Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/1998, 4 - REPORT ON DOWNTOWN TRANSFER CENTER, APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE A DOWNTOWN TRANSFER SITE DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT counat j agenda Rpm I®N.;6� CITY OF SAN LUI $ OBISPO FROM: Michael McCluskey,Public Works Director Prepared By: Harry Watson,Transit Manager Al Cablay,Public Works Manager SUBJECT: Report on Downtown Transfer Center,Approval of a Negative Declaration and Authorization to negotiate a Downtown Transfer Site Design Services Contract CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive a report on the latest concept for the Downtown Transfer Center Site facilities and endorse the staff recommended design concept. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration of environmental impact(ER 167- 97); and 3. Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design to analyze the approved concept, and prepare design and construction documents for the Downtown Transfer Site in an amount not to exceed$46,000. REPORT IN BRIEF On February 3, 1998 the City Council took testimony and considered a report regarding the Multi-Modal Transfer Center(MMTC)located near the San Luis Obispo Railroad Depot at 1940 Santa Barbara Street, and the Downtown Transfer Center Site, located on Osos Street between Palm and Mill Streets. The report stated that: 1. In the near term(next 15 years+/-)the Transit system's main transfer location should be downtown and the preferred location was Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street. 2. In the long term a second Transit transfer location would be needed to adequately serve the needs of the City; that the location for that facility be near the existing railroad station; and that the site be purchased and held for needed eventual use . 3. The railroad location be developed: a)to satisfy an immediate need for additional Amtrak passenger parking;b) to provide a location for SLORTA buses to layover during times when not in use; and c)in such a way that eventual use as transit transfer center could be easily implemented. 4. The Downtown site be developed(Attachment 6)such that all parking on the north side of Osos Street(6 spaces)be eliminated; two way traffic be maintained; and bus pulse locations be designed in a semi-herringbone design to allow for independent movement of individual buses. 5. Three conceptual Downtown transfer designs (meeting the criteria established by a previous consultant study)had been prepared by staff and the use of a consultant was recommended to evaluate the designs;report back on findings; and finally to prepare construction documents to implement the new Downtown transfer site. Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 2 The Council received testimony regarding the loss of parking spaces and the increase in noise associated with proposed designs of the Downtown site. In ensuing Council discussion questions arose concerning the environmental document for the Downtown site, the site design and its impacts on both businesses and the City Hall parking lot. As a result,the Council asked for a new design to be evaluated which included various criteria established by the Council. Staff did prepare the conceptual design directed by the Council(Attachment 4)but cannot recommend that design based on impacts to existing traffic and circulation. However,using most of the Council's criteria, staff prepared two additional concept plans for Council consideration and is recommending one for implementation(Attachment 3). The Negative Declaration,prepared by the Community Development Department for the previous concept plans,was reviewed for the recommended concept plan(Attachment 3) and no additional environmental evaluation was found necessary. The initial environmental study and resolution adopting the Negative Declaration is attached. Because it is now anticipated that the Council will decide upon a single concept plan,the previous need for significant consultant review and analysis of various concept plans is no longer necessary and as such the scope of the consultant's work will be greatly reduced. Due to the short time period in which these changes have transpired, staff has been unable to negotiate a revised contract with the consultant. Thus staff is now requesting the ability to negotiate an appropriate contract with the consultant. This should result in significant savings in consultant cost and allow an earlier construction date as well. DISCUSSION On February 3, 1998 the City Council considered an Agenda Item regarding a report on the status of the Multi-Modal Transfer Center Site located near the existing railroad station(1940 Santa Barbara Street) and the Downtown Transfer Center. Staff reported that a consultant prepared report on the impacts to bus usage and on-time performance had concluded that for the near term the major Transfer Center should only be downtown;that it should be located on the block of Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street; and that the railroad site should be purchased and held for eventual use for a needed secondary Transfer Center when the City approached full build out in the year 2015 or later. The agenda item described courses of action for both sites as follows: Railroad Site This site,consisting of two separate properties,was to be purchased and developed as additional parking for Amtrak passengers and layover parking for SLORTA buses during times when not in use. The site would be designed so as to remain the same that at the time of eventual need as a Transfer Center only slight modifications would be needed to accommodate the new uses without impacting the existing uses. As a bonus the existing Freight House(an historic building) could be moved and saved from further deterioration until preservation efforts could be organized to totally rehabilitate the building. Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 3 Downtown Site-Previous Proposal This earlier proposed site was to be developed(Attachment 6)with all buses meeting(or `pulsing') on the west side of Osos Street with a semi-herringbone type design that would allow independent movement of the buses. No street widening would be necessary but in order to accomplish the needed bus movements without disrupting south bound traffic on Osos Street all on-street parldng(6 spaces)would need to be removed. The former parldng lane on the east side of Osos Street would become the new northbound travel lane. This would necessitate north bound traffic jogging across Mill Street somewhat as the two northbound lanes would not align. Additionally,in order to accomplish locating all buses on the west side of the street,the two driveway entrances to the City Hall parldng lot would need to be closed resulting in the need for new entrances on Mill Street and loss of some parldng spaces in the City Hall parldng lot. Approximately 22 feet of area would exist between the buses and the wall of City Hall and in this area were proposed multiple amenities for bus passengers including restrooms, shelters,vending machines and landscaping. Results of Council Meeting*and Direction Given After hearing testimony concerning the loss of the six on-street parldng spaces and the effects of additional noise,the Council directed staff to prepare a new concept plan for the Osos Street Transfer Center. Staff was directed to: a)place one bus on Palm Street,westbound and just around the corner from Osos Street;b)make Osos Street a one-way street southbound; c)provide a parldng lane along the east side of Osos Street; and d)provide at least one driveway entrance to the City Hall parking lot to allow for ingress and egress for delivery vehicles to City Hall. Staff was to return with this information as soon as possible. There was also considerable discussion regarding the environmental status of concept plans for the Osos Street site. Issues regarding the City's existing noise element of the General Plan as well as general confusion over the resolution needed for adoption of environmental findings were also discussed. Staff was to resolve the issues. Analysis and Recommendation Staff did prepare a Downtown Transfer Site plan in accordance with Council direction and is shown as Attachment 4. Analysis shows that installation of a one-way street will directly impact about 1,800 cars per day and a number of SLORTA buses which currently travel northbound to access the freeway. This is an impact which would require significant analysis as to where this trips would be rerouted to and what impacts they would have(noise,congestion)on nearby residential and commercial streets. In addition, should Morro Street ever be closed off to through traffic as anticipated in the Downtown Physical Concept Plan only Chorro Street and Santa Rosa Street would be available for traffic to use to access Hwy. 101. Thus making Osos Street a one-way street would have both short term and long term impacts that are seen by staff as negative and most certainly would need extensive study prior to any adoption by the Council as a concept plan and its environmental document. Thus staff does not recommend the concept plan envisioned by the Council(Attachment 4) for implementation. Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 4 Staff, in looking for new solutions,used most of the Council's criteria and produced two additional alternatives for Council consideration. The concept recommended by staff and presented as Exhibit `A',proposes a semi-herringbone design for five (5)buses along Osos Street and was likewise a part of the original consultant concept plan. This feature is currently used by other transit authorities,particularly for those downtown areas that have obvious street width limitations(e.g.MTDB, San Diego Downtown area.) This layout retains the on-street parking of six spaces as well as providing five to six new spaces along the east side of Osos Street. Two way traffic on Osos Street is maintained. Two entrances to the City Hall parking lot are provided to address ingress and egress for deliveries. However, in order to provide the on-street parking requested,six feet of existing sidewalk area was removed reducing overall area for pedestrian enhancements to 16 feet from 22 feet(with the original proposal). Staff feels that this is still sufficient room to provide adequate and needed amenities. In addition,the single bus located in front of City Hall is located with all other buses on Osos Street. While one bus route(Route 3) does travel in the west bound direction on Palm Street it does so on only one of its two loops. On the second loop of its route the bus would be required to loop an entire city block before it would be headed in the correct direction thus using precious time. This particular Route is the route with the poorest on-time performance record and the Transit Manager feels that locating the route pulse location on Palm Street would exacerbate the problems this route currently faces. Public Works staff consulted with the Community Development staff regarding any new or additional environmental concerns that Attachment 3 concept plan might necessitate. Because there would be no redirection of traffic patterns and an actual net increase of parking spaces,the Community Development staff has confirmed that the existing environmental review of the previous submittal is adequate and that the Negative Declaration prepared could be adopted for this concept plan. Thus staff recommends the concept plan shown on Attachment 3 for adoption by the Council. Transit Passenger Amenities There was discussion at the Council meeting of February 3nd about the advisability of providing amenities for transit passengers. One Council member consistently stated his preference for an "off-street"facility and staff agrees that this is the desired longer term goal. Concerning the current mid-term proposal,the City has been approached by the BIA concerning the need for additional restroom facilities in the downtown and City Hall employees have clearly expressed a preference for an exterior restroom to serve the bus patrons and others. While the restroom itself could not be relocated in the firture, all shelters,vending machines,Idosks,etc. could be removed and relocated to any new site. Staff feels that there is a definite need for these services for transit passengers and thus recommends that any concept plan the Council endorses include these amenities. Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 5 Consultant Contract The original contract with the preferred consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design, assumed a detailed review of several alternatives and preparation of exhibits and a report detailing the advantages and disadvantages of those alternatives. After that work was complete and a final design had been chosen,the consultant was to prepare working drawings which would lead to construction of the improvements. Given the Council's anticipated decision upon a single concept plan, much of the former scope of work is no longer needed. It is therefore recommended that staff renegotiate a new scope of work to include a schematic analysis of the preferred concept and then proceed to working drawings. In order to expedite the project and as consistent with the Council's selected concept, the CAO would be authorized to approve the scope of work and the subsequent contract. Environmental Review Community Development staff has reviewed the revised design concept(Attachment 3)and determined that it does not differ significantly from the previous concepts and that no additional environmental review is required. The previous.negative declaration is still applicable to the project since the proposed changes would not result in new impacts or increase impacts to significant levels. Project changes are likely to improve the project's neighborhood compatibility by preserving more on-street parking. Therefore, in accordance to CEQA, the Community Development Director's previously recommended Negative Declaration for the Downtown Transfer Center site concept is adequate and should be approved if the Council chooses to proceed with remains in effect. At the previous Council meeting there was concern expressed as to the noise study conducted and the use of that data for the current proposal. After reviewing the documentation, staff believes that the increases to the noise levels are negligible. Should the one-way concept(Attachment 4) still be Council's choice, a traffic analysis will be necessary and once finished,an amended initial Study conducted by Community Development staff will need to be completed to determine the environmental impacts in order to comply with CEQA. CONCURENCES The Community Development Department has reviewed both the Council directed concept plan and the staff recommended response concept plan and concurs that additional studies would be necessary with the former and that the later could proceed under the original environmental document prepared. Due to agenda preparation deadlines,this report was finished prior to a planned meeting of the stakeholders group. A report on the results of that meeting will be presented at tonight's meeting. S Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 6 FISCAL IMPACT The budget shown below includes funding for both the Downtown Transfer Center and the Multi-Modal Transfer Center(railroad site) Budgeted Revenue: Local T DA Funds $ 27,000 State TO Grant $ 582,000 State Prop 116 Grant $1 016,000 Federal SIP Grant $ 500 000 Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Grants 600,000 Total Revenue 5297259000 Budeeted Expenses: Land Acquisition $ 1,996 Stud $ 45,000 Desi $ 94,000 Construction $ 590,000 Construction Mara gement 10,000 Total Expenses $2,7259000 The City already owns the land for the Downtown Transfer site,therefore 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 studies,review,design,management and construction. All of these grants are time sensitive. It is incumbent on the City to demonstrate to SLOCOG its commitment and progress in meeting the funding deadlines. The time schedule staff has committed to is a fairly short time schedule for both the authorization and expenditure of the grant money these decisions move the City closer to meeting those deadlines. ALTERNATIVES 1. Council suggested concept(Attachment 4). As discussed above,this concept would change Osos Street to a one-way, southbound street;provide parking for four buses on Osos Street and one bus on Palm Street; and provide vehicle parking along the east side of Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street. This concept plan is not recommended based upon the reasons stated earlier in this report. �-6 Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 7 2. Parallel park buses with one on Palm Street(Attachment 5). This alternative places four buses on Osos Street and one on Palm Street. One driveway to City Hall is provided and full parking on the east side of Osos Street is also provided. The overall cost of construction is lower. However,transit passengers must cross the driveway entrance to City Hall and the on- time performance of Route 3 will be affected by its location on Palm Street. The decision to provide amenities is not affected. This concept plan is not recommended to primarily the impacts to system performance. 3. Do Nothing. The Council may decide that the existing layout of buses on Osos Street is sufficient,provides adequate service and will continue to provide that service until such time as a better solution is found(i.e. a new"off-street"facility). Attachments: Attachment 1: -Council Resolution Attachment 2: -Negative Declaration Attachment 3: -Staff Recommended Concept - Attachment 4: - One-way on Osos Street Concept-Council Concept Attachment 5: -Parallel Bus Parking on Osos Street-Alternative Concept Attachment 6: - Original Staff/Consultant recommended Concept I:car/downtown transfer center site.doc RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DOWNTOWN TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER WHEREAS,the Public Works Department staff has developed design concepts(with input from the City Council) for the development of a transit transfer facility on Osos Street in the vicinity of City Hall (Exhibits B through D of the Negative Declaration and Attachments 3 through 6 of the March 3, 1998 Agenda Report); and WHEREAS, consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Community Development Department has prepared an initial environmental study that evaluates the potential environmental effects of Downtown Transit Transfer Center alternatives, and has determined that the effects of the recommended alternative(Attachment 3)are analyzed by this initial study;and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director issued a Negative Declaration for the Downtown Transit Transfer Center alternatives (ER 167-97) that was noticed and made available for public review and comment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21091);and ViH[EREAS,the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact as prepared by staff, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed Downtown Transit Transfer Center, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Negative Declaration for the development of the Downtown Transit Transfer Center is hereby adopted. On motion of , seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 7- Resolution No. (1998 Series) Page Two 4 the foregoing resolution was adopted on this..day of __; 1998. Mayor Allen.K.Settle ATTEST APPROVED City Clerk - - C' - ey e - Jo_ ensen. -- -- — �-9 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ER 167-97 1 . Project Title: San Luis Obispo Downtown Transit Transfer Center. