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