HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/1999, 1 - DOWNTOWN TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER - ALTERNATIVES ASSESSMENT STUDY CONSULTANT SELECTION council Omber 19.1999
j ac En as Report il�
C I TY OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O
FROM: Michael D. McCluskey, Director of Public Wort
Prepared by: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN TRANSIT TRANSFER CENTER - ALTERNATIVES
ASSESSMENT STUDY CONSULTANT SELECTION.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should:
1. Approve the preliminary scope of work for the Downtown Transit Transfer Center —
Altematives Assessment Study (attached as Exhibit B) including added direction relative to
several key questions discussed in this report.
2. Authorize the Public Works Director to waive standard consultant selection procedures and
negotiate directly for consultant services; and
3. Authorize the CAO to award the contract if the amount is within budget.
DISCUSSION
Background
In March 1998, the City Council took testimony and considered a report regarding existing and
future transit center locations within the City. Council decided that the Multi-Modal Transfer
Center (NIMTC), now called the Railroad Transit Center (RTC), located near the San Luis Obispo
Railroad Depot would be developed initially as a parking extension area of the Amtrak station and
ultimately(15-20 years),could be the regional transit center for the greater SLO area.
The Council also decided that the existing Downtown Transfer Center (DTC) site, located on Osos
Street between Palm and Mill Streets, would be improved with street widening and parking lot
improvements to maximise transit operations and also reduce the potential conflicts between
automobiles and buses. In August 1998, the City Council awarded a design contract to Insite
Associates for the design of Plans and Specifications for the DTC. The plans and specifications for
the Osos Street DTC are approximately 90%complete.
As part of the FY 1999-01 budget process, the Council adopted a new CIP project to reanalyze the
potential long term or joint-use benefit at two other specific locations other than Osos Street. These
two locations were: 1)the square block bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Monterey Street,Toro Street
and Higuera Street (commonly referred to as the old Spring Toyota Site) and, 2) the square block
bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Higuera Street, Toro Street and Marsh Street (commonly referred to
as the Bank of America Site). Exhibit A depicts the two proposed DTC alternative locations. The
City Council approved $15,000 in funding to study these two alternative locations for the ultimate
location of the DTC.
1-1
Council Agenda Report—Kequest for Consultant Services:DTC—Final Alternative Assessment Study
Page 2
DTC Scope of Work Issue Clarification
Exhibit B details the proposed scope of work for the DTC analysis. As this Scope of Work was
being prepared, staff identified a number of issues (and policy decisions) that should be clarified
prior to negotiation of a final scope of work and the associated costs. The following issues should
be considered and additional direction given by Council if warranted.
• Shared Land Use/Facilities. One item that has surfaced both during previous Council
discussions and at staff level is the possibility of combining the ultimate DTC with a future
downtown parking structure. Previous consultant investigations into this concept concluded that
combination of these two types of facilities was not appropriate. However, staff has investigated
this issue further and has identified a number of successful examples of joint use facilities of
this nature. Benefits to this type of facility would be reduced operational and maintenance costs
but it is believed that construction costs for this type of facility would be much greater than
constructing two stand alone facilities. The study's scope of work and the CIP project
description identify the concept of joint-use public facilities as part of the DTC project.
Question: Should staff pursue this option through the DTC analysis?Are there limiting parameters
(such as increased construction cost, land use integration, or Downtown aesthetics) that the
Council would want analyzed in the study to address concerns regarding a joint use facility of this
type.
Staff Recommendation: Based upon previous Council discussions staff is recommending that the
study include: 1) An analysis and recommendation into the feasibility of a joint-use public facility
for each, of the two DTC site locations; and, 2) The consultant shall include a preliminary cost
estimation into the cost effectiveness(or inefficiency) associated with developing a joint-use facility
of this type as compared to stand alone facilities.
• Property Acquisition and Eminent Domain Limitations. When Council considered the
MMTC issue in 1994, a number of properties/buildings were identified as potentially being
removed/acquired as part of the various alternatives being discussed. One example of potential
Table 1-Property Acquisition and Eminent Domain Locations
BLOCK#1 BLOCK#2
SPRING TOYOTA SITE)* BANK OF AMERICA SITE
Shell Service Station Bank of America Building
Morgan Stanley-Dean Whitter Building French Hospital Building
Spring Toyota Site Miscellaneous office buildings fronting Toro St
The"Pros"tire store Attorney offices(NE Corner Santa Rosa/Marsh)
Santa Maria Tire Old"Farm Boy"restaurant building
Note*:See Exhibits Al &A2.
conflict between a future DTC and existing land use was consideration of the location of the
DTC on the Spring Toyota site. Potentially affected buildings at this location included the
1-2
Council Agenda Report—Request for Consultant Services:DTC—Final Alternative Assessment Study
Page 3
Morgan Stanley-Dean Whitter building as well as others. During discussions Council directed
staff to avoid the "take" of this property and instead revise the site design utilizing the entire
Spring Toyota site. The redesign of the proposed layout effectively reduced the likelihood that a
transfer center would work at this location. The consultant spent a great deal of time, money
and effort in proposing this conceptual layout prior to the Council decision. Staff time and
money can be minimized if Council can identify certain properties that should be considered
wholly or partially`off the table" as part of this study.