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner (805) 781-7176 4. Project Location: 990 Palm Street 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Public Works Department 995 Morro Street San Luis Obispo,. CA 93401-3249 6. General Plan Designation: Public Facilities and Offices, Historic District. 7. Zoning: PF, PF-H, 0, O-H 8. Description of the Project: The Downtown Transit Transfer Center, or "Downtown Superstop," would provide bus passenger waiting, transfer and loading facilities for City and regional bus routes. The site is adjacent to City Hall, and near the County Government Center (see Exhibit A). The Superstop will provide more convenient public transit facilities in the Downtown than currently exist, and include several improvements in the public right-of-way, such as expanded passenger seating and sheltered waiting areas, sidewalk bulb-outs, landscape planters, street trees, information kiosks, vending machines, restrooms, telephones, and lighting. The project is designed to accommodate existing bus traffic. It will not increase the number or frequency of bus stops. Currently, a total of six bus parking spaces are provided along both sides of Osos Street, and on the south side of Mill Street. This project would reduce the number of bus parking bays from six to five, andrelocate all = bus parking to the west side of Osos Street, between Palm and Mill Streets. This will improve bus passenger safety by eliminating the need for passengers to dash across -Osos Street, between buses, to make their connections. 9. Project Entitlements Required: G Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval (architectural design issues). 0 City Council authorization and funding. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The Superstop is proposed along the 800-900 block of Osos Street, between Palm and Mill Streets, near the current City bus stop. It is located in an area commonly called the "Civic Center," and adjoins City and County government buildings, the City/County Library, privately-owned offices and dwellings. 11 ..-Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or, participation agreement): The project will be funded using City Transportation Development Act funds. These are discretionary transportation funds which the City uses at its sole discretion. No other public agency approvals are required. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. L1The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: '- �7f�'�-ter • � ��� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, they will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on a attached sheets have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and that a ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, and that (1) certain "Potentially Significant Impacts" will be mitigated to less than significant levels with the inclusion of mitigation measures, noted in the initial study, and (2) An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided o mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose upon the proposed project. Ire �2 Sig ure Date John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager For Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. Printed Name EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well,as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. _ 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant lmpsct." The lead sc�_ncy must dascriba the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 1.' LAND"USE AND FLANNING Would the proposal '; !: ,. a) C -77 onfllct:wtth'general plan designation or zoning? , '4 �! 1,2,22 X tal plans pr policie T:; X ict b) :Confl ;wrth appllcable:envgonmen , s adopted;by agencies with Jurisdiction over the proJect7 ; c) Be inoompatible':with existing land use in.the vicinity? r:' X id) Affect?agnculturaLresources or operations (e g ;impact; 'eNto so Wdr faffn14 ds,'or impacts from incompatibW:Jah& X e)4;`D1srupv;or divide �the9 physical arrangement;,of f,an! ;established community; (including a:`,.low income ora X minority communrty)� The proposed Superstop site is currently used for bus parking and passenger loading and the proposed project will not change the type or intensity of the use. The site is designated for Public Facilities and Offices in the General Plan, and its "PF" and. "O" zoning allows a wide range of uses likely to be located on public property, including bus parking and passenger loading for public transit (Exhibit A). The project would improve existing public transit facilities and is consistent with General Plan policies encouraging conveniently located public transit facilities and alternative transportation modes such as bicycles, walking, carpooling and public transit. Circulation Element policies also encourage expanded public transit facilities to serve local and regional transportation needs, including commuter service. In accordance with the City's Short Range Transit Plan (August 1997), the Circulation Element encourages the development of a Downtown bus transfer center near City Hall and the County Court House. Three alternative designs are being considered (Exhibits B, C, and D). All of the designs include these features: • Six metered parking spaces on the east side of Osos Street are removed; one metered space on the east side of Mill is removed. . o Osos Street traffic lanes are shifted east, so that the northbound lane occupies to the current parking lane along the east side of Osos Street. e Up t0 ten parking spaces behind C!t;% riali are r'arnov_ad. o City Hall parking lot driveway is shifted from Osos Streat to Mill Street. �If� Z y/3 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 5 Issues Unless Impact mitigated -. • Five bus parking/loading stalls are provided in a sawtooth formation along the west side of Osos Street, between Palm and Mill Streets. • Traffic on Osos Street, between Mill and Palm Streets, is realigned with traffic on Osos Street between Palm and Monterey Streets; two metered spaces eliminated on Osos Street, north of Mill Street. • Traffic lanes on Osos Street, between Mill and Palm Streets, are offset from traffic lanes on Osos Street between Palm and Peach Streets. The alternative designs differ mainly in the bus parking layouts and location and designs of passenger waiting shelters. Exhibit E summarizes the design features of the alternatives. The Santa Barbara/Osos Street corridor will link the Downtown Superstop, a local bus transfer facility, with the City's planned Multi-Modal Transit Center (MMTC) in the Railroad District. Both projects are being funded and built separately and will be operated by the City to meet local and regional transit needs. Conclusion: The project is consistent with General Plan and related policies. No significant impact. 2._.POPULATION:AND.HOUSING=Would#he;proposal "" ` ,?� _, '-`'" � F 5 a);'CumulatiVely,exceed official regional'or local population 1, 3, 5 proji ctions� t X li): Induce-substantial gr6Wth in an area either�directly m tndirecl y (e` q­, projects in an undeveloped area X =or major infrastructure?_ 7- " e • b ref: + - �`r r ha" �I TLk1 ��'�^ :.T •..`_: C) Displace existing housing, especially aff. ordable,housmg1: X This project would accommodate existing and expected public transit needs. It is an infill development project. It would not increase population, job or housing demand and would not displace existing housing. Conclusion: No significant impact. 3. GEOLOGIC.PROBLEMS: Would the proposal.result::in`of=expose.:people:.to;potential.impaots:inVbIVing:=..':'_:: a) Fault rupture? 6,7 X b) Seismic.ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, includirig liquefaction? j X d) Se'cha, tsuna-,:, o- vc;c=_n?c hazard? X e) Landslides or mud-flows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography of unstable sc'i X C._"—ions from e:ca%--lion, /Iffi9c Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Lass Than No ER 167-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 6 Issues Unless Impact a mitigated g).:::Subsidence of the land?. X h) _;Expansive soils? _ X i) Unique geologic or physical features7 X Conclusion: No significant impact. The proposed sites are not subject to any known geologic problems, nor will the proposed development contribute to geologic problems. The project is consistent with policies in the Seismic Safety and Safety Elements. 4. :WATER::Would the'proposal_result m "4 r ; a) -:Change's in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or Ithe" - 10122 4 I, L: li, -rate aril amount of surface runoff? I 'S Tr X J:� saa b) :Exposure of people or,property to water-related hazards r such as:floodings ;ll l 1411III� X 4 11 1 ni N Ji: I, I c) `Discharge into surface waters or other alteration'tif rl a surface water quality (e:g temperature, X dissolved ' °' oxygen'or turbid IJu ll, ;'lil it ryil " IIII^lill 11 nll' d) .Changes in the amount of surface waterm any water td 5 ,1 body s 'W 11 �p wrtil X e) ,'Changes in currents, or.the course or direction of water! X movements FI tr .