � i
E I G
Li
I Ir
I
c A-3) I
I
I� I
I
I I
i
PALM ST .
EXHIBIT D �r
'. `. rte/ �-i.,��l •tom � � � �!%)J�
\ � I
\ RT
[- Y
J
I i
U
I _ /V IL a w
�., w