Question: Are there properties/buildings that the Council can identify prior to implementation of
the DTC analysis which would better focus the studies recommendations and reduce the likelihood
of major misfires in recommended Council actions when the study is complete? The following
properties/buildings have been identified by staff as potentially having conflicts with a
DTC/(Parking garage)construction on the two sites.
Staff Recommendation: Staff is recommending that all properties and businesses located within the
two alternative locations, with the exception of the old French Hospital building and the Bank of
America Building,be included in the analysis. Staff is also recommending that the issue of eminent
domain for each of these properties be analyzed and discussed in the study.
Rationale: The French Hospital building is historically significant and should not be part of this
study. Bank of America, as a corporate entity, could be difficult or costly to deal with if eminent
domain becomes an issue. All other properties are being recommended for inclusion in this study.
This recommendation is being made to avoid limiting the potential of joint-use facilities for either
of the two sites. As individual properties are removed from consideration, the possibility of the
joint-use parking structure/DTC concept(and cost effectiveness)is severely restricted.
estion: Are there properties that should be avoided or where only partial "takes" should be
considered? Examples: Shell Service Station (corner of Santa Rosa at Monterey Street). Dean
Whiner property, etc.?
Staff Recommendation: All properties except for the French Hospital and B of A sites should be
considered for full or partial acquisition. In addition, the Bank of America site should be analyzed
for possible partial acquisition where parking can be restored on a one-for-one basis within the
future parking structure. This concept could avoid condemnation issues regarding the B of A
parking lot.
• Hazardous Material Remediation. The Spring Toyota site has already been identified as
needing hazardous material remediation prior to purchase of the site. A Class H hazardous
material study was prepared for this location and cost estimate for clean up exceeded the
existing property value. It is unlikely that this (and possibly other) property can be acquired by
the City without partial (substantial) subsidy to the property owner for remediation of these
materials.
estion: Does the Council want the consultant to analyze alternatives to normal City policy...that
of only acquiring "clean" properties. Should the City consider using general fund revenues for
1-3
Council Agenda Report—Request for Consultant Services:DTC—Final Alternative Assessment Study
Page 4
acquisition of these types of properties and chance that State or Federal cleanup funds might
possibly remediate the property?
Staff Recommendation: Maintain existing City policy of only acquiring "clean" properties for
public projects. If the Toyota site is approved as the Council preferred DTC site, the City should
acquire properties within the block only as they are cleaned up and become available.
Sole Source Consultant Contract
Staff is requesting that Council waive RFP requirements for this study and approve that the
Director of Public Works negotiate directly with Wilbur Smith & Associates (WSA) for these
consultant services. The bases for this recommendation are:
1. WSA prepared the"Regional Multi-Modal Transfer Center Study-Phase I Report" for the City
of San Luis Obispo in 1993 and is expertly aware of the many issues pertaining to the two sites
in question. This knowledge of the City should minimise the cost of the study to be performed.
2. WSA has performed similar studies for the City of San Luis Obispo and other cities and is
considered expert in the field of transit location analysis studies.
3. Having another consulting firm conduct the study will take longer and theoretically will cost
more due to the "get acquainted" period for this complicated issue and in reaching conflict
resolutions necessary to prepare the document.
Scope of Work for the Proposed Study
The attached Exhibit B is staff's recommended scope of work for this study. Highlights of this
scope of work are as follows.
• Review existing transit operations and determine if future transit operations will be impacted
(or improved) by relocation of the DTC to either of these two locations. Determine if current
and future transit levels of service can be maintained and will not be limited by site design at
either of the two locations.
• Determine transit center needs for design purposes for each of the two locations and prepare
conceptual drawings of the DTC for the various alternative site locations generated by
addressing joint use and private property needs.
• Investigate the feasibility of developing a joint use public facility that includes the DTC (either
on the bottom floor or in an open space area adjacent to) and a multi-level public parking
structure for each of the two proposed locations.
• Constraints Analysis - Contact individual property owners for the two block locations and
investigate the willingness to sell their properties and determine if eminent domain would be
likely for each parcel. A detailed report shall be included that shows the results of the survey
1-4
Council Agenda Report—Request for Consultant Services:DTC—Final Alternative Assessment Study
Page 5
and gives input received from potentially affected property owners. Determine existing long-
term lease constraints,etc. that could effect development potential.
• Determine the effects/impacts to adjacent property owners if a multi-story parking structure is
included as part of the DTC project location.
• Prepare cost estimates for right-of-way,property acquisition and constructions cost comparisons
for the various alternatives and joint use concept plans and times to perform each.