- I M �w� .. f) . Change in the quantity of ground water`s, either•through r .. . direct additions or withdrawals, or through mte[ceptioh l;; =of an aquifer by.cuts'or_excavations or,through X substantial loss of:groundwater-recharge capability g)._Altered-direction or rate`.:of flow of groundwater? X h) .Impacts to groundwater quality? ;'. i) Substantial reddction m_the amount of groundwaterll'Ilkil X otherwise available for publicwater.supphe_s�: The project will be built within the Osos Street right-of-way and will have no effect on flooding, groundwater, or water quality, since this urban site is already about 95 percent paved with non-porous concrete and asphalt paving. Surface drainage will be handled through conventional surface drainage measures within the right-of-way. Conclusion: No significant impact. 5.:AIR Q.UALITY:;'.Would.the proposal : I I 1 a)..:_Violate_any air quality standard'ior contribute to';an r existing'or projected air:qualityviolatitin ob onp iprpe1, 9, X with APCD Environmental Guidehnes)? ; 22 b)'• Expose sensitive rete tors to ollutants X P. P _ c) Alter air movement;moist(ir..e;:or tem erature;;.o.r cause-: X any change in climate.?= d) Create objectionable:odors? X Sart Luis Obispo Count; is a non-attainment area for State Ozone and P(1/l10 dine particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in diameter) air quality standards. State lave requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at 6 c, , Z git Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 7 Issues Unless Impact mitigated -- least 5% per year until the standards are attained. Motor vehicles account for about 40% of the precursor emissions responsible for ozone formation, and are also a significant source of PM,o. The Superstop project is not likely to cause air quality impacts because it is designed to accommodate existing bus traffic, not increase it. Its main purpose is to provide more convenient parking and passenger facilities. The facility will not increase the number or frequency of bus stops or trips. A 1984 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the San Luis Obispo Downtown Regional Transit Terminal (MDW Associates) analyzed the air quality effects of 12 potential bus terminals in Downtown San Luis Obispo and concluded that bus parking at the proposed site would not result in significant adverse air quality impacts. The present bus waiting area on Osos Street between Palm and Mill Streets -- the location of the planned Superstop — was one of the sites analyzed in 1984 for air quality effects. A Caline 3 analysis was used to evaluate Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions of up to 10 buses queued and idling at each potential terminal site for up to ten minutes each hour, assuming a background CO concentration level of 6 parts per million (ppm). The analysis showed that the maximum CO concentration at the terminal location, including background level and car-added emissions, was 12.9 ppm near the intersection of Osos and Mill Streets, well below the maximum allowed CO concentration under State standards of 20 ppm. Other components of local air quality, namely particulate matter (PM10 ), Ozone and oxides of nitrogen were unlikely to be affected by the expected bus traffic levels and were therefore not addressed in the previous EIR. Since 1984, City bus emissions have been reduced by approximately 55 percent. The City has actively worked to reduce emissions in its bus fleet by: 1) requiring bus drivers to turn off their engines if they must stop at City Hall for more than one minute; 2) adding exhaust particulate traps; 3) using alternative fuels; and 4) by replacing four older, highest-emission buses with state-of-the-art, computer controlled engine/transmission buses that rival alternative fuel buses in their cleanliness. The number of buses, parking layout, stopover frequency and duration of bus stops assumed in the 1984 study is similar to or more intense than the "worst-case" Superstop scenario. Thus, given the 1984 air quality anlysis findings, subsequent reductions in bus emissions, and that fact that bus traffic will not change with the proposed project, there is no evidence to suggest that the Superstop will adversely affect air quality. Conclusion: No significant impact. 6. 'TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Would the.oroposal result.ir3 a) Increased..vehicle trips or traf'fic!con9estion? i 3, 15, X 16, 17, 22,24 b) .Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sha,p. i curves:or.dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 Significant significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Page 8 mitigated c) _Inadequate emergency access or.bccess;to nearby uses X d) ,.Insufficient parking capacity on ste or off situ X e)" 'Hazards'or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists;: X f)- Conflicts-with adopted policies supportng alternative transportation (e_g bus_turnouts bicycle racks) X g) ;Rail, waterborne'or aiT. Uic impacts le;g compatibility with San Lurs'Otitspo Co: Airport Land-Use IPlaR1? X The number and frequency of bus stops or trips will not change from current levels. Osos and Mill Streets would remain open, with a shiftin traffic lanes on Osos Street between Mill and Palm Streets to allow a widened, "sawtooth" bus parking area and expanded passenger waiting/loading area. The improved bus loading area would be gained by eliminating 19 on- and off-street parking spaces, as follows: -eight metered on-street spaces along Osos Street; -two metered spaces along Mill Street, south of Osos Street; -one metered space on the south side of Mill Street, east of Osos Street; eight permit spaces in Lot 8, behind City Hall. The loss of parking will primarily affect City Hall employees' permit parking and short- term, metered parking serving City Hall and businesses along Osos Street. An apartment building at the northeast corner of Osos and Mill Streets would also be affected, although the apartment residents do have off-street parking behind the building. City Hall Lot 8 now has 1 handicapped space and 50 regular spaces. The Superstop would reduce that number to 40 regular parking spaces plus one handicapped parking space - a 20 percent reduction. It will also eliminate six metered parking spaces along the north side of Osos Street between Mill and Palm Streets, and 3 metered spaces on the north side of Osos Street between Mill and Peach Streets. Three metered spaces may be added along the south side of Mill Street, west of Osos Street, by removing bus parking, for a net reduction in on-street metered parking of 6 regular spaces. Within the metered parking area bounded by Chorro, Peach, Santa Rosa, and Monterey Streets there are approximately 150 on-street, metered parking spaces. Thus, the project would reduce on-street metered parking in the Civic Center area by about four percent, a relatively minor change in parking availability. The loss of 16 parking spaces in an area with relatively high parking demand will have a noticeable effect on parking availability; however the reduction is not considered significant since additional parking is available nearby in the Palm Street parking structure, and on adjacent streets during off-peak hours. The shift in traffic lanes will result in a minor change to traffic circulation along Osos Street. The change will not affect street safety, capacity or directional flow. I Conclusion: No significant impact. 1 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 significant Significant Significant Impact Page 9 Issues Unless Impact mitigated — 7::;BIOLOGICAL:RESOURCES.::Would the,;propos.al..affect i,: .a).:SEndangered; threatened:or rare species,.or.their:.habitats . (including but not limited to plants, fish,,insects; 10, 11 X animals'Wbirds)? b) ` Locally designated species (e.g. heritage.treesX c) :Locally_designated natural communitiesl(e g aak:forest; 'coastal'hta a _t,etc )? = 1'' X A) Wetiand.ttabitat (e g marsh, riparian and vemal pool? Xr.. I - ... ' ,e):;,Wildlife-dispersal.or _ mi. g--raUon corridors?'; - �.__..::.�:,.,..�,i.._..... ,; X The Superstop site is located within public street right-of-way and is completely paved, except for landscape planters. The site has little or no habitat value Conclusion: No significant impact. 8. ENERGY.AND,MINERAL:.RE$OURCES:';Would.th:..e p"r'oposal a) -Conflict.with adopted energy conservation plans?,` 12 X .b)'- Use ntin=renewable resources in:a wasteful and-!, X inefficient manners Result'in the loss of availability of a known mi Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Paoe 10 Issues Unless Impact e mitigated 10N0ISE:7:.Would the:proposal.result in:. a) Increase_in existing noise.levels?. 1, 41 - 9, 15 X b) Exposure of people to 'unacceptable" noise levels as defined,by the San Lws'Obispo;General:Plan Noise` ;` X Element? Previous noise studies for transit terminal sites were done as part of a 1984 EIR for the City of San Luis Obispo. Bus noise was determined by measuring noise levels at an existing Downtown bus transfer facility. Field measurements showed that bus noise from idling engines averaged 68 decibels (dBA), Ldn, at 48 feet from the noise source, and two buses, at 48 feet and 72 feet, respectively, produced a noise level of about 70 dBA. These measurements were taken at peak bus traffic hours with negligible traffic noise from other vehicles. Since 1984, procedures have changed and waiting buses are no longer permitted to remain idling for extend periods. After one or two minutes, bus engines are turned off and noise levels are negligible. Engine noise from arriving and departing buses also contribute to noise levels to adjacent us_ es. Figure 4 in the Noise Element shows the Superstop site to be subject to street and highway noise levels between 60 and 65 dBA. The Superstop would be located near residences and offices along Osos Street, uses considered "noise-sensitive" in the City's Noise Element. The Noise Element specifies acceptable and unacceptable noise exposure levels for noise-sensitive land uses: Residences - 60 dBA normally acceptable; up to 70 dBA conditionally acceptable with special design features. A specific noise study is usually required. Offices - 60 dBA normally acceptable; up to 75 dBA conditionally acceptable. Based on ambient noise levels and previous noise measurements, it is likely that existing bus traffic occasionally exceeds normally acceptable noise levels. The Superstop would shift bus parking away from the noise sensitive uses on the north side of Osos Street - where private offices and apartments adjoin — to the south side of Osos Street, adjacent to City Hall. Noise levels during peak passenger loading times may occasionally exceed 60 - 70 dBA for short duration, but the project is not likely to increase ambient noise levels, given that the number of bus trips is expected to remain constant, bus engine idling will be kept to one minute per stop, and bus traffic and loading would continue to occur only during the period from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., when according to the Noise Element, residential uses are least noise-sensitive. 1 . Conclusion: No significant impact. 1 i. PUBLIC SERVICES. Wou'.d the proposal have an effect upon, or.resuit in a need for nevi or altered government servicas *.n any of the follo%ving areas: Flro pro action? `.,o. -- - j � � 2__ Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless impact Page 11 mitigated - - 7,22 Police protection? X c) Schotils7 X d),; Maintenance of.public facilities; including roads,? X 6y. services? X The proposed project will not increase the demand for public services, such as police protection, schools, maintenance of roads or other public facilities, or for other governmental services. They are intended to meet existing public transit needs and to accommodate a modest increase in public transit use which may occur with or without this project. Conclusion: No significant impact. 12.UTILITIES ANWSERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result�n a need;for new systems or'suppbes, '; , AI orsubstantial alterations to the.following utilities a „ a ,Power,or natural gas? d 1. 7, x 22 Ta f. T Id Pti:l 1 t til :.III b) Communications systems w X 0 Local:or re )oval water treatment or distribution'I X 9 _ . facilities? J` P. 1' d)' Sewer or septic tanks^ — X 'Ir e) Storm_water drainage? . X f)'- Solid waste disposah - X g) ,Localar regional wate�supphes? = X The project will not increase population, use of or demand for public utilities or service systems, nor will it significantly alter those systems. Some utility relocation may be required for the MMTC, however this will not change existing services. Conclusion: No significant impact. :.1 .4., :u I '. •I III I.:P: ._. +F .: y .. , 3: AESTHETICS..'Wouldahe.:proposal a),' Affect,a scenic vista or.scenic,firghway� r 2 3, X il. 18, 19 b) Have a,demonstrable negatrve,aesthettc effect?„ X c)' Create'fi ht-o�'glare�a.',`; "„ X. The project will comply with City architectural review guidelines and will be designed to be compatible with the architectural and pedestrian-oriented character of City Hall and the Civic Center area. It will include features for passenger and pedestrian comfort, safety and convenience. Passenger waiting structures will be freestanding structures designed to be architecturally compatible with City Hall and surrounding development. Additional site lighting may be required for passenger safety and security; however it will be a sig;,ed to minimize glare and excessive illumination, as required by the City:s Zoning Regulations. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially potentially Less rnatt No ER 167-97 Significant Significant Significant Impact Page 12 Issues Unless Impact mitigated Conclusion: No significant impact. 14. CULTRAL RESOURCES.:Would ahe proposal: a}' Disturb paleontological resources 20, 211 X 22 b). Disturb archaeological:resources7 X c}: Affecthistorical resources? X d)._ Have the potentialto cause aphysical change which % X would "affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) : Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential:impa_ct oil t : area. The project is not likely to affect any archaeological resources, since the site is already developed with paving and related street improvements, and has been disturbed in the recent past. New paving and landscaping will require some minor paving removal and excavation, and in those areas, the City will follow the requirements of the City's Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines. Because City Hall and the Superstop site are within a historic district, the Guidelines require, as a minimum, that a Phase 1 surface archaeological study be conducted if excavation is done. If cultural resources are uncovered during construction, the Guidelines require that the resources be protected and evaluated by an archaeologist, as required by State and local laws. Also, because City Hall is listed on the City's Master List of Historic Resources, new development should be compatible with the building's architectural character. The project will require review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Committee to ensure compliance with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Conclusion: No significant impact. ;1 S.- RECREATION °Would the?proptisal: I. .. ..::: v I .:til ry I a}. Increase tfie demand foT neighborhood ;or regional sparks: X or other recreational facilities 1, 22 b) Affect.existing'recreational opporturiities? X The project will not increase demand for recreation facilities nor affect existing recreational opportunities. The project will include bicycle lanes, bicycle parking and bikeway linkages to the planned Jennifer Street Bridge to enable safe and convenient biking and walking in the Railroad District and Downtown. The project will improve recreational opportunities for bicyclists and pedestrians wishing to travel from the City of San Luis Obispo to nearby communities and recreation areas. Conclusion: No significant impact. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environinen;, s.sbs a-ntia!iy reduce the Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No ER 167-97 Significant significant Significant Impact Page 13 Issues Unless Impact mitigated habitat of a fish'or:wildlife species, cause a fish 'or wildlife.population to-drop below self sustairnng'levels,?: X threaten to eliminate.a plant or anim11 al community; r reduceahe numbeor restrict the range of,a rare or endangered-plant or animal or:elimjnate important examples of the major penods of California history or :prehistory? None. There is no evidence that the project will significantly affect the above factors. b) Does_flip project have the potential to achieve 'short I term,to the disadvantage of long term, environmental X _goals?,,, u None. Short and long term goals are the same. c) Does the proiect have impacts that are individually limited;;but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively,;{ considerablea.means[that.:the:incremental effects:of'a'!y; project are considerable':when viewed in connection X with the-effects of the past.projeots, the effects of ' other current projects, and the effects of probable, I';; future:projects ;.>. ;.` The project will reduce on- and off-street parking in an area of high daytime parking demand. The loss o about 16 parking spaces, although noticeable and likely to inconvenience employees and customers, is no considered significant since additional parking is available nearby in the Palm Street Public Parking Structure. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will — cause'.substantial adverse effects'on human beings, X . either directly ori o a: There are no known environmental effects that would have substantial adverse effects on humans. 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. .Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the'tierirtg, program EIR;or other CEQAprocess;one.io more effects have been adequately.analyzed in an earlier Elk or Negative Declaration Section T506340-P) (D). In this.case a disc(ission.should:;identifY:.the;foflowing;jtems a) Earlier analysis used ' Identify'earlier'analyses.i'd.'state`!;where_they.areavailat le`fo["review: 1) San Luis Obispo Downtown Transit Terminal; Draft Environmental Impact Report, MDW Associates, 1984. 