CONCURRENCES
At its October 6, 1999 meeting the Mass Transportation Committee (MTC)received a status update
regarding the DTC issue. After a healthy discussion the MTC decided that the Council should be
requested to consider adding a third alternative location to the DTC Final Alternative Assessment
Study. This location would be a previously discussed (1993) location that coincides with
Chinatown development. The MTC believes that the City could potentially wrap the DTC into the
recent Copeland proposal for the Chinatown/Court Street concept plan currently under review.
Staff does not concur with this recommendation. This site analysis was included as part of the
eleven sites considered by the "Regional Multi-Modal Transfer Center Study - Phase I Report",
performed by WSA in 1993, and was not recommended as a viable option for the DTC location.
Inclusion of the DTC as part of the Copland proposal could delay project consideration and
approval of the project due to the lack of available funding to construct improvements. Delays and
additional construction costs could result from including the DTC as part of this proposal and
"Federalizing"the project to take advantage of transit funding sources.
FISCAL IMPACTS
$15,000 has been budgeted for this study through the City's 1999-01 CIP process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City Council may decide not to proceed with an alternative assessment study and proceed
directly with the Osos Street DTC concept, finalize plans and specifications, and begin
construction in early 2000.
ATTACHMENTS
EXHI31f A: PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE DTC LOCATIONS: Spring Toyota site and Bank
of America site.
EXHIBIT B: PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK: Downtown Transit Transfer Center-Final
Alternatives Assessment Study.
E\USERSlEVERYONEICouncH Agenda Rg=\Downtown Transfer Center Site 99Ax
1-5
.E*Wbit A
Alternative Downtown Transfer Center Locations
1-6
Z�B
...........................
_........ ............ .........................
.............
f+
d�
=: L
.................. :..:.::...::.::::.::..... .:...........
O
CO
cu
....-
O
� )` E.,
�-4 L
�'deeA. Amp
3 mLM
(n
ANO
ca - = cn
-ca
.. �md
:° _ ..
cc �✓ _
v� m 6ti' --- -
-
-
-
-
m =_ _ - -
::
E .....
a. � - _ - -
T — —co
Go O
............
ea,
.... ................. .,
Z-=IQGo=Emm
VLM
LM
O
� J C13
-- - L
t�.................. ....::.::::.:.:
N
Ga
N
O R
Y
O
3
........ LM
:. -..
3 .... .
-- ��
- m
� _ =:
_-
... _......
..:::_::::: ::......
�_:=:::: .......
;_;:W::::::::__
=_.. _ _ ...... ::::::. _
- : : :::.
-
- _ :: :=
-_--_= ---_ = -==W _
- - - .
........____- -
Exhibit B
PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK
Downtown Transit Center (DTC) —Final Alternatives Assessment Study
Study Limits: Two locations for analysis have been identified by City of San Luis Obispo staff: 1)
the square block bounded by Santa Rosa Street, Monterey Street, Toro Street and Higuera Street
(commonly referred to as the old Toyota Site) and, 2) the square block bounded by Santa Rosa
Street, Higuera Street,Toro Street and Marsh Street (commonly referred to as the Bank of America
Site). The consultant will analyze these locations to determine the feasibility, cost and impacts of
utilizing either of these two locations for the DTC and other joint use facilities. The study will
contain at a minimum:
Transit Operations
Task 1: Review existing transit operations and determine if future•transit operations will be
impacted (or improved) by relocation of the DTC to either of these two locations.
Determine if current and future transit levels of service can be maintained and will not be
limited by site design at either of the two locations.
Task 2: Determine transit center needs for design purposes for each of the two locations and
prepare conceptual drawings of the DTC for the various alternative site locations
generated by addressing joint use and private property needs.
Task3: Determine the feasibility of combining the DTC and a public use parking structure on each
of the alternative locations.
Task 4: Determine the projected life of the DTC at the two locations (how long before transit
operational needs outgrow the capabilities of the site).
Property Acquisition and Impact Issues
Task 5: Contact individual property owners for the two block locations and investigate the
willingness to sell their properties or if eminent domain would be likely for each parcel. A
detailed report shall be included that shows the results of the survey and gives the input
received from potentially affected property owners.
Task 6: Identify potential land use conflicts if the DTC project goes forward and existing land
uselbuildings stay in service around the sites. -
Task 7: Determine the benefits to adjacent property owners if a multi-story parking structure is
included as part of the DTC project location.
Task 8: Identify all existing information pertaining to the existence of subsurface hazardous
materials and remediation costs estimates for properties in each alternative location.
1-9
Scope of Work:DTC-Final Alternative Assessment Study
Page 2
Joint Use Lssues
Task 9: Investigate the feasibility of developing a joint use,public facility that includes the DTC
(either on the bottom floor or in an open space area adjacent to) and a multi-level public
parking structure.for each of the two proposed locations.
Task 10:Prepare cost estimates for right=of=way, property acquisition and constructions cost
comparisons for the various alternatives and joint use concept plans.
Taskll: Estimate the number of parking spaces that may be provided for each of the alternative
structure designs and a construction cost estimation per parking space for each.facility.
1-10