2) Environmental Impact Report - Land Use and Circulation Element Updates, City of San Luis Obispo., August 1994. b) Impacts adequately;addressedIdentify which'effects from the above checklist were w�tilin the scope of. and,ad uatel ana ed m-an earlier document pursuant to applicable Legal standards, and state whether < JC such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on;the earlier analysis Air quality effects were evaluated, in part, based on the San Luis Obispo Downtown Transit Terminal Drafl EIR. No mitigation measures were required as part of the previous analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Lest than Significant with Mitigation,.Incorporated;" describe _.. .... the mitigation measures which were incorporated..or refined from the-earlier,.document.and the extent t which they address site-specific conditions of the project. - None used. �thcritp: PLblic Resources Coda Sections 21033 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1; 21083, 21083.3; i 21093, 321094, 2. 'oiV. _ '.. of�'te:,dscino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 29S (1988); Leonoi?r y- 13 � �_ Z Monterey Board..of.Sripervisors,x'222 Cal. App.-:3d ,1337::;(.1990) 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element, July 1996, pages 23-24, 47-51, 72-74. 2. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, February 21, 1997, pages 48 and 52-60. 3.. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, November 1994, pages 6-9, 11-16, 17-26, 43-44, 49, 54-55. 4. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, May 1996, pages 2-8, 13-19. 5. 1 Housing Element, September 1994, pages 12-26. See additional references, Exhibit F 19. MITIGATION MEASURESIMONITORING PROGRAM 1. Mitigation Measure: Monitoring Program: 2. Mitigation Measure: Monitoring Program: 3. Mitigation Measure: Monitoring Program: Mitigation measures are to be included in the project description, where applicable. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the project's final environmental determination and project approvals are granted Mitigation measures are not recommended. Mitigation monitoring is not applicable. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A - Superstop Downtown Transfer Center, Site Location Map Exhibit B - Concept One, Alternative Design Exhibit C - Concept Two, Alternative Design Exhibit D - Concept Three, Alternative Design Exhibit E - List of Features For Concept Plans Exhibit F - Section 18, Source References (Continued) jh,L: Supe:stop.ER 14 X11. L 1-978. to Exhibit A �-� r�c• t' "' ,5fl♦ I:• s G! ,S'4110, ems- . �= aJ v.ti.4•e j5�rr�;.eM1 \ ♦ V/�/ el _ �FsyJ IJ• \ \ f ' ' y OW!ji`t !P L .'r �• ° .Y ti 7 I�i'' At a � F�-F °It �✓' S I t° i7 �ty� mer s� t g ri:rt ` \ �ee °'a GY l tO 49� f •\ t ti moat\ Y'y a ee O . �i`•o. f'"r' At.e`. f 0��49er l a °h0 C e•e 0� `e�' bT•� ;� a \,M1�Q° fJb e'•n:he Al G \ Y � ] � r ] d`- , t c ei•`s`.e t �a' y � • � �.I•• a !Ar•° O\y0 �P��M1�I�y��, � • — .��. . J'. a ee' ,0 .° /`� j � ee O 4_' e� ie�•`i e7 A 4 ,,•,).Cr• dy5 � rho ..• w /. a:, o •eaa � ;'i.;. ' 1-10-L "` J �Y q wP e -�'6jDo5,°° 0�.:..• �♦l// •�a ,.y r sh`'eti el a O ♦ i ` V t ! jV' \ II+•, �s 64 to `v i �� OPF. to 1 \OM1~ °1•• ` i'+1 � r e: a M,,qp� • � ,s v �,t,�.;� 5 eGy q0.° t0 d '.•° M1°oy it jCtd = Site t P qyY timm PF V °"' .++ as ,� TTa�F•. • ) \^ :` .=., °`r ,] r i . dD Pay/p `\ 0 4cyi:'•.: ° l / / Dos\ <9•:!t :t,; ` `., <'a ') 1 . ♦.r i \:-..• L- �}-:`':�` , ,, �. t.' H lit �� .7 "�.� t \..'\, � r\�,• �♦ `a Exhibit B CONCEPT ONE BULB OUT _ 0 L L S T _ SEATING WALL -- - - --------- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- --SHELTER i RESTROOMS�J Pq�ifi� Be.! `-it �tafr Polrking I VENDING AREA oK��- ------ ----- �.,, ! i ALLEY -- CITY H A LL': 01_ - -- ;�- -- -- - ------ � . Z- Exhibit C CONCEPT TWO BULB OUT M C L L ST . SEATING WALL -- ----- ------ -- - - --- -- - - - - - ---- FULL—LENGTH SHELTER ALL CONCRETE _TEXTURE RESTROOMS� Litt/ 'Staf i Dorking Pacific Bell I u. coi i :11EY P:=Y ® I O If . I; � II ® I` II �I it O ' I L iP i Ji ilii %ft 1r'v lti t.i-r i Exhibit D , CONCEPT THREE BULB OUTS McL. L_ ST . -- ------- - - --- --- II ! I III ;� • IT ! liill � i� I Cit, Stoff Parking Pacific Bell 3 ! i ir T !' VENDING KIOSKi ❑ zil_ RESTROOMS I, I� I! (D II "IT H.A LL':- _ J it �...�. r J SHELTER I , !I i � . Z- f4 Exhibit E DOWNTOWN TRANSFER CENTER Features of Three Concept Plans Common impacts of all three schemes: All renditions move the traffic lanes on Osos Street east with the north bound lane occupying the current parking lane. Six parking spots on Osos between Palm and Mill (east side) are taken. One parking spot on Osos north of Mill (east side)is taken. Six parking spaces in City Hall parking lot are taken. Parking management suggests that an additional two spots may be taken if a circular pattern is employed(the seating wall may be moved east to facilitate parking lot circulation). A seating wall is used from Mill Street to City Hall adjacent to the parking lot. Saw tooth bias parking is used. Concrete is used as a surface from the wall of City Hall to the south bound lane of Osos Street. Traffic on Osos from Mill to Palm is realigned with traffic on Osos from Palm to Monterey. Traffic on Osos from Mill to.Palm is misaligned with traffic on Osos from Palm to Peach. An elevation change may step up at each bus staging location with accommodation for ADA with ramp treatments. Approximate elevation change locations are shown on scheme three with asterisk in the south bound travel lane. Textured concrete would be used through out the project, including the bus staging-areas to further delineate them froth the traffic lane. A water attraction may be incorporated into the project at some location. 9 A!1 'vlrVllys p1Q\'lav i_i b,is siac,iIIc; are,:3. U�y/ Wei Number One "Budget"Minimal change All buses face south on Osos Street. Transit shelters are prefab, stand alone units much like those in place now. Rest rooms are provided inside City Hall as is the current practice. Landscaping is provided through out the project.' . Number Two "Sheltered" All buses face south on Osos Street. As represented by the bubble diagram,a form of shelter extends from the front face of City Hall to Mill Street. The shelter covers the area from the wall of City Hall to over the right front comer of the staged buses. Under the shelter,vending, a kiosk and other amenities would be provided. Landscaping would be provided throughout the project under the shelter. Number Three "Wrap Around" This scheme spaces out the buses providing parking for four on Osos between Mill and Palm, and a fifth bus around the comer on Mill Street. Sight distance is provided for drivers on northbound Osos by providing a bulb out on Osos extending into Mill Street(depth same as the parking lane). The fifth bus occupies a spot created between two bulb outs on Mill,one immediately adjacent to the driveway for the City Hall parking lot and a second at Osos Street. A large passenger area is created mid block on Osos between the top and bottom two bus staging areas. This space could accommodate rest rooms, kiosks and vending. Stand alone shelters are provided at each boarding point for each bus. This scheme could also employ the sinale shelter described int 2. Lar-Escaping would be n_ovided throughout the protect. �9 Exhibit F INITIAL STUDY ER 167-97 SECTION 18. SOURCE REFERENCES (Continued) 6. City of San Luis Obispo Seismic Safety Element, 1975, pages 8-20. 7. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 1978, pages 1 .1 - 1 .14. 8. Report of Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: Multi-Modal Transit Transfer Center Property, 1940 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, California, December 1996, by Kleinfelder, Inc., pages1- 18. 9. San Luis Obispo Regional Downtown Transit Terminal Draft EIR, July 1984, by MDW Associates. 10. City of San Luis Obispo Open Space Element, January 1994, pages 42- 54. 11 . City of San Luis Obispo Conservation Element, July 1993, pages 5.1-5.5, 7.1-7.10, and A.1-A.6. 12. City of San Luis Obispo Energy Conservation Element, March 1982, pages 6-14. 13. San Luis Obispo Transit Terminal: An In-depth Study, San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, July 1982, pages 1-6 and 20-40. 14. Central Coast Area Transit Short Range Transit Plan, February 1990, by. Nelson/Nygaard, pages 2-1 through 2-8. 15. San Luis Obispo Transit Center Site Selection, May 1991 , by Nelson\Nygaard, pages 13, 15 and 20. 16. Regional Multi-Modal Transfer Center, San Luis Obispo, California, Phase 1 Report, November 1993, by Wilbur Smith and Associates, p. 3-4 through 3-13. 17. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, October 1993, pages 4 - 11 and Figure #1 . 18. Architectural Review in San Luis Obispo, June 1983, pages 16-22. 19. Downtown San Luis Obispo Physical Concept Plan, 1992, pp. 2-11 . 20. City of San Luis Obispo Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, February 1987, pages 2-8 and Appendix B. 21 . City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, October 1995, pages 2-11 . 22. Environmental Impact Report, Land Use/Circulation Elements Update, August 1994, City of San Luis Obispo. 23. Memoranda from Harry Watson, Public Transit Manager, April 1997. 24. Letter from SLO County Air Poliution Control District, September 1997. ,h1c!Mj%7,Cr a`erancez /JO /�/ / 2. �— E3dsdaag Curb I 11 9 9 12 \8 Parldng Stalls Total = 49 Shelters ' Restrooms 9' Landscaping �71 12' s' 6' wide , I 6' 10' -3E Staff Recommendation Scale:1"=40' 461 �� „� W.9 �O un C. 300 66 v � 193 One-Way 172 Council Concept 66 17' 40 Scale:l"=40' 6 ��a 30 95 40 V I 26 Q— 14' One Way r 5q 40 � 36 191 . 40 36 9' 12' 11 8' Parallel Concept 40 I Scale:l"=40' 62 b4 66 300 66 17' 12' 11' Original Staff 'Consultant Concept 172 66 Scale:l"=40' 40 Q ,,flm r MEETING AGENDA y COUNCIL DATE X28 ITEM # MEMORANDUM February 25, 1998 TO: City Council VIA: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer FROM: Mike McCluskey, Director of Public Works Prepared By: Al Cablay, Public Works Managerit SUBJECT: Report on Downtown Transfer Center- 3/3/98 Agenda Item The following corrections have been made to the staff report and attachments for the subject council agenda item: ❑ Page 4 - Typing error; ❑ Page 6 - Grammatical error; ❑ Attachment 3 - Reprinted; ❑ Attachment 4 - Reprinted; ❑ Attachment 5 - Reprinted; ❑ Attachment 6 - Reprinted. The City Clerk has been made aware of these corrections and is prepared to distribute the corrected documents. n council Mmmy D•n j agcnaa PepoRt A/ C I T Y OF SAN L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared By: Harry Watson, Transit Manager Al Cablay, Public Works Manager SUBJECT: Report on Downtown Transfer Center , Approval of a Negative Declaration and Authorization to negotiate a Downtown Transfer Site Design Services Contract CAO RECOMMENDATION: 1. Receive a report on the latest concept for the Downtown Transfer Center Site facilities and endorse the staff recommended design concept. 2. Adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration of environmental impact(ER 167- 97); and 3. Authorize staff to negotiate a contract with Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design to analyze the approved concept, and prepare design and construction documents for the Downtown Transfer Site in an amount not to exceed $46,000. REPORT IN BRIEF On February 3, 1998 the City Council took testimony and considered a report regarding the Multi-Modal Transfer Center (MMTC) located near the San Luis Obispo Railroad Depot at 1940 Santa Barbara Street, and the Downtown Transfer Center Site, located on Osos Street between Palm and Mill Streets. The report stated that: 1. In the near term (next 15 years+/-)the Transit system's main transfer location should be downtown and the preferred location was Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street. 2. In the long term a second Transit transfer location would be needed to adequately serve the needs of the City; that the location for that facility be near the existing railroad station; and that the site be purchased and held for needed eventual use . 3. The railroad location be developed: a)to satisfy an immediate need for additional Amtrak passenger parking; b)to provide a location for SLORTA buses to layover during times when not in use; and c) in such a way that eventual use as transit transfer center could be easily implemented. 4. The Downtown site be developed (Attachment 6) such that all parking on the north side of Osos Street (6 spaces) be eliminated; two way traffic be maintained; and bus pulse locations be designed in a semi-herringbone design to allow for independent movement of individual buses. 5. Three conceptual Downtown transfer designs (meeting the criteria established by a previous consultant study)had been prepared by staff and the use of a consultant was recommended to Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 2 evaluate the designs; report back on fmdings; and finally to prepare construction documents to implement the new Downtown transfer site. The Council received testimony regarding the loss of parking spaces and the increase in noise associated with proposed designs of the Downtown site. In ensuing Council discussion questions arose concerning the environmental document for the Downtown site,the site design and its impacts on both businesses and the City Hall parking lot. As a result,the Council asked for a new design to be evaluated which included various criteria established by the Council. Staff did prepare the conceptual design directed by the Council (Attachment 4) but cannot recommend that design based on impacts to existing traffic and circulation. However, using most of the Council's criteria, staff prepared two additional concept plans for Council consideration and is recommending one for implementation(Attachment 3). The Negative Declaration, prepared by the Community Development Department for the previous concept plans, was reviewed for the recommended concept plan (Attachment 3) and no additional environmental evaluation was found necessary. The initial environmental study and resolution adopting the Negative Declaration is attached. Because it is now anticipated that the Council will decide upon a single concept plan, the previous need for significant consultant review and analysis of various concept plans is no longer necessary and as such the scope of the consultant's work will be greatly reduced. Due to the short time period in which these changes have transpired, staff has been unable to negotiate a revised contract with the consultant. Thus staff is now requesting the ability to negotiate an appropriate contract with the consultant. This should result in significant savings in consultant cost and allow an earlier construction date as well. DISCUSSION On February 3, 1998 the City Council considered an Agenda Item regarding a report on the status of the Multi-Modal Transfer Center Site located near the existing railroad station(1940 Santa Barbara Street) and the Downtown Transfer Center. Staff reported that a consultant prepared report on the impacts to bus usage and on-time performance had concluded that for the near term the major Transfer Center should only be downtown; that it should be located on the block of Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street; and that the railroad site should be purchased and held for eventual use for a needed secondary Transfer Center when the City approached full build out in the year 2015 or later. The agenda item described courses of action for both sites as follows: Railroad Site This site, consisting of two separate properties, was to be purchased and developed as additional parking for Amtrak passengers and layover parking for SLORTA buses during times when not in use. The site would be designed so as to remain the same that at the time of eventual need as a Transfer Center only slight modifications would be needed to accommodate the new uses Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 3 without impacting the existing uses. As a bonus the existing Freight House (an historic building) could be moved and saved from further deterioration until preservation efforts could be organized to totally rehabilitate the building. Downtown Site -Previous Proposal This earlier proposed site was to be developed(Attachment 6)with all buses meeting (or "pulsing")on the west side'of Osos Street with a semi-herringbone type design that would allow independent movement of the buses. No street widening would be necessary but in order to accomplish the needed bus movements without disrupting south bound traffic on Osos Street all on-street parking (6 spaces) would need to be removed. The former parking lane on the east side of Osos Street would become the new northbound travel lane. This would necessitate north bound traffic jogging across Mill Street somewhat as the two northbound lanes would not align. Additionally, in order to accomplish locating all buses on the west side of the street, the two driveway entrances to the City Hall parking lot would need to be closed resulting in the need for new entrances on Mill Street and loss of some parking spaces in the City Hall parking lot. Approximately 22 feet of area would exist between the buses and the wall of City Hall and in this area were proposed multiple amenities for bus passengers including restrooms, shelters, vending machines and landscaping. Results of Council Meetine and Direction Given After hearing testimony concerning the loss of the six on-street parking spaces and the effects of additional noise,the Council directed staff to prepare a new concept plan for the Osos Street Transfer Center. Staff was directed to: a)place one bus on Palm Street, westbound and just around the corner from Osos Street; b)make Osos Street a one-way street southbound; c)provide a parking lane along the east side of Osos Street; and d) provide at least one driveway entrance to the City Hall parking lot to allow for ingress and egress for delivery vehicles to City Hall. Staff was to return with this information as soon as possible. There was also considerable discussion regarding the environmental status of concept plans for the Osos Street site. Issues regarding the City's existing noise element of the General Plan as well as general confusion over the resolution needed for adoption of environmental findings were also discussed. Staff was to resolve the issues. Analysis and Recommendation Staff did prepare a Downtown Transfer Site plan in accordance with Council direction and is shown as Attachment 4. Analysis shows that installation of a one-way street will directly impact about 1,800 cars per day and a number of SLORTA buses which currently travel northbound to access the freeway. This is an impact which would require significant analysis as to where this trips would be rerouted to and what impacts they would have (noise, congestion) on nearby y3 Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 4 residential and commercial streets. In addition, should Morro Street ever be closed off to through traffic as anticipated in the Downtown Physical Concept Plan only Chorro Street and Santa Rosa Street would be available for traffic to use to access Hwy 101. Thus making Osos Street a one-way street would have both short term and long term impacts that are seen by staff as negative and most certainly would need extensive study prior to any adoption by the Council as a concept plan and its environmental document. Thus staff does not recommend the concept plan envisioned by the Council (Attachment 4) for implementation. Staff, in looking for new solutions, used most of the Council's criteria and produced two additional alternatives for Council consideration. The concept recommended by staff and presented as Attachment 3, proposes a semi-herringbone design for five (5)buses along Osos Street and was likewise a part of the original consultant concept plan. This feature is currently used by other transit authorities,particularly for those downtown areas that have obvious street width limitations (e.g. MTDB, San Diego Downtown area.) This layout retains the on-street parking of six spaces as well as providing five to six new spaces along the east side of Osos Street.. Two way traffic on Osos Street is maintained. Two entrances to the City Hall parking lot are provided to address ingress and egress for deliveries. However, in order to provide the on-street parking requested, six feet of existing sidewalk area was removed reducing overall area for pedestrian enhancements to 16 feet from 22 feet(with the original proposal). Staff feels that this is still sufficient room to provide adequate and needed amenities. In addition, the single bus located in front of City Hall is located with all other buses on Osos Street. While one bus route (Route 3)does travel in the west bound direction on Palm Street it does so on only one of its two loops. On the second loop of its route the bus would be required to loop an entire city block before it would be headed in the correct direction thus using precious time. This particular Route is the route with the poorest on-time performance record and the Transit Manager feels that locating the route pulse location on Palm Street would exacerbate the problems this route currently faces. Public Works staff consulted with the Community Development staff regarding any new or additional environmental concerns that Attachment 3 concept plan might necessitate. Because there would be no redirection of traffic patterns and an actual net increase of parking spaces,the Community Development staff has confirmed that the existing environmental review of the previous submittal is adequate and that the Negative Declaration prepared could be adopted for this concept plan. Thus staff recommends the concept plan shown on Attachment 3 for adoption by the Council. Transit Passenger Amenities There was discussion at the Council meeting of February 3'about the advisability of providing amenities for transit passengers. One Council member consistently stated his preference for an "off-street" facility and staff agrees that this is the desired longer term goal. Concerning the current mid-term proposal,the City has been approached by the BIA concerning the need for additional restroom facilities in the downtown and City Hall employees have clearly expressed a "7 Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 5 preference for an exterior restroom to serve the bus patrons and others. While the restroom itself could not be relocated in the future, all shelters, vending machines, kiosks, etc. could be removed and relocated to any new site. Staff feels that there is a definite need for these services for transit passengers and thus recommends that any concept plan the Council endorses include these amenities. Consultant Contract The original contract with the preferred consultant, Wilbur Smith Associates/Rademaker Design, assumed a detailed review of several alternatives and preparation of exhibits and a report detailing the advantages and disadvantages of those alternatives. After that work was complete and a final design had been chosen, the consultant was to prepare working drawings which would lead to construction of the improvements. Given the Council's anticipated decision upon a single concept plan, much of the former scope of work is no longer needed. It is therefore recommended that staff renegotiate a new scope of work to include a schematic analysis of the preferred concept and then proceed to working drawings. In order to expedite the project and as consistent with the Council's selected concept,the CAO would be authorized to appfove the scope of work and the subsequent contract. Environmental Review Community Development staff has reviewed the revised design concept(Attachment 3) and determined that it does not differ significantly from the previous concepts and that no additional environmental review is required. The previous negative declaration is still applicable to the project since the proposed changes would not result in new impacts or increase impacts to significant levels. Project changes are likely to improve the project's neighborhood compatibility by preserving more on-street parking. Therefore, in accordance to CEQA, the Community Development Director's previously recommended Negative Declaration for the Downtown Transfer Center site concept is adequate and should be approved if the Council chooses to proceed with remains in effect. At the previous Council meeting there was concern expressed as to the noise study conducted and the use of that data for the current proposal. After reviewing the documentation, staff believes that the increases to the noise levels are negligible. Should the one-way concept(Attachment 4) still be Council's choice, a traffic analysis will be necessary and once finished, an amended initial Study conducted by Community Development staff will need to be completed to determine the environmental impacts in order to comply with CEQA. CONCURENCES The Community Development Department has reviewed both the Council directed concept plan and the staff recommended response concept plan and concurs that additional studies would be �J Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 6 necessary with the former and that the later could proceed under the original environmental document prepared. Due to agenda preparation deadlines, this report was finished prior to a planned meeting of the stakeholders group. A report.on the results of that meeting will be presented at tonight's meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The budget shown below includes funding for both the Downtown Transfer Center and the Multi-Modal Transfer Center(railroad site) Budeeted Revenue: Local T DA Funds $ 27,000 State TCI Grant $ 582,000 State Prop 116 Grant $1,016,000 Federal SIP Grant $ 500,000 Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Grants L600,000 Total Revenue $297259000 Budeeted Expenses: Land Acquisition $ 1,996 Study $ 45,000 Design $ 84,000 Construction $ 590,000 Construction Management 10 000 Total Expenses $ 2,725,000 The City already owns the land for the Downtown Transfer site,therefore 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 studies, review, design, management and construction. All of these grants are time sensitive. It is incumbent on the City to demonstrate to SLOCOG its commitment and progress in meeting the funding deadlines. The time schedule staff has committed to is a fairly short time schedule for both the authorization and expenditure of the grant money. These decisions move the City closer to meeting those deadlines. yb Council Agenda Report—Downtown Transfer Center Page 7 ALTERNATIVES 1. Council suggested concept(Attachment 4). As discussed above,this concept would change Osos Street to a one-way, southbound street; provide parking for four buses on Osos Street and one bus on Palm Street; and provide vehicle parking along the east side of Osos Street between Palm Street and Mill Street. This concept plan is not recommended based upon the reasons stated earlier in this report. 2. Parallel park buses with one on Palm Street (Attachment 5). This alternative places four buses on Osos Street and one on Palm Street. One driveway to City Hall is provided and full parking on the east side of Osos Street is also provided. The overall cost of construction is lower. However, transit passengers must cross the driveway entrance to City Hall and the on- time performance of Route 3 will be affected by its location on Palm Street. The decision to provide amenities is not affected. This concept plan is not recommended to primarily the impacts to system performance. 3. Do Nothing. The Council may decide that the existing layout of buses on Osos Street is sufficient, provides adequate service and will continue to provide that service until such time as a better solution is found(i.e. a new"off-street"facility). Attachments: Attachment 1: - Council Resolution Attachment 2: -Negative Declaration Attachment 3: - Staff Recommended Concept Attachment 4: -One-way on Osos Street Concept- Council Concept Attachment 5: -Parallel Bus Parking on Osos Street- Alternative Concept Attachment 6: -.Original Staff(Consultant recommended Concept Lcar/downtown transfer center site.doc ll�� Attachment 3 I& E�iattng Curb 11 9 9 12 \8� Parking Stalls Total = 49 b 4 a Shelters Restrooms Landscaping 9' 6' wide IT 12' 8' Staff Recommendation 10' 3 Scale: H =4 0' 46 4'of e9dsting SM to:emain Back of Existing S/W A/J/ Attachment 4 300 65 ; b � 193 170 One . way � 65 Council Concept it �, 8. 40 . Scale: 1" = 40' Bus Attachment , 30 95 40 Q 26 a— 14' One Way 40 a 36 193 40 Parallel Concept 36 9' 12111 8' 40 b 4 Scale: l" =Vw Bm y-33 Attachment 6 62 b4 65 300 65 1T 12' 11' 172Ori&al 65 Staff/Consultant Concept 40 Scale. i" =40 